Do you think our country would be in the Situation it is in Iraq if?

Question

Our government officials and their families never got involved with people like Saddam and Ossama in the past. I mean because Bush and Rumsfeld Used to be friends with them. Do you think if we never got involved with them in the first place they would have done with they did?

Answer 1

Of course not. They wouldn't have wepons to defend themselves - we could take all the oil we wanted.

Answer 2

I am not exactly sure what the point of this is - to try an re-imagine an unchangeable event for....what?

At the time most if not all governmental intelligence agencies were saying that Iraq was trying to subvert the UN embargo to obtain materials in support of chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Not just the CIA.....

The UN sanctions were an eroding stalemate - meaning that the embargo on Iraq was crumbling - and now we know why - Iraq was spreading cash around the UN and handing out fat lucrative contracts to countries that were willing to ignore the embargo.

Hence - Saddam Hussein had to go. There are many many books yet to be written about the Iraq war and it's results.

My take on this is that I agree with those who say we did not have enough troops on the ground to immediately take complete control of Iraq. The government infrastructure disintegrated immediately, the Iraq army was not so much disarmed as it simply evaporated.

Despite George Bush's statements about giving the Generals on the ground a free reign to get the job done. Most military decisions in 'post war' Iraq were political, not military and this created a vacuum of power that the Shiite militants stepped into.

Answer 3

its funny, but none of this stuff is new. from the dawn of civilization people have worked their way into power, and betrayed those around them. look at all the past kings in europe who have been killed by family members who want their crown. we trained osama to fight the russians when it suited our needs, we helped saddam fight iran when it was in our interest. i bet in 15 years or so, there will be another leader there that we'll side with to fight one of our former friends as well.

but yes, its very contradictory to see pictures of guys like Cheney shaking hands with Saddam, and then see the same Cheney justifying war against him, like he only became a "bad guy" recently. thats the one difference i see between Bush and Cheney. Bush is an imcompetent idiot puppet, who believes he's doing good because ppl tell him so, and that he's doing what "God" wants. somewhere in there, i think theres a guy who'd question what he's doing if his brain wasnt so fried from cocaine and booze. Cheney is flat out evil, and the biggest hypocrite in politics today.

yes, things would be different if bush and rummy hadnt been involved with them, but we'd still be fighting someone somewhere. these are the kinds of guys who'll go find any war to fight to get what they want and make money off it. if the world ran on Tea leaves they'd find an excuse to invade china. if the world ran on lumber they'd find a reason to go after canada. its sad, but its the way men in power do business if they're not kept in check.

Answer 4

No i don't think it had anything to do with them knowing them in the past. People need to wake up and realize even tho the war is being fault over there the main terriost is the leader of this nation of ours who wants to control the rest of the world. at anyone at his expense. He wanted this war, he got this war. he will not let this war die, instead he is letting our men and women who wear the colors do the dieing. But it is not anyones fault for the way someone else acts but the person themself. just as it is noone fault for bush being an idiot then bush himself. the only thing is people actually back him on this bloodshed. and will continue backing him on this bloodshed because they actually think the war is because of terriost. has anyone ever just sat and realized that we have not had any attacks since the war? and yes some are going to say its because bush is fighting the war over there. but have the ones who think that ever thought that if a terriost wanted to attack the US this would be the best time because all of the focus is on the war over there? its not the terriost over there that we need to worry about. its the one we have in office who in not so many words is ordering our own soldiers dead, because HE wants this war...

Answer 5

the problem is, is the government is only concerned about transporting oil and gas from iraq to u.s and like a new war on terrorism would really work. because look at the news each and everyday there is either an attack or an ambush or an bombing. we need to get out of there before we all end up getting killed. bush needs to be impeached.

Answer 6

You have no perspective of history. In the 1980's, who was the biggest threat to the US. It was Iran, who was in a bitter war with Iraq. It made all the sense in the world to help Saddam to weaken the Iranian government. When Saddam tried to expand his influence in the Middle East and threaten us, we took action.

As for Osama, he refused all help from the US. He didn't want our help, although we did help the Northern Alliance in Afganistan.

Answer 7

So, let's blame Bush and Rumsfeld for the actions of Saddam and Osama. Very smart.

The interesting thing is, we helped them in their time of need and they repay us by screwing us over.

I think that says alot about their culture.

Answer 8

Love This Comeback.. this was sent to me this am



One of my sons serves in the military. He is still

Stateside, here in California. He called me

yesterday to let me know how warm and welcoming

people were to him, and his troops, everywhere he

goes, telling me how people shake their hands, and

thank them for being willing to serve, and fight,

for not only our own freedoms but so that others may

have them also.



But he also told me about an incident in the

grocery store he stopped at yesterday, on his way

home from the base. He said that ahead of several

people in front of him stood a woman dressed in a

burkha.



He said when she got to the cashier she loudly

remarked about the U.S. flag lapel pin the cashier

wore on her smock. The cashier reached up and

touched the pin, and said proudly," Yes, I always

wear it and probably always will."



The woman in the burkha then asked the cashier

when she was going to stop bombing her countrymen,

explaining that she was Iraqi. A gentleman standing

behind my son stepped forward, putting his arm

around my son's shoulders, and nodding towards my

son, said in a calm and gentle voice to the Iraqi

woman:



"Lady, hundreds of thousands of men and women like

this young man have fought and died so that YOU

could stand here, in MY country and accuse a

check-out cashier of bombing YOUR countrymen. It is

my belief that had you been this outspoken in YOUR

own country, we wouldn't need to be there today.

But, hey, if you have now learned how to speak out

so loudly and clearly, I'll gladly buy you a ticket

and pay your way back to Iraq so you can straighten

out the mess in YOUR country that you are obviously

here in MY country to avoid."



Everyone within hearing distance cheered!




IF YOU AGREE____ Pass this on to all your proud



American friends.



I just did!

Answer 9

no I don't believe that has anything to do with it.
People need to accept this is war, all things are not simple and there is no way to determine every outcome of every situation.
No war is the IDEAL war.
War sucks, people need to accept it.

Answer 10

no, i dont think their friendship in the past had anything to do with it. then again we are talking about bush.. maybe they was just after him and not the rest of us.