This is certainly not the makings of a democracy, and it should be, at least in the minds of most rational people, a foregone conclusion that this is purely about oil and not about the preservation of life, liberty and human dignity. All pretexts of aid and heroism that have been used to promote the war and occupation in Iraq have been dismantled a long time ago, and the only people that subscribe to them are those diehard Bush supporters for whom support of an immoral imbecile trumps doing the right thing.
The large displacement of people that you cited bears all the marks of what normally occurs under imperialistic dominion, and yet few are willing to call a spade a spade and label Bush for the imperialist that he is. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… well you know the rest.
Unfortunately, a false sense of patriotism has subverted the moral sensibilities of the American citizenry. Bush and all his the machinations that he and his cohorts have been involved in with respect to Iraq and the war on terror depend on the American people’s complicity. The fact that many Americans can’t look at the virtual relegation of an entire people to refugee status as a moral tragedy, speaks very lowly of the American people. Quite frankly, many of them deserve the President they voted for.
2007-02-16 08:21:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lawrence Louis 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
Any communicate of withdrawal, redeployment or a substitute in route is characterised through the neo-cons as "reducing and dealing." This note-play is so disingenuous that it no longer regularly advantages a rebuttal, besides the undeniable fact that the most ideal reaction to the concept a conflict hero like John Kerry or John Murtha needs to "decrease and run" is Murtha's reaction to Cheney: "i love adult men who've not in any respect been there that criticize us who've been there. i love that. i love adult men who were given 5 deferments and not in any respect been there and deliver people to conflict, and then do not prefer to take heed to suggestions about what needs to be done." A phased withdrawal is basically that, a phased withdrawal. And a timetable is basically that, a timetable. utilising politically-charged buzzwords gained't substitute the reality that the present plan of action is untenable. that is the top of folly to proceed on a sad and deadly route basically to keep face. And sufficient has been done to "embolden the enemy" that leaving Iraq would have little effect in that regard. should you imagine continuing with the present coverage in Iraq is a mark of braveness and replacing route the mark of cowardice, they ought to bear in mind that braveness tempered through awareness is noble, braveness in defiance of awareness is foolhardy.
2016-12-04 06:21:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes…The Bush’s plan of Iraqi freedom has been a complete and utter success…..since his illegal invasion…1.8 million Iraqis displaced, 2994 American lives lost since “Mission Accomplished”, and about $10 billion squandered by the U.S. government on Iraq reconstruction with the help of his cronies..halliburton alike..
There are no WMD's in Iraq. Saddam Hussein is dead. Our troops are mired in a deadly, full-blown civil war. The vast majority -- 70% -- of Americans disagree with his Iraqi policies.....and Bush want to escalate our involvement with 21,500 more brave men and women….a brilliant plan indeed.
2007-02-16 04:28:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
How many visas has the United States granted those fleeing Iraq? The answer is 500! Why should the country, which caused all of this chaos, be required to bear the bare minimum when it comes to refugees. One might think, the United States would welcome those seeking freedom and liberty, in the land that started it all; however, we are seeing the countries bordering Iraq taking in the floods of Iraqi refugees. I wonder how much in humanitarian aid we are sending countries feeling the brunt of this exodus, such as Jordan?
2007-02-16 04:09:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Jackson Leslie 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
There is two planes in the works in Iraq:
1. The Plane : Israel Security , Proposed, Planed Tel Aviv and executed by NEOCONS , through "dumbya".
2. Rape the Iraqis resources and destroy Iraq by planting Civil War, again, Proposed, Planned By Zionist Israel and executed by Neocons through Bush with US tax dollars.
Israel made up big time, they didn't lose a single casualty and they spend a dime from their coffers to guaranty the demise of Saddam Hossein and the destruction for many years of Iraq.
2007-02-16 04:16:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by LEE DA 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
That has to be the most illogical thing I will hear all day, unless you post another question of course. Why the hell would George Bush want the Iraqi people to leave their own country? Would it not make more sense for the country to be a stable flourishing Democracy, so that they can produce more oil? You confuse your own arguments.
Please try to be realistic, instead of playing stupid games.
2007-02-16 04:10:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by asmith1022_2006 5
·
1⤊
4⤋
1.) I'd like to see your source. Not that I don't believe you, I'm just curious.
2.) WE ARE NOT THERE FOR OIL. That myth has been busted more times than T.I. at a police lunch-in.
3.) Any strive that doesn't go to peace is the terrorists faults, not our own.
2007-02-16 04:09:24
·
answer #7
·
answered by Mr. Info 3
·
3⤊
5⤋
Yes. George Bush depopulated the entire country just for oil.
He's so brilliant and cunning, he did it right under your nose.
Glad you finally appreciate his genius.
2007-02-16 04:08:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
I'm telling you, Bush doesn't care about people only what's in it for himself.
2007-02-16 04:07:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
The plan all along was....... OIL,OIL,OIL!$$$$$$$$$$$$
2007-02-16 04:07:52
·
answer #10
·
answered by Dane Cruz 5
·
5⤊
2⤋