No way.He is the most absurd, power hungry president ever to exist in my life time.I honestly feel that he needs to make restitution to the Iraqi people and to the Men and Women who have died fighting.He is very close to a war criminal.
2007-01-27 09:52:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by gia b 2
·
3⤊
3⤋
1. President Bush. It was President Clinton for 8 years and you should have the same courtesy for him.
2. It is not his plan;it is America's plan. We have probably hundred's of military personnel who are tasked to just make plans at the national level. He has the burden of command but he relies on others for advice.
3. 1 less brutal dictator in the world is a good start. Add the Taliban and that is 2. How many brutal regimes has anyone else taken care of?
4. I would rather me be attacked in Iraq (1 tour so far) than my son be attacked at his school. There are many terrorists in Iraq. They are coming from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Sudan and many other places. After 9/11 when was the last American embassy or building or ship attacked? Prior to 9/11 we had the 1st WTC, the USS Cole, and several embassies in Africa. Agree or disagree the facts are clear that the destruction of the Taliban and the Iraqi regimes have stopped the attacks on US interests.
Enough about the oil. The price of oil is less now than prior to the war. The facts are clear so less not lie.
2007-02-02 11:25:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by mferunden 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Saddam paid every family of a suicide bomber $10,000. Though he wasn't the largest supporter of terrorism he certainly backed them.
He was the easiest target to beat and save American lives by making Iraq the catalyst for political change throughout the Middle East.
A free Iraq with all Iraqi citizens receiving their fare share of oil revenue checks (as in Kuwait) will destabilize the Iranian government causing a thereat from within their own country.
Destabilizing Iran automatically weakens the foundation of the Syrian government.
These are the 2 largest contributors to terrorists. This has been the strategy from day one but the current administration cannot come right out and speak these words.
This will cause the monies flowing like a river to Al-Quaeda, Hezbollah, and Ham mas to be reduced to a dripping faucet.
The war in Iraq has been about undermining the terrorist supporting countries of the entire Middle East and is a logical step to end the source of money to terrorist organizations.
Once again...a free Iraq is their worst nightmare.
God Bless
2007-02-02 01:46:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with the surge for a short term. I think it is overdue for the Iraqi government to put a quell on the interfaith violence currently preventing civil order from being restored. By putting a foot on the neck of the clerics who are spearheading the violence, then the new Iraqi Army can step up to the plate. However, there should be no time stamp on a draw down of our troops because the muslims fascists behind the insurgency will wait for that day to destroy everything that has been accomplished.
2007-02-04 06:56:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel that President Bush just wants a nice piece in the history book, I feel his intentions are not right and he should be impeached ,, However I feel that if the troops in iraq want more support then they should get it They should have every thing they need . and if that means drafting some trust fund kid to go defend this country then so be it they bleed just like me and any one Else that serve this country. But bush is wrong but if the troops over there need help lets make sure it happens.
2007-01-27 10:03:00
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!
I say Lets send George Bush to fight in Iraq.
Lets put some combat boots on Georgy Boy, give him a gun and a backpack. He wouldn't last 2 seconds with his s**t eaten GRIN. He dodged Vietnam. He can't run the USA . How is he going to tell Iraq how to run their country? They have been to war over there since Georgy Boy was knee High to a Grass hopper. Let Iraq fight there own battles. George Bush's only interest is their OIL..........
Bring all our troops back home.....Send George Bush and his body guards to Iraq. We can spend the money better to rebuild Louisiana. What is wrong with America helping America?
George Bush makes NIXON look like a SAINT.
2007-01-27 10:06:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by ladyparadise777 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel that his idea of a surge is admirable (at least he's trying to do something) but I have to disagree with it.
Military experts who have analyzed the situation have concluded that it will take thousands more soldiers then Bush is proposing to stabilize Baghdad alone. I personally and most of the American public would be opposed to a true troop surge like that.
Therefore, what Bush has proposed isn't the first option (full removal) and it isn't the second (a gigantic surge) it is stuck uncomfortably in the middle where it will do no good.
2007-01-27 09:51:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by DonSoze 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
so sorry, but i don't think our current approach in iraq amouts to a plan at all.
so, no i don't agree with it.
i still remember dick cheney answering a question from tim russert regarding the possibility of the iraqi's not greeting americans with flowers and as liberators.
cheney flatly and rudely simply denied that there was any possibility that the iraqis would respond in that manner.
these guys are day dreamers and utopians and have not made one single correct judgement with regards to the war in iraq - frankly starting with invading there in the first place.
the propaganda campaign that has ensued has pursuaded some americans - but again, propaganda does not amount to a workable and reasonable plan...
2007-01-27 10:03:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by nostradamus02012 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I dont agree at all,its not that am supporting iraq but i think each nation should have freedom of choosing its leaders and goverment system.Bush has done a great job in iraq but its becoming too much now.
Bush let go Iraq
2007-02-03 23:01:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by dorica w 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, Yes, and more Yes. Everybody, Congress and most of the public were behind starting it then when the going got tough, the weaklings began skipping away and hiding.
Why are so many acting like little children,--did you expect that it would be a cake-walk?
Why can't we shut a up and get the job done like it needs doing. The guys over there need support not criticism
2007-02-02 15:37:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mr. Been there 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I do not agree with the War in General, Iran had nothing to do with us . Oil was a big thing to Mr Bush
2007-01-27 11:06:33
·
answer #11
·
answered by kritikos43 5
·
0⤊
0⤋