Was the invasion a wrong or he still will control the situation with the time?
2007-01-06 22:20:49 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
GW has a hard time understanding what is happening in the US (never had to work for a living) And he is at a total loss about what goes on in the rest of the world!
2007-01-07 00:50:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To answer this question you have to look at two things.
Iraq is made up of three groups that have never gotten along. Saddam held the country together by using tactics of brutality. You remove Saddam, and the groups (primarily Sunni and Shiite) are free to express their hatred, resentment, and violence toward the other groups.
Now along with this, democracy throughout history has always been an upward integration. Meaning, the people wanted it and through various means like rebellions, political process, or coups, the people changed the government process, changed the government itself, and ultimately changed their leaders.
What bush tried to do is create a democracy through a downward integration. Any government without the support of it's people is doomed to failure. The Iraqi people have no idea what a democracy is, have no concept of a peaceful regime change, and don't know how to "democracy..."
This is not to say that a democracy will ever be installed in Iraq, but it's going to take a lot longer than bush ever conceived.
The prevailing though is that Iraq will wind up something similar to what happened with Yugoslavia, with three seperate regions.
Was the invasion wrong?
I believe it was. Keeping in mind that originally this was part of bush's war on terrorism, I don't believe there were ever WMD's in the country, although this is still being debated. There were UN inspectors in the country, and ultimately bush pulled them out.
The general consensus in Europe was that Saddam was a brutal dictator, and yes, the people would be better off if he were removed. But this also describes Sudan, Rawanda, Uganda, and it used to describe Chile, Romania, and Libya. In this world there will always be oppressed people. America could make a career out of just removing brutal dictators it it chose to. But getting back to Saddam, as far as a world threat, he was nothing more than a third string whacko despot.
Certainly not worth the time, expense, or loss of lives, with respect to the socalled war on terrorism.
And along with this, there are some correlations between our war in Iraq and the Vietnam War. When that war first started, there was much talk about the fight against communism, and the domino theory. As people lost faith, Johnson pulled his Gulf of Tonkin stunt. After that people looked at it more like a regional conflict, and nothing more. And people weren't really sure why we were there.
The Iraq war started out as the second leg of bush's war on terrorism. As it became more and more apparent that Iraq had little influence on the terrorism front, the reason we were there was to "free those people." Now most of the polls indicate that most people believe it was a mistake, and that we shouldn't be there.
But we are, we can't leave now, so now what the hell do we do...
2007-01-07 07:01:06 · answer #2 · answered by LongSnapper 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
George Bush will never be able to restore order in Iraq and he will never want order to be restored there. You know why because if peace and order comes back then his job is done and he will have to leave the country which he surely doesn't want to because there is oil and with that comes money and what not. No one can justify his invasion on Iraq. It was totally wrong and unethical. Iraq was once an independant country but no more.What bush must learn is to mind his own bloody business!!
2007-01-07 07:58:42 · answer #3 · answered by anum 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The point of attack in Iraq was not wrong. It was more than just the WMD's. people have short term memory loss and like to focus on only the negative. Iraq was ran by a butcher. He killed many during his reign. He also invaded Kuwait. He violated 17 U.N. resolutions. He's gone. The problem with finishing the job is Iran. They have stuck their nose into arming the insurgents over there. This makes it a difficult situation. You will see in 2007 a resolution in Iraq begin to form. We need to get out of there, but, not until the Iraqi government can fight for itself.
2007-01-07 06:57:36 · answer #4 · answered by meathead 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How will he get the following of a foreign country in a complete mess when he has a rather unsupportive domestic situation?
If the American people could support him, he'll find it a lot easier to sort Iraq out.
2007-01-07 06:30:50 · answer #5 · answered by marrakesh1985 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They simply do not want to. Controlled chaos was the REAL objective so we can stay in Iraq in perpetuity...and control the oil flow. All the rest, WMD, Democracy, freedom, liberty et al are justifications for the consumption of the masses.
2007-01-07 06:24:48 · answer #6 · answered by emiliosailez 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's face facts here. 9/11 was an inside job as a pretext to go to war and take away our freedoms. The proof is in this film. It is amazing.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911
2007-01-07 06:48:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets face it Bush invaded on his own agenda. He lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction. It is his own private little war and allot of people have suffered the consequences. Cant wait to get him out of office.
2007-01-07 06:37:36 · answer #8 · answered by Belinda 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ol' W blew it big time!
2007-01-07 09:32:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
cuz he rather be drunk and wait for more money for his pocket. he is like the american salinas de gortari
2007-01-07 06:29:13 · answer #10 · answered by el arracadas 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋