Even our most steadfast ally, the Brits, are pulling out of Iraq. Mission accomplished, George. Sadaam's gone. Congratulations. Bring the troops home.
(Could it be the oil...?)
2007-02-23 08:10:50 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
What about the $9,000,000,000,000 DEBT we're facing? How much more can we spend on Iraq? We were in Vietnam 11 years before we finally got the hint. Eleven years in Iraq will completely bankrupt this country.
2007-02-23 08:25:16 · update #1
I am still trying to figure out exactly why we went there when the terrorists in Afghanistan slammed into our world trade center. I wish I can get an answer to that.
Halliburton (Cheney's company) is making an obscene amount of money from this war so.. I don't know, I don't want to point fingers, I am just completely confused and something just does not sound right. But maybe that's part of the plan to completely confuse and polarize all of us so that they can do whatever they want to right underneath our noses because we are too busy warring with each other about who's right, cons or libs.. Maybe one day we will know REALLY why we went and why we stayed so long and who exactly benefitted from all those American deaths over there. .
2007-02-23 08:22:36 · answer #1 · answered by babygyrl_nyc 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Alas, I think it is the "spotlight" syndrome!
By creating a major issue, like the Iraq war, Bush takes the spotlight off of himself and the homefront and puts it elsewhere. Clinton did not do this and the spotlight became him. Bush sees that his Father had a war and that it was at this time that his Father enjoyed his greatest popularity with the voters.
I do not believe that George W is intelligent enough to create his own path to popularity... he is simply trying to use a proven strategy (he thinks). Of course, his Father's success in Iraq and "W's" level of success in Iraq are two vastly different sets of results.
Also, I am not sure if Bush can bring their troops home right now... they seem to have created an immense mess over there... they can't just leave, or it will cause even more ill-will from other countries - superpowers must not recklessly throw their weight around and then let others clean up after them. The U.N. seems to be much needed to this end.
You know, this is a question that has an answer that lies somewhere in the middle of so many things... oil, American politics, ego of a man who is infatuated with his own power, America's creation of Saddam and then their hanging of him, international dislike of the country with the most power, the creation of a war-time economy, and even an attempted demonstration to the rest of the world of the US military strength.
All of these issues would be faced by any President, but W's key challenge seems to be a desire to keep the spotlight off of himself, for fear of a "Clinton-presidency". Of course, with the war going the way it has, the spotlight is now shifting to the commander in chief, any way!
2007-02-23 16:31:59 · answer #2 · answered by RussTik 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Do you even remotely have an idea of what is going on? If we left Iraq now there would be civil war and power struggles and another Saddam like person would be in power and we would be back to square one. Don't you realize that we cannot half *** these things!? Do you know any soldiers? If so see what they say about leaving Iraq right now. I am going to go out on a limb and say that you are likely a liberal, do you feel strongly about environmental issues? Remember the oil well fires? genocide? This is not America it is Iraq things don't work there like they do here. And as far as your oil comment does your car run on fairy dust, cause mine uses GAS!
a
2007-02-23 16:22:05 · answer #3 · answered by curious caucasian 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is why nobody takes you people seriously. The Brits are NOT pulling out of Iraq. If you had a brain, instead of a propaganda sponge, you would have actually listened to what Blair said.
The TRUTH is that 1/4 of their troops will leave by the end of the year. That's it, and the ones leaving are support troops, not combat troops. They will still have about 5,500 troops in country, which is down from the 14,000 that were there for the original invasion. Furthermore, they can reduce troops because there is virtually no violence in the south of Iraq where the Brits are. They can afford to reduce troops because we are winning, not loosing.
The truth shall set you free. But only if you can get over your blind irrational hatred and accept it.
2007-02-23 16:20:59 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is NOT OIL and has never been. Less than 2% of our oil is derived from there. Our mission is not accomplished as we can not abandon the Iraqis in a time of crisis. It is YOU and the LIBERALS that just don't get it.
Victory has NOT been achieved and leaving is surrender.
2007-02-23 16:24:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Brits pulled out of another war after Yorktown. So should we emulate the lack of resolve of others?
2007-02-23 16:22:23 · answer #6 · answered by Bombadil 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The reason bush is still in iraq is that we're killing terrorists that won't be coming back to kill us later with nuclear weapons. People say that we've killed 90,000 terrorists/insurgents. We have only lost 3,000! We had over 10,000 casulaties on D-Day when we invaded France!
2007-02-23 19:47:31 · answer #7 · answered by A question or two... 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush is working hard on his Legacy - so that when he is buried people will not come from all around the country just to defecate or urinate on his grave!!!!!!
2007-02-23 16:34:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
He's arrogant, distant, doesn't care about anything but his rich oil friends. It's oil.
2007-02-23 16:34:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Did either one of you read your history books? Was Germany "fine" once Hitler was done? No, it took years of re-building for them to be on their feet again. Same will go to Iraq.
2007-02-23 16:17:32 · answer #10 · answered by niker_bokers16 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋