and would Bush then be known as the official conquerer of Iraq?
2007-01-12 14:53:40 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The only reason Maliki is the leader of the Iraq democracy is because Al Sadr wants him to be there. If/When the US leaves Al Sadr (the radical) would take over Iraq & Bush will never allow that to happen as long as US troops are there and he can only make the change if he abolishes the iraqi democracy that he helped create. So much for Bush spreading democracy all over the Mideast.
2007-01-12 15:15:12 · update #1
I dont believe so. I just dont see it as being necessary. I know about his connections to Al Sadr, but I think that would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
2007-01-12 15:02:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh that is what Iran is waiting for they are so infilitrated in that military they will make the Lebanon thing look like a picnic, that is why Bush/Cheney/Rice want those extra troops and John Mc Cain sided with Bush on that issue. That is the plan Stan, but it will back fire. we have 132,000 there now and he wants 20,000 more. What does that tell you? Bush will not be able to take Iraq as a conquerer because of the UN, they won't allow it. But they will allow that guy to step down. I read he wanted to anyway because it was a futile situation trying to make a democracy with a bunch of heathens. So now what? ha ha
2007-01-12 23:01:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
unless bush is an iraqi and can convince others to vote him out that wont happen...thats why they call it a democracy and without the us it would be known as iraq without kurds because saddam wouldve gassed them to death...perhaps you may have wanted another auchwitz...i didnt.
2007-01-12 22:58:26 · answer #3 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋