After all, dozens of people weren't getting killed in bomb attacks every day when Saddam was in power.
2007-01-25 03:06:08 · 12 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Many Iraqis have move, mostly the upper and middle class, not encouraging from the standpoint of achieving some sort of stability. Bush has touted himself as the decider, so of course I would. Saddam was bad enough and his kids were worse, but Shock and Awe destroyed the country and led to many civilian casualties, so changing one terror for another may not feel to wonderful to them.
2007-01-25 03:13:16 · answer #1 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
But it isn't Bush who's behind the bombings. It's the Sunnis - the same people that supported Saddam and his rape rooms, torture chambers and mass executions.
It's the Sunnis who are the problem, who have murdered 10s of 1000s, and who have attacked Iraqis at mosques and at markets.
I'd know who to blame. Why don't you?
2007-01-25 11:26:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Lets see before Bush invaded they had Saddam. At least under Saddam you could go to school, had electricity and actually had some kind of life. Know the Bush miester comes and you have nothing and can't walk down the street. Maybe I might blame Bush a little.
Bush should never have invaded. Blow the terrorist thing out your arses. But since he did invade he should have handled many things differently. If he had there might actually be a functioning government over there. However he listened to a bunch of academic dickheads.
2007-01-25 11:14:54 · answer #3 · answered by trichbopper 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
... if the news media in ur country was blaming all your problems on a certain group of people .... say illegal immigrants .... then you would tend to be blaming illegal immigrants .... propaganda is a powerful tool of persuasion ... but armed with enough information an educated person could look beyond and try to locate the source of a problem ... im sure any rational iraqi could see that the american takeover and occupation is the source of the problem ... but with their media being totally controlled by american intelligence and psy-ops its also easy to turn the population groups against each other as part of counter insurgency operations.
2007-01-25 11:14:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I'm not stupid.. And you're right, bombs were not killing Iraqis it was Saddam and his Army and now are the Muslims that are killing Muslims and the President of the USA is trying to stop them, by the way he's name is George W. Bush. And the rest of you want to cut and run..and by running out of Iraq, that you all want, is going to stop the blood shed in Iraq.. So who's right??? You're ignorances will not permit you answer!!!
2007-01-25 11:15:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If I were an Iraqi I'd be renting a moving van to get the hell out of there - and after that I'd worry about blame!
2007-01-25 11:10:10 · answer #6 · answered by Blitzhund 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nope - would blame the militants, the insurgents and the Iraqi government.
If I wasn't a Baathist under Saddam - I was probably being persecuted by them -so instead of being bombed.
My family and I were being tortured, gassed or starved. I see your point.
Thanks for the all the false concern about their well being
:)
2007-01-25 11:18:28 · answer #7 · answered by Akkita 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No I would blame the religious militias who refuse to work with the Iraqi government.
2007-01-25 11:10:13 · answer #8 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Nope, I wouldn't blame Bush, I would blame the sectarian violence. It would be different if the US soldiers were the ones commiting these atrocities, but they aren't.
2007-01-25 11:10:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
I imagine they, like us, and the Israeli's, and the Lebanese, and the British, and anywhere else terrorism is used blame the terrorists. Those with any kind of intellect anyway.
2007-01-25 11:12:17 · answer #10 · answered by Jedi 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋