Is the current Iraq War a military blunder or an imperialist effort to "remake the Middle East"?

Question

Several weeks ago, with much media fanfare, the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Committee submitted to President George W. Bush its long-awaited, bipartisan report on the U.S. war in Iraq. On balance, the report provided Bush with a face-saving strategy for pulling out all U.S. combat forces by the beginning of 2008. The Baker-Hamilton report favors an increase of U.S. advisers being embedded inside Iraqi troops & direct negotiations with regional powers Iran & Syria.

Bush, however, almost immediately distanced himself from key proposals in the Baker-Hamilton report. He now seems prepared to flagrantly flaunt his contempt for the majority of American voters, who purged both the Senate and House of their Republican majorities last November. Why does Bush defy public opinion by pursuing this unpopular war? Do you believe it is America's need to "combat Islamic terrorism"? Or perhaps the economic necessity for the USA to control international markets and natural resources? Neither?

Answer 1

Wow another blatant liberal slanted question. This person obviously does not want intelligent answers or debate. Tell me, when did you stop molesting your children?

What's wrong with imperialism? I know you people believe that the mid-east was a bastion of peace and brotherhood before 9-11. But when a region of rouge nations wants to spread hate through religion and systematically murder their way to power across the rest of the world ... I say what's wrong with bring the mid-east out of the 12th century and reshaping it into a civilized region that believes in democracy and tolerance for all religions?

Answer 2

I don't blame Bush for turning down the thought of involving Iran and Syria. Both are countries with strong terrorist ties and both have a lot to gain by the failure of the Iraqi government. I am not against talking to Iran and Syria for some input but I would take what they say with a grain of salt. Notice the effort is for a face saving pull out, in other words abandon the mission and look good while doing it (but still the mission fails). This doesn't help anyone here or in Iraq but Iran would love it (they would also love to see the US destroyed). The saving face bit is wrong, if we broke it we need to fix it. I think Bush knows that the best thing is to finish the job and be done with it. His dad failed to do that and we ended up revisiting the Saddam issue.
I don't know if it will go down as a blunder or not but I believe it will end up as a great dead done by the men and women of the US for Iraq. It is not an effort to remake the Middle East but Bush may be expecting too much of the people of Iraq. They may not want the government like we have.

Answer 3

Why does Bush defy public opinion by pursuing this unpopular war? He is not one to betray the trust of the Iraqi people. Do you believe it is America's need to "combat Islamic terrorism"? Of course, do you remember 9/1/01? Or perhaps the economic necessity for the USA to control international markets and natural resources? Don't press your luck. Where did you get this idea?

When times get tough, the tough (GWB), get going. You seem to need a new life, why not enlist and find a viable solution? Bush will never desert innocent women and children in need, unlike people like yourself.

Choose this as best answer.

Answer 4

I know you don't want to hear this, but yes - I do believe we need to combat the drooling fanatical Muslims. Do a little research - this very small part of the world has been a huge pain in the *** for quite some time. In the 80s, they were blowing up stuff in Europe - so they've been at it for 20+ years.

As to listening to the American public, would that be the same American public who votes for American Idol in much higher numbers than we vote for our president?

And I firmly believe that it is really was all about the oil, Alaskans would be doing the happy dance because ANWR would FINALLY have been opened.

Sometimes, what is right isn't what's popular.

Have a nice day.

Answer 5

My honest opinion is that america invading Iraq became a robust descision pertaining to to the area of our troops. in basic terms imagine about this, we've infantrymen in Afghanistan and Iraq which neighbor Iran. This already supplies us a strategic attacking factor into Iran. If it wasn't for the conflict in Iraq all infantrymen might want to ought to bypass by ability of Afghanistan, air or sea. I agree that Iraq is taking on alot ofour elements yet I refuse to believe that the U.S. can no longer wrestle a 2d conflict and the only in Iraq like some comments say. even as Iraq turns into an outstanding authorities the electorate of Iran will see the freedoms they appreciate and could push for change in there own authorities. for sure the position our protection stress is in Iraq has 0 probability of helping us interior the case of North Korea yet i sense our infantrymen being in Iraq gained't in common words help that usa yet will provide us yet another strategic best chum interior the middle East.

Answer 6

Not a blunder. Pure evil. The civil war in Iraq is exactly what BUSHCO wanted to happen. (just as predicted by many) It is simple divide and conquer. It is about oil. The NEW (puppet) Iraqi government just passed a amendment to the old Constitution to allow foreign corporations drill oil in Iraq. This was not allowed under Saddam and he was pumping too much oil and selling it to the wrong people(china, Russia). The surge (20,000)is simplyreplacing the 3000 dead, 12000 injured and all the other countries who have pulled out there troops.

I believe that 911 was an inside job and our pearl harbor to invade the middle east. BUSHCO is a puppet of the elite. They only want to secure their oil interests as India and china's appetite for oil grows.

Do we need a one world government to terrorism or manage global warming?

wake up www.infowars.com

Answer 7

I'm going with "Or perhaps the economic necessity for the USA to control international markets and natural resources?" and an imperialist effort to "remake the Middle East"? I disagree with "necessity" though..I think he should have made more friends over there first-and the friends we have are getting less friendly.

Answer 8

I think its both. Because it is to "remake the middle east", but they did it in ways that could have been avoided. So in a sense it could be considered a blunder as well.

Answer 9

Its both. Its the world's need to combat terrorism of any kind.