I want cogent, intelligent, serious, non-belligerent answers to this question. I will immediately disregard bellicose or politically partisan answers. Bush says this statement over and over again, and I just don't see the connection.
2007-01-21 23:25:44 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Mr. Wise - no good
2007-01-21 23:45:33 · update #1
I think he is trying to continue to make this sound like a war on terrorism. By equating Iraq with our security, he feels he can put that link in our minds without actually coming out and saying it. I truly think our security has been jeopardized by this connection. We are spending dollars and lives within this one country instead of focusing on actual terrorists.
2007-01-21 23:37:54 · answer #1 · answered by Scoots 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Making war for peace is always a hard sell. It is even more difficult to swallow when Saddam's Iraq was not implicated in any terrorist act anywhere; the only sin Saddam committed was the invasion of Kuwait. Ironically, Saddam's Iraq was relatively 'safer' for the region/world than the fractious Iraq now - the result of the US-led war and removal of Saddam.
French President Chirac was against the US-led war and now blames the US for destabilizing the Mid East region.
Pres Bush fears of Iran, Syria influence in Iraq are well founded as these countries are "axis of evil" countries. Nuclear ambition, sponsored terrorism, targetted assassinations, spread of fundamentalist Islam are all valid and real concerns.
"What happens in an Iraq (without Saddam) MAY affect national security in the US"... but "how?" will an unstable Iraq pose dangers to America's security?; Americans like you and a good many non-Americans will find it hard to see the connection.
Without the much feared WMDs, it rings hollow.
2007-01-22 00:03:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you buy into the Great Decider's rhetoric, what they are doing in Iraq, means no terrorists will be able to hit the U.S. with anymore terrorist attacks. Makes complete sense to Bush, if you kill them all over there, there will be none left to fight us over here. Although angering the entire Muslim religion never entered into the equation , along with inspiring a whole new generation of anti-American sentiment is okay as long as we win. Bush had the support of basically the entire world after 9-11 in the hunt for Bin Laden, unfortunately he got sidetracked by the prospect of an easy victory in Iraq to assure him of a re-election . To be honest, I'd never compare Bush to Hitler like a lot do here, but all I see is the same irrational fear towards Muslims that Hitler promoted against the Jews. The Muslim faith has been the same for a couple thousand years but somehow now, they are this huge threat. Like Ricky Ricardo used to say, you got some explaining to do...
2007-01-22 00:23:58 · answer #3 · answered by Bob D 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
President Bush has been consumed and obsessed with this slogan since he unwisely involved the United States in the Iraq War. By doing so, he obviously distanced himself from the American people to where both Houses of Congress fell into Democratic hands but will apparently continue the rhetoric until the Presidency in 2008 falls to the Democratic Party.
2007-01-21 23:34:44 · answer #4 · answered by cliff 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The best explanation is the perception of power. When dealing with a group or a society that respects only force or power, these are the tools that must be used.
By going into Iraq (for whatever reason) the U.S. has displayed its power and will to use it. At this point, to withdraw or "redeploy" would be taken as a sign of weakness. To quote Mr Spock from the old Star Trek episode, when they were fighting the Romulans, "Any sign of weakness is something we dare not show."
Negotiation with people who care not for human life is a sign of weakness for them to exploit. Withdrawal will only encourage further attacks on the "infidels".
Regardless of where this war is fought, if we don't destroy the enemy's will to fight, and their ability to fight, we will lose.
Our division, our lack of resolve, are the signs of weakness the terrorists are looking for. I fear this war will be over only when one side or the other ceases to exist.
2007-01-22 00:57:19 · answer #5 · answered by John H 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is the scapegoat for inability to pursue Bin Ladin in Pakistan.
2007-01-22 00:37:39 · answer #6 · answered by robert m 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
His statement was meant primarily for adults, it's very easily understood.
2007-01-21 23:34:10 · answer #7 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋