English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

im just curious what everyones opinion is on both subjects i honestly think theres war because of silly arguments between countries people etc that get out of hand and escellate into big fights or at least thats how it was in the 1800s and i dont really care for bush

2007-03-01 18:39:23 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

10 answers

There is war because man has an inherent mistrust for one another. If there are no disagreements, we find something else to fight wars over. He and Cheney picked the wrong fight, for the wrong reasons. They should have concentrated all the troops on the Afghan-Pakistani border to catch Bin Laden. That's where the source of all the problems began and will continue to come from. Iraq should have never of been a part of the equation. Saddam was a buffer against Iran because of their intense hatred for one another.

2007-03-01 20:32:18 · answer #1 · answered by gone 6 · 0 0

I answer the last question first. They couldn't find a tree or flower to run for President. The first is a no brainer. They bring two towers down, somebody has to pay. The payee has yet to pay. We don't care about Afghanistan, never have, Alexander 2300 years ago didn't care. We don't care about Iraq, it was just harder than we thought. Obviously, Saddam had good reason to do what he did. The Shiites and Sunni are crazy, and need to be kept under control. We hung him because, well, we wanted to. Pakistan was told at the start to shut up or we'll turn them back to the stone age. We shortly will have three carrier groups in the Indian Ocean. Take a map out and see who is surrounded with no help in sight. Iran. That is who we set our sights on in 2003, it just took longer than we thought. But revenge is a dish best served up cold. That is why the young generation in Iran is saying Whoa! The head Imam is not speaking to the President of Iran. They see what's coming. Dismantle the nuclear program or we get to use some new technology. And you thought the 21,500 extra troops were for Baghdad didn't you? Nope, the boys will be ready if we have to go in. Most likely won't be necessary. But Iran was the target all along.

2007-03-01 19:44:04 · answer #2 · answered by khogantwo 1 · 0 1

Some wars are necessary some are not. Can you imagine what would have happened if no one had stood up to Hitler. On the other hand, if we had not invaded Iraq everyone would have been better off (for those who say the Iraqis are better off now tell that to a woman who's been widowed by the daily violence).

The real tragedy I see with the Bush administration is that the unnecessary war has impeded the necessary war. We didn't catch Bin Laden because we were mobilizing our resources for a war in Iraq. It took the U.S. military 3 months to reach the area of Afghanistan we thought Bin Laden was in. This is probably because we only sent 11,000 troops as opposed to over 100,000 troops we used to invade Iraq. I know the job of invading Afghanistan was much easier then invading Iraq and thus required less manpower, but the bottom line is that Osama Bin Laden should have been first priority. He attacked us Saddam Hussein did not.

2007-03-01 19:15:55 · answer #3 · answered by SlowDownGhandi 2 · 1 1

As a Desert Storm Marine Vet I can say our war was not about some noble cause. It was to give a little rich country its right to slant drill oil across the border to Iraq back. Vietnam Vets are always looking for a "right" war to justify their own. It was the biggest blunder of and excuse to use the Military since the Indian wars of our country.

We went to Iraq because of the Bush's both times. Young bush "invaded" Iraq because of their attempt to assassinate his father and the neo-con Jewish parts of his administration who were looking to take out the bad guy in the region. (scuds shot at Israel, payments of money to Palestinian suicide bombers families) We needed a 3 legged dog to kick after 9/11 because the Taliban ran to Pakistan and we were not allowed to cross the border to get him.

Bottom line, you can't have a legitimate President when he never truly won either of the elections. He is a criminal and a FARCE as an American, we need to take this country back from the Crazies!

2007-03-01 20:43:08 · answer #4 · answered by SgtW 2 · 0 0

You stated " We went from having between the considerable hated person men indoors the worldwide as our President to between the considerable enjoyed guy indoors the worldwide." have you ever now not watched what has been happening with North Korea,and Iran? keep in mind Obama's election pledge of i'm going to fulfill with those leaders ,and function extra advantageous constructive kin with them. North Korea has carried out extra advantageous missile exams for the size of Obama's so some distance jiffy in determination to paintings then they did for the carried out 8 years of Bush. and that i propose you carry out particularly extra advantageous learn into your TARP funds actuality. Obama has given a lot extra advantageous TARP funds then Bush would have dreamed approximately. grant up observing MSNBC, the 1st powerful hearth attempt of the financial gadget may well be after the 1st of the three hundred and sixty 5 days collectively as the holiday paying for season is over then we are in a position to understand if it particularly is larger constructive or worse. appropriate now many retail shops are suggestions-blowing on by way of their enamel hoping to have a great Christmas rush. in the event that they do...matters will turn around...if now not the financial gadget will crash lower back.

2016-12-18 03:58:04 · answer #5 · answered by binford 4 · 0 0

History will prove Bush to be one of the best presidents we ever had.

War? I am a Viet Nam Vet and hate war, but war is sometimes inevitable, even necessary.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, it was necessary. We didn't stick our "brown noses" into this, we were begged to come in.

Saddam killing and torturing 100,000's of his own people, that requires war since he and his evil sons wouldn't stop own their own.

War because of silly arguments? You need to learn history.
Hitler tried to conquer the world. Was that a silly little argument?

2007-03-01 19:13:59 · answer #6 · answered by Kye H 4 · 1 1

This war was founded on lies, and has been fueled by lies compounded with fear.
Bush has dragged us into the mud, has blown all kinds of holes in our economy, and has squandered the good will of foreign nations towards the US.
George W. Bush will go down in history as being the worst American president ever.

2007-03-01 19:29:56 · answer #7 · answered by pasdeberet 4 · 0 1

very few people in the world do like bush...but after 911 he had a 90% approval rating...the world always had wars of some kind and they world will always have wars..that is just a fact..
bush will be judged by history...just like honest abe and jfk etc etc..the victors write the history books and 90% of history is bunk too

2007-03-01 18:47:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I think there is war, referring to Iraq, because they were fighting someone else and the Americans had to put their big, brown noses into other people's business. But if you mean in general, then yes, I do believe you are right. For Bush, he's just an idiot. I would say more, but it is not necessary.

2007-03-01 18:47:32 · answer #9 · answered by William B. 2 · 0 3

let us see...oil in mideast
enron oil company pipeline in afghanistan
halliburton gets unlimited free oil in iraq

bush - hunt oil (bin laden family - hunt oil)
cheney - hunt oil, ceo of halliburton oil
condi rice - board of directors chevron oil
alblerton gonzoles - houston lawyer for enron oil

any questions?

2007-03-01 19:41:16 · answer #10 · answered by applejax 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers