Recent documents indicate that Bush did not even consider the shia /sunni division to be a major issue prior to the invasion. They also felt that the Irq borders would not be violated by neighboring countries. So much for Shinsekis plan to place thousands of troops on Iraqs border-we now know that a great part of the insurgencies success relates to an almost non existant border prescence. Boy coward Bush and his boys have got us into a real mess.
2007-01-23 02:41:21 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush is a moderate not a conservative and what exactly is a "shia"? I believe the term you were going for is Shiite.
So much for Bush's ignorance
2007-01-23 02:45:30 · answer #1 · answered by Centurion529 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is no question that the real problems in Iraq exist due to a blant disregard for the many cultures that inhabit the country. The assumption that they would all come together and join a single ruling democracy was extremely misguided. There was not a strong enough undercurrent of revolutionary activity to support such a move. The people of Iraq are such a fractured group that has a history of being unsettled in nature. All we have done is create a hot bed of civil war and terror. The people in the far reaching regions of Iraq know no borders. They roam as a lifestyle and only through a strongarm police effort will they ever be held in check. That is not going to go over well with them at all, increasing the violence. The only way Mr. Hussein could even stay in power was through a campaign of brutal violence and intimidation. What makes us think it will be easier for us when we don't even share a similar ideology. The whole situation is a quagmire that will never be "fixed". We cannot win since the reason we fight is not supported by the Iraqi people themselves.
2007-01-23 02:54:53 · answer #2 · answered by bobo 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Personally , I believe Bush thought that this invasion was going to be repeat of Desert Storm where the Iraqi troops threw their guns down. If you think about the timing of this invasion, the hunt for Bin Laden had been going for for a couple of years , another election was coming up. How better to show how great a job on fighting terror than to invade Iraq again and at the same time deflect any criticism in the hunt for the true perpetrators of 9-11. Mind you, I also believe that democracy at gunpoint is not democracy either. It is just replacing one form of oppressive regime with another. Sorry for sounding so cynical but faulty intelligence, mistake after mistake. If the objective had been to remove Saddam, he was removed when caught 3 years ago. You all should have left then, if it meant a civil war in Iraq, well the U.S. had one as well and look at how you turned out. You are a great nation, you have many great things over the years, this is just not one of them. Thanks in advance for all the thumbs down.
2007-01-23 02:57:16 · answer #3 · answered by Bob D 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you want to blame for one's being naive, go ahead! When engaging troops in a war in a society like Iraq, one sometimes cannot know how deeply the hatred runs. We are doing the best we can!
2007-01-23 02:56:59 · answer #4 · answered by tcbtoday123 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, and I know better.
But I do think Bush made a mistake to try to appease the anti-war liberals, early on.
Should've just gone in and whipped up hell's fury. Would that have made you less critical?
I don't know, Jesi. He was making his money from the same place. Although, thinking on it, he would have been a decent go between tyrant and democracy, possibly. Just couldn't trust the guy, though.
2007-01-23 02:46:00 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was actually an interesting question until the "Boy coward Bush" part. Then it becamse the standard partisan drivel. However, the answer to your overall question is yes.
2007-01-23 02:52:30 · answer #6 · answered by JB 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I don't. I think Bush and his people could care less about Iraq's culture. He thinks his way is the only way anyone should think!
2007-01-23 02:46:24 · answer #7 · answered by Tom C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The shortsighted aspect of this war was that there was one person who could have stepped in and unified the country. he was living in exile in Europe but was killed before he could be put in as the interim President. There was no "Plan B".
2007-01-23 02:46:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Don't forget that they approach Clinton with the same plan. This was a calculated act.
2007-01-23 02:53:54 · answer #9 · answered by Misha 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They had absolutely no clue - which Bush & Company has proven time and time again and every day since he has been in office!
2007-01-23 02:46:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋