2007-02-20 18:01:33 · 17 answers · asked by Mike_Hustle 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I mean. Cant they give him something other than WMDs ?? Isnt it a bit lame ??
2007-02-20 18:07:48 · update #1
Thanks Jace. Thats what Im looking for.
2007-02-20 18:10:52 · update #2
you dont even know why we went to war do you?
we were planning it since before 1998...
the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was written by Clinton in 1998 ...
piles and piles of inspection reports, observation reports, expert analysis, investigation reports, and Iraqi import records spanning over 13 years (1990-2003) detailing hundreds of different unlawful + suspiscious "weaponry advances" ARE the reasons we went to war with Saddam.
agree with the reports or disagree, thats what people who were actually there.. first hand.. reported.. and thats why Bush went to war with Iraq.
Iraq Study Group Summary :
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/isg-Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Iraq Study Group : Volume 1
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/ISG-Iraqs_WMD_Vol1small.pdf
key chapters :
- Key Findings pg.4
- procurement suppliers in the transition and miscalculation phases, 1998 to 2003 pg.116
- Deceptive Trade Practices Supporting Illicit Procurement pg.133
- The procurement of Conventional military goods in breach of UN sanctions pg.267
2007-02-20 18:39:19 · answer #1 · answered by Corey 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Thanks Jace. Unfortunately the thick-headed won't read your answer. They prefer to blame Bush.
They are tired of the war. We, Americans, have a short attention span. The battle in Iraq could have been over long ago if we had continued to pull together as we did in the beginning. It would have sent the message that we are not going to take any crap. The outside trouble makers in Iraq would not have come. And we could have allowed Iraq to go it alone once they had an organized government.
America's congress and civilians are more to blame than anyone for what is happening in Iraq today.
2007-02-20 18:47:50 · answer #2 · answered by howdigethere 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no individual ever stated that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. besides the undeniable fact that, Bush might want to link both at the same time in his speeches, saying "9/11" round a similar time he might want to communicate about "Iraq". that is an merchandising gimmick. yet Bush isn't the first individual who considered invading Iraq. in case you bypass back a pair extra years, John Kerry replaced into pushing to invade Iraq, yet then-President Clinton did not opt for to bypass to conflict. that is the deal. Al-Qaida's greatest grievance replaced into that the U. S. had air bases in Saudi Arabia, their "holy land". Iraq replaced into no longer considered really Muslim to the different, extra strict Arab international places, and so the gamble replaced into that no you'll care over there if we invaded it and equipped our air bases there somewhat. And so we did. At way too extreme a fee, IMO, and that i do not advise money.
2016-10-17 08:21:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bad advice is bad advice, if that is what you are getting at. If you want to say--if you did say, before the war--that it was a bad idea, that it would be a quagmire, that the President and his generals were a walking collection of cluster-flops, well, you'd have been proven right. Who knew?
But I am tired of hearing ignorant people calling this an "illegal" war. Bad idea? Looks like it--certainly the execution has been lame. Illegal? Not even close. Saddam Husein broke practically every term of the cease-fire which brought the 1992 Gulf war to intermission. That meant we had the right (some felt, the duty) to oust him. And we did. Perfectly legal.
In retrospect, it seems it might have been better to have sent an assassination squad of Army Rangers and Navy Seals in to do the job. It would have been much cleaner. Saddam was hanged a few months ago, right? But because of an ill-thought-out executive order from Pres. Gerald Ford, that would have been illegal; though no one explains why Pres. Bush could not have rescinded that (he could have). This is interesting because of the tragic irony. We were barred from going in cleanly and killing him; yet it was okay to use tons of bombs and kill tens of thousands of Iraqis so that we could capture and then hang him. Incredible. So much for our think tanks.
2007-02-20 18:25:53 · answer #4 · answered by rayhanks2260 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It worked quite well don't you think? We were all still in shock over 9/11 and were easily played with that story as the tanks rolled into Iraq. Most Americans cheered that we were getting revenge and weren't paying attention enough to realize they were going in to the wrong country! Now that Bush wants to hit Iran next, he is trotting out the same lame line and applying it there, and believe it or not, it seems to be working again! Maybe this excuse did come out of a think tank that knew Americans only too well.
2007-02-20 18:08:26 · answer #5 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Excellent point; yet to answer your question; just think about his comments last week from the White House: "Sometimes profit tromps peace". This war has been nothing more than a cash cow for hand picked corporations. For every one dollar these corporations invest over in Iraq; the bring in at least $106.00.
2007-02-20 18:31:51 · answer #6 · answered by Swordfish 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
His think tanks are filled up with 30 weight motor oil. (just like his brain) Bush is a creep with no honor that will lie through his teeth to invade a gradeschool just so he can steel a can of 3 in 1 oil from the janitor. I don't see how his wife Laura can even support him. Unless Bush is threatening her to stay with him.
2007-02-20 18:29:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
hey jace, I'm still waiting for the part where Bush says that "Americans good news, we have found WMDs in Iraq"
2007-02-20 18:22:39 · answer #8 · answered by PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL TEEN! 4 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush has LOTS of "think tanks" behind him. But, he can be as "lame" as he wants to because the average U.S. citizen is that "lame" and lacking in critical-thinking skills. For real. Haven't you seen the debates here about . . .duh . . ."You, Libtard! Yes he CAN run for President again. He can run for President as much as he wants to. You, Democrap." LOL
2007-02-20 18:10:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Who put Saddam in power? BUSH senior! who gave him money, weapons and training ? WE DID!! Who put Osama in power? Bush senior! Who gave him money and weapons and training? WE DID. We set both of these leaders up to advance our agenda (to fight USSR during cold war). If your pet dog bits you what do you do? Put it down!! I'm not saying it's right, It's just the facts.
2007-02-21 02:20:03 · answer #10 · answered by noname 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋