who thinks George w.bush and his father were right to start the conflict in Iraq,.??

Answer 1

Only those that benefit & the other idiots that don't know any better.

Answer 2

The real conflict started well over 1000 years ago, between Shiites and Sunnis. The "modern conflict" began with Saddam and his Hitler-like notions, during the Nixon administration. Clinton failed to deal with Saddam during his administration and allowed a small fire to get out of control before he left office and started falsely blaming the problem on everyone else, particularly on Geore W. Bush, who simply inherited the ongoing problem and had to deal with it.

See the parallels here to Hitler and Winston Churchill, and all the people in pre-war England who denied that Hitler and Naziism had to be controlled? We still have to control the radical muslim terrorists (both Shiite and Sunni) before the world can have any peace.

Answer 3

Although there is no documented facts to this enough evedince has come out proving the existance of an agenda. Bushs agenda was to get pay back one, two make the oil his so that his friends and himself could benifit case in point Hillburton who has its sticky fingers in every aspect of the Iraq conflict from feeding the troops to transporting equipment to transporting oil from here and there. Rumsfeld was a Bush seniors best friend and also Chaeny was involved in the workings of the bush family. They all live above the law always have .and really not caring what you may say or really think they have agendas. And then they wrap themselves in the flag which is a front and in the christien dogma. Make no mistake these are greedy self centered people.

Answer 4

Neither of the Bushes started the conflict in Iraq ... the twisted ambitions of mad men did. Starting with Saddam ... carried by Muslim Terrorists to have each and everyone of us in North America die because we are not "one of them", (remember BOTH attacks on the Trade Center - 1 in the early 1990's and the later, 9 / 11), and to keep the American dollar "propped-up" because Saddam was accepting only Euros in place of U.S. dollars, for the oil exports. Low U.S. dollar means low wages and low standard of living for North Americans. Had the Canadian dollar been the "standard" currency for the world, then, Canada would have to invade to keep their economy going. Our standard of living in the Western World is based on war to keep the $ strong ... or no cars - no new homes - no stardard of living as we know it today. What would happen to the debt load we all have should the Euro replace the U.S. $ as the top "dog" currency? We would all have to go without ! Political suicide. So; no matter who is at the "controls", he or she would do the same things as the Bushes had ... let's not "kid" ourselves !!! We are all at war, whether we like it or not ... Muslim Terrorists will strike again and again in North America - all a matter of time and place. We can fight them over there or withdraw and allow them to create a terrorist country over there ... or we can take the fight to them on our own soil - choose ? !!!

Answer 5

When is it right to start any conflict. Did they have a just reason. No at least not one they cared about letting the public know. I would of been fine with taking down saddam. But then backing the *****'s that is one thing i want to have nothing to do with. I have no idea how i feel about the war. It is just a huge ******* mess i know that. And we should focus on how to clean it up and stop blaming bush. Even though it is his fault blaming him and telling him how incompetent he is. Want exactly get him on are good side.

Answer 6

Bush 41 was right to kick Sadaam out of Kuwait. But he knew what he was doing and got out of there immediately. Dubya had no business whatsoever invading Iraq. Had he stayed in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be in this mess would we?

Answer 7

This is one of those "on the fence" matters. Its also a touchy subject. My fiance was in the Marines when this all started...and all I wanted was for him to come home...so I looked at the situation in a different way. I'm sorry to say this but...we need to get out of there...if they want to blow each other up then so be it...we don't need to lose more of our boys. Let them all kill each other.

Answer 8

The older Bush was absolutely correct when he led the coalition against Saddam Hussein the first time when he went on rampage for more land and oil. Saddam clearly wanted to own the middle east and it was the world's duty to stop him. Remember, many Arab nations were involved in Saddam's demise during this first conflict. Have they helped with even one man this time with Georgie-boy? No way.

Answer 9

Me. His dad should have finished it in '91 by capturing Baghdad. Whe had then manpower to occupy and pacify Iraq then. This current one is ten years too late.

Answer 10

Good post from myhalo 1. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant of history people can be. Most who oppose the war or Bush are simpletons merely repeating what they hear on the news.

Answer 11

Me. The world agreed to push Saddam out of Kuwait. The world imposed 12 years of sanctions on Iraq before Gulf War II. We agreed at the end of Gulf War I to stop bombing and wrote that we reserved the right, at any time, to resume. The world agreed to act against Iraq, but failed to act after 12 years. Since we are the UN, we acted. Those are the absolute facts regardless of how you want to spin it.