2007-03-01 13:58:51 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yup... big mess
Saddam (a sunni) was in power even though the majority was shites.
By removing him, trouble comes up.
If you replace him with another dictator, you look bad.
If democratie is set, then the shite will dominate since they have the majority... then Iran has a link and his happy.
But al quada is even more angry since they are sunny.
Double the reason to make sure this plan doesn't work so that at best, a sunni could go back as a dictator...
I guess Bush didn't ask for experts in middle east to tell him what could happen... (when considering al quaeda in that included)
2007-03-01 14:06:36 · answer #1 · answered by Phil C 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He's not, in fact despite wasting billions in Iraq, were no safer here than on 9/10. Remember, Bush knew nothing about the history between the factions fighting for power right now in Iraq. The fact that the country is in total chaos is proof of that. That's not a great way to prepare for a war is it? And what about the Taliban? Oh yeah, we had them defeated and Bush dropped the ball. And now there are as strong as ever. So exactly what have over 3,000 brave soldiers died for? Bush's incompetence, that's what.
2007-03-01 22:17:49 · answer #2 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it isnt just random fights with Iraqis for no cause. Soldiers also help build schools, police stations, aid farmers, and various other tasks and then they protect those improvements from those who want to destroy it for misguided reasons.
Also, most of the fighting is not with Iraqis. Most of the fighting is with Syrians, Pakistanis, Jordanians, etc. who enter Iraq in hopes of keeping the region unstable so they can continue to exert control over corrupt governments.
2007-03-01 22:07:27 · answer #3 · answered by Vettepilot 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush & co. have the view that fighting Iraq is "fighting the war on terrorism." Hence, responding to the attack of a bunch of fanatical Saudis by attacking Iraq. I think a lot of people were for the war because they were frightened after 9-11... so Bush and his crew used that to galvanize the American public to support an attack on Iraq. Now, most people - in the advent of there being no WMDs and Iraq falling into civil war - are willing to admit the invasion was a mistake.
2007-03-01 22:04:33 · answer #4 · answered by Havick 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe America is any safer now than before from killing Iraqis. Taliban or AlQaeda, yes, not Iraqis. Bushco wants people to think they are all the same but that is not true.
2007-03-01 22:06:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Bush is fighting for the Iraqis to give them a chance for choices in their lives and to establish a democratic model for the Middle East. We are not creating more enemies; that is a Democrat spin. Members of radical Islam hate the U.S. and have always hated the U.S. They want world control and with the weenies in charge in so many countries and democrats undermining us throughout the world, they may succeed
2007-03-01 22:05:39 · answer #6 · answered by curious K 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The short of it is if left to their own devices Iraq and other rouge terrorist supporting nations have a undisclosed amount of money available to support terrorist activities. 72 percent of Iraq's GNP is oil and the revenues generated by it will support terrorist for hundreds of years. By not allowing countries to run roughshod over the rest of the world simply because it has money has to be controlled. What better way than eliminating its money source? It sounds simple but that is the only way we will ever stop terrorists sanctions do not work.
2007-03-01 22:13:59 · answer #7 · answered by Sronce 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Those enemies were always there it's just that the war doesn't suit their needs at this time. The world is safer without Sadaam Hussein. Period.
2007-03-01 22:02:04 · answer #8 · answered by luna 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
First of all, it's President Bush, not just Bush. You will show respect to your President, if you voted for him or not.
Either we fight and kill the terrorists in the deserts of Iraq and the Middle East, or we fight and kill them on our own shores and in our our backyards. I don't know about you, but I don't much like the idea of having to pick up a weapon and fight the enemy on my own land. I'd much rather spill their blood as far from home as possible.
2007-03-01 22:03:20 · answer #9 · answered by Teufelhund 1 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bullsnot. It's not the Iraqis that we're fighting. Syrians and Iranians who are in Iraq, but not Iraqis.
2007-03-01 22:02:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋