Seriusly... How can anybody think that the solution to Iraq is sending more troops? Are Bush nuts?

Question

Saddam is already dead, Osama is laugthing and taking a cocktail in a Dubai beach, I mean, how more oobviusly can be that the troops and many iraqi people are dying only for oil control

.

For the girl who fell sorry for me, keep yor sympathy for the soldiers who are dying for some rich oil owners (including Bush family) and for the people of Iraq.

Do you want a solution, well perhaps this is could be a good begining:

Get out the troops in Iraq, let finally the UN army take the administration, let iraqi political prisioners free, and don't invade another country. Trie to find Osama (That means finsh the good friendship between Bush family and the Bin Laden family)

Let the international comunity take and rescpet the UN resolitions, make a real change on the internatial policy of the USA that anybody in the planet are agrre with.

Do i most continue?

Answer 1

Sending more troops is a last ditch effort that will fail, simply because as soon as they leave the fighting will start back up. At this time the only solution I think will work is a partitioning of the country. We have been trying to train an Iraqi army for 4 years now and have not succeeded at all. Most of the Iraqis we have trained are less than dedicated, corrupt or incompetent. So, this mess continues to play out like a macabre play.

Answer 2

The only people that believe it are the people that believe it because the President of the United States said it.

Bush isn't nuts. He is an adept politician. Politics is the endeavor of controlling people and or governments. You can see by many posts here on Yahoo Answers that he still holds sway with some Americans.

Because it is such a silly military decision to increase troop levels by such a modest amount, it is better for us to question why he said it rather than why anyone would believe it.

I think he said it because the political will of America says we must change. What can he change without loosing credibility?

He could get other countries to join in the struggle. But they wont because the entire world knows it is a losing proposition. Even our best ally, Great Britain is standing down. At their strongest, they had deployed about 4% of the troops in Iraq (8,000 when America had 170,000).

I don't know of any other change he could make and appear to be in control except increase troops. Even if the increase in insubstantial.

He is selling the lives of the young Americans that will die in Iraq. His remuneration is continued political support from an ever dwindling minority of Americans.

Answer 3

Do you must continue? Ha!

Friendship? The radical Islamists hated the US long before Bush came to power. There were many, many more attacks on the US when Clinton was president. There has only been one since Bush became president; the difference is that Bush did something about it.

The reason the Arabs (and Persians) hate the US is that the US is a peace-loving, tolerant country that allows any and all religious beliefs. The radical Islamists hate that idea; they've always hated it, and there will always be at least a small minority that always will hate our tolerance. Read anything by the radical Islamic sects - they want a worldwide Islamic state, and ONLY that. So until we destroy those radicals, peace-loving nations that are tolerant of other religions will be under attack.

Clinton tried pacification; he did nothing to stop Islamic terror. And as a result 9-11 happened. Bush has been more successful at stopping terror - so why are you criticizing him?

Answer 4

I think Bin Laden is holed up in a penthouse in Las Vegas with all 72 of his virgins. 80% or so of "America's Most Wanted" end up in or pass through Las Vegas. I think Bush has Messianic tendencies that may end up causing all the rest of us regular Americans some serious problems. There are some religious aspects to this situation as well that are a bit disturbing. The second coming of Christ is a long awaited event in the Christian world. There are some events that have to take place before it can happen and I am concerned that there are forces and people at work to make said things come about to "facilitate" Christ's return. I think this is part of the reason the U.S. so strongly supports Israel today.

Answer 5

It seems the other counttries in the area should help out at the very least with their own backyard. I truly doubt they would help us if we ended up going to war with Mexico, Canada or some other country in North or South America. I say we need to get out and let the oil barons kids fight the war. Send the Bush twins - that otta scare anyone!

Answer 6

No one seems to understand the term police state. Sending more troops backs our troops as*ses up. If we were to pull out then there will be an all out civil war and probably alot more civilian deaths. We are not there to control their government, we're there to give them a government in control.

We're not looking for an immediate pull out of Iraq either. We're looking for the closest time possible meaning we have to start busting some butt to get the whole situation under control. That is what the democrats want.

Answer 7

Blaming anything on OIL is not the answer. Oil is not something like a bottle-cap that you snap off and throw away. Oil is the power that runs engines for our cars, hospital electricity, home heaters, street paving machines, automobiles, boats, ships, restaurants, TVs, computers on and on and on.

Until we can come up with another source of power for 98% of our living needs, we are stuck with OIL.

Being unconcerned about oil is almost like being unconcerned about the air we breath.

If our President said that oil would no longer be available to us, we would have him in jail in fifteen minutes.

Our mistake is that we allowed ourselves to be trapped into hanging our existence on one source of energy. No one wants windmills near them, nor do they want solar panels along their streets or atomic power plants in their neighborhoods, and on and on.

If you want to point fingers, try the past five Presidents and most of the people in our present Congress; you can have a finger-pointing field day if you choose the Congress.

Don't blame a President who wants to insure a good supply of the oil we need to run our country, He was stuck with the problem by all the guys and gals who became Congress-people during the last fifty years.

Answer 8

LOOK ya it is wrong for sending our men to just get oil they arwe there not just for the oil but to put them in check and the next person to die is osama and he will get his when the time comes and he is sending ten thousand more people to iraq and he shouldnt do that he is stupid for that i would hate for anymore of our men to die my man is going for a year in iraq and its hard but i KINDA understand what you are saying if we give up then theyll see that we are weak and they can go all over us so we are going to show them who is boss and who is in charge and for what saddam did was wrong and he got his and next thing to do is find osama and do what we need to do

Answer 9

There is a spell checker on this thing.

But anyway, we have to try and salvage the damage that we have caused already as we went to war under false pretenses. (Weapons of mass destruction) (a threat to the USA).

Now we know that those were all lies, and I think George is just trying to get through these next 2 years to let someone else clean up his mess.

Answer 10

well i agree with him sending more troops is not really the solutions, because where there's alot of guns. there will always have violences. what bush need to do is unarmed all the iraqis
from iraqi, and made it illigal to carry a gun without a permit. just like in here in united states.