Father?
2007-01-18 07:26:34 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
a better question is why is bush even still allowed to do anything about iraq? after all EVERYTHING he has done in iraq is WRONG, reason for going there were lies, reason for staying are lies,reconstruction ,democracy building, sending more troops etc etc everything is wrong. why is anyone even listening to him?
2007-01-18 07:35:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because bush didnt made the decision, Rumsfield did. He did this because in America for some reason politicians call the final word regarding the military. He thought it would be better for PR if he sent in the troops we already had readt would all be just fine. Instead it has ben a SNAFU and now they are finally listening to the generals, infact the generals say an additional 21,000 is not enough.. This is what happens when politicians call the shots, they are more worried about being liked and getting votes than making positive decisions for the homeland.
2007-01-18 07:39:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Isn't it great to play arm chair quarterback and keep criticizing someone after you know the outcome. H E L L you are all Genesis by doing this. Why didn't anyone stand up and scream this after we were attacked on 9-11. It is so easy to act like you know what is going on after the game is going on. Put your self in Bush's shoes after 9-11 and then tell me what you would do. You just had 3000 Americans killed. The terrorist were able to bring America to there knees that day. We shut down all airlines in the USA. The stock market closed and an entire country was fearful of every step they took. Now what would you do? So easy to play your little kids GI Joe games. Grow up and try and learn something.
2007-01-18 08:28:36 · answer #3 · answered by tbird 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because the US was trying to avoid an outright occupation, believing the Iraqis would seize the opportunity to rebuild and found a new government.
However, the flaw was this:
These people have been waging war with one another since before Abraham had the dilemma of what to do about Ishmael and Isaac. Middle Easterners truly have an ancient culture, whose tolerance for secularism is not very keen. This is because those who usually seize and hold onto secularism have been corrupt, and abuse the system to punish those who want to have a simple life and relationship with their deity.
2007-01-18 07:38:39 · answer #4 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is a great question and I wish there was an answer for it. I really think that he felt this would be an easy win for him, with comments like "Bring it on" and "Well smoke him out of his hole". That is the only thing I can come up with or the fact that he wants to draw out this war for a long period of time like a Smoke Screen to shield something else that is going down but I dont think anyone but himself knows the truth to that one. Maybe someday we will all know but for now we are just left in the dark with only 32% of americans still trusting in him from the latest polls.
2007-01-18 07:38:51 · answer #5 · answered by str8stroke 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I think the the real culpit was Rumsfield who was advised to use more troops, but told Bush he did not need them. Bush to a fault actually listens to his cabinet, so if Rumsfield his secretary of defense tells him something he thinks, "well it's his job to know this I will believe him"
This is why Rummy is gone. Since the rise of democracy and the decline of dictatorships the knowledge of warfare personally by US presidents has fallen and they are dependent on their aids and cabinet member to advise them on these issues.
2007-01-18 07:34:57 · answer #6 · answered by jasonzbtzl 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It was the business man in him. Trying to cut costs... I don't think he ever asked for people to give him scenarios on how the different ethnic groups would react and what to do to navigate through all that. Maybe the best solution is the division of Irak. If the Sunnies want to be our enemies let them eat dirt. Just hope that Kurds, and Shiites remain on our side.
2007-01-18 07:33:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You do understand that he received numerous different advice from numerous generals and advisors to use more and even use less troops, right? There was no consensus view, as you seem to dishonestly portray it.
2007-01-18 07:36:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
because the crybaby democrats b i t c hed about the number of troops and billy bob singlehandedly dismembered the military.
Thats why!
2007-01-18 08:22:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Dimocrits wouldn't let him! They even refused to allot money for body armor. Hillary was the ***** behind all of that.
2007-01-18 07:32:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋