GHW Bush turned out to be right. Since his son has some of the same people in his administration and in advisory roles as his father did, why on earth did he do a 180 and invade the entire country and get us into a quagmire his father took great pains, (and some criticism), to avoid?
2007-01-25 00:32:05 · 6 answers · asked by Cynthia D 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
During the first Gulf War the US got a coalition together to push Iraq out of Kuwait. Period. To try and occupy Iraq at that time would have broken the coalition. There was no govt. or person in Iraq with enough power to lead the country leaving it open for Iran to step in and take over, therefor we left Saddam in power. Much like why we left the emperor of Japan in power after the second world war.
This time, we were after terrorists and terrorist States. We had no coalition to speak of and our goal was to remove Saddam from power.
So there were two different goals for each war.
2007-01-25 00:49:32 · answer #1 · answered by e.sillery 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because after 9/11 the calculus of risk changed. It was decided that we could not let problems fester; that it would be even worse than the messiness we see now. The "stability" of the region - the status quo - was no longer tolerable. It was downright dangerous!
It's interesting how many Democrats criticize the decision to go into Iraq, after they voted for it and criticized Bush 43 for not "connecting the dots" on 9/11. Iraq was a pretty big dot, and not going in would have been irresponsible.
This was after Democrats criticized Bush 41 all through the 90's for "not finishing the job," which was after they threatened to impeach Bush 41 if he "went to Baghdad" rather than just removing Saddam from Kuwait.
For the past year or two, Democrats have said Bush 43 did not have enough troops in Iraq. Now he's putting more in - doing what they suggested - and instead of applauding it they are saying "it's too late" and wasting time with non-binding resolutions which do nothing but give our enemies hope that we are getting ready to give up.
The far more interesting question is: what has the Democrat policy on Iraq been for the past 15 years, other than to find out what the Republican is doing and then oppose it?.
2007-01-25 08:36:46 · answer #2 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush 41 wasn't president when the nation was attacked on its own soil (Sept 11th.). That fact alone is a huge difference. The 9/11 attack is a singluar defining moment, not unlike the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in WWII.
2007-01-25 08:39:37 · answer #3 · answered by Annoying American 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
September 11, 2001 changed the whole
ball game and we are going to KILL the AlQaida Terror Network just like we did in WWII
with the Japanese and Nazi Germany!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saddam is Dead!!!
2007-01-25 08:46:40 · answer #4 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because he wanted the oil fields for Cheney and Rumsfeld.
2007-01-25 08:37:39 · answer #5 · answered by RUMMY the DUMMY 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
because he wanted to show he was a better man than his father. that and saddam threatened his father.
2007-01-25 08:37:09 · answer #6 · answered by J Q Public 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋