Do you agree with my opinion on how Bush screwed up with the Iraq war?

Question

In America, there are people of different religions and different political views, however deep inside their heart they are all Americans, like "brothers", so if one of them gets attacked everyone unites to try and defeat the attacking enemy.

The same thing is happening in Iraq. Although Iraq is a separate country, all middle-eastern countries including itself are predominantly “Muslim States”. So, though there might be small trifles or civil wars between these countries, they all have a feeling of Muslim brotherhood - so if one country is being attacked by a foreign power (America in this case), then all these countries forget their small trifles and differences & unite together to fightback and defeat the American troops.

This is where Bush screwed up badly - in his desire to get oil, he overlooked the basic fact that though Iraq is an independent country, it is still a "Muslim state" like several other Middle Eastern countries (particularly Iran). So, while Bush envisioned defeating the Iraqi resistance (meanwhile projecting to innocent Americans that he’s trying to bring Iraqis freedom from terrorism and a tyrant Saddam Hussain) and securing oil bases within a period of 2 years, he failed to notice that the resistance which the American troops will be facing is not merely from Iraqis, but from it’s Muslim neighbors as well. Now Bush has realized his mistake and has called for extra troops, more resources & plans for bombing Iran (this time under the pretext that Iran is manufacturing nuclear weapons & their leader Ahmedinejad is yet another tyrant).

Don’t you agree with me?

Answer 1

No way do I agree with you

Answer 2

I agree that the so called war in Iraq was a mistake but for very different reasons. Oil is not the primary reason. Israel is the primary reason. The secondary is probably that Bush is an idiot basically he is really not a very smart person. You need to read between the lines, and look at what your saying did Bush screw up, yes not hard to see that. As for Iran he has run out of time, and so has the United States. We simply do not have the resources to conduct another conflict. If this rout were to be followed it could be catastrophic for the United States. In his last year he really should be playing the part of peace maker with all the Muslim countries, and bringing the brotherhood closer together. The people of these countries need to know we are not a nation of war mongers. We are a peaceful people much the same as they are. What you really need to worry about if your an American is the next Usama Bin Laden that will come from the wood work of Iraq or Afghanistan. The conflict in Afghanistan with the former Soviet Union created a monster there, and we helped facilitate this freak of nature. Just think what will come from this current conflict. A monster you will not believe. Maybe the devil himself. No, really I don't want to feed your fear or scare you but we do live in the age of Bush, and the Reborn Christian so be afraid be very afraid.

Answer 3

Well I somewhat agree, in part. However, this war is not now, nor ever has been about oil. We have plenty and there are new technologies by many oil companies here that are using steam pressure and getting oil from wells that were not producing as much. The wells are now in production once again. And, the president has met with entrapaneurs that are putting new cars into production from the prototypes, that are going to run on the same type of battery used for computers, but high tech to give 140 hours of running time, then at home can be plugged into house current for recharge the next day.

Next, the White House has stated that this administration has absolutely NO PLANS to go into Iran. In fact, they have in fact, been attacking the media who meet at the White House for press briefings, with Tony Snow, because those members of the press keeps listening to 'other media' insisting that we're going to Iran and putting words in the mouth of the President that are totally untrue. They work under assumptions from political analysist who should not be trying to second guess facts. The fact IS, we do NOT have the military sources for this, and the surge is for Baghdad and Afganistan ONLY.

Next, the leaders of Iran will be meeting this week with Iraq and one other country for those talks. The invitation was from Malicki and did NOT include the United States. Tony Snow said that Rice would go IF invited, but that has not happened yet. The President was glad that Iraq leaders have decided to have this conference because it's proving to the U.S. that they are trying really hard to meet all the benchmarks given by this administration and congress.

It is not 'just small triffels' that are the barriers, but the fact that the religions clash and each of them wants to be the dominating factor, which in turn affects the people, taking away any chance to a true democracy.

There WILL NOT BE ANY BOMBING IN IRAN. I don't know where you people keep getting your information, but it is NOT true....NOT TRUE. So I don't understand 'why' people just don't stop speculating about it. Try going on to the White House web site and listening to the press briefings instead of to the media. You'll understand what I'm talking about. 'REPORTS OF' and things from 'annonymous (sp) sources' are NOT reliable, which is what the White House has been trying to get across to the press. These people over there just happen to hear 'bits and pieces' of something the military may say, then they begin to 'speculate.' This is why there is so much misinformation circulating in this country.

Besides, I have family in Iraq as well, and they even said that the U.S. has no intentions of going to Iran...and this war is NOT about oil.

Answer 4

I mostly agree w/you. but where we went wrong was by invading too many muslim countries to quickly. If in afghanistan we'd have just defeated the taliban and left I think things would've been alot better. But Pres Bush expanded the war on terror and went into Iraq and now there's trouble w/Iran. I don't blame them for hating us like they do..I don't agree or support what they do but I can understand how hatred directed against us happens. And if a foreign power ever invaded the U.S. I'd do anything I could to stop them. They're pretty much protecting themselves against a invader. Just like here there are good and bad people. My biggest worry is Iran possibly persuading other muslim nations to cut off the oil. Then all hell will break loose.

Answer 5

You are basing this on the assumption that the war was about oil. This ravenously popular idea, while certainly plausible, is rarely made into a compelling argument by most of the people who believe it to be true. Also, you, and most other people, refuse to entertain any other possible reasons for the war, usually claiming that the oil reason is self evident. The current conflict is far more complex than the "Bush wants oil and oil = bad" concept. Like I said, one can certainly make a very compelling argument linking the global oil market to the current war in Iraq, but I see no attempt to grasp the larger picture in your argument. Instead, it looks like you copied and pasted this popular idea that everyone feels so self-righteous about proclaiming.

So, to sum it up, I vehemently disagree with you and wish more people of the world would apply a more creative thought process to politics instead of just following the band wagon wherever it goes.

Furthermore, I would hardly call the Iran-Iraq war which lasted from 1980-1988 a "small trifle". I could get into the serious ethnic and religious divisions that spark violence in the Middle East, but I think that would probibly be better used to answer a different question.

Answer 6

No.

The war wasn't for oil. If it were, gas wouldn't be topping $3 a gallon like it is.

Your assessment of it being a Muslim state isn't quite right. There are muslim factions there, for sure. Iran is supporting the Shi'a. Iran is predominantly Shi'a.

Saddam was a Sunni. The Saudis are also Sunni, as are the Syrians.

Note that Iraq was a 'created' country, thanks to the British. They ignored the sectarian divisions and created Iraq.

At one time, in the late 1970s, Iraq actually considered a merger with Syria. Saddam squelched that because it would have meant a diminished role for him and then he became leader.

The screw up came when we failed to properly guage the degree of sectarian violence and insurgency that came out of overthrowing a secular, yet highly oppressive regime.

You'd think they'd be thankful, but they have a different worldview than we do.

Answer 7

Okay, for the most part Muslims only care about being Muslim and cannot be compared the differing religions in western countries. You can't refer to their civil wars as "little". Use Iraq as a sample. Saddam killed thousands of Kurds for just being Kurds. The Shiites and the Sunnis are constantly at battle with each other, regardless of what else is happening. Aside from Northern Ireland, differing sects of one western religion are not bombing each other. Yes, there have instances of church burnings or similar here but we experience nothing like they do Iraq.

Where President Bush was mistaken was that he took the Iraqi people to be people who once freed of a dictatorship would be able to function on their own. He believed that they were brave enough people to learn to defend their own free state and believed them to be a people who could exist amongst all with differing beliefs.

That was his mistake because as far as I have ever seen a Muslim cannot think beyond what is told to them within the Koran.

Answer 8

I disagree.

First of all, the main problem is we eradicated Iraq's administrative infrastructure because we did not want Saddam's henchmen in power. But Saddam was the strongman that held everything together. Hence Iraq became lawless.

The problem with the "light footprint" plan that we used (as opposed to the overwhelming force) we were supposed to keep that infrastucture but just replace the strong man tyrant with a self-governing democracy. It actually WAS a good plan- it just wasn't implimented well.

Instead everyone and their grandma's son is trying to grab their peace of the power pie in Iraq- they're not as unified as you think. And we're only still involved because if we leave now they'll all kill each other 10x more than they are already.

Answer 9

Who attacked Vietnam First? Why do no longer the excellent Powers that choose for to coach the full worldwide a lesson study from their own bungles of the previous.? each amazing Goliath thinks he can browbeat something of the worldwide. alongside comes a sprint brat referred to as David and that they stay ever after in peace!this is that this brash conceitedness of ability that invites pointless calamities like the 9/11 wherein harmless people pay for the savagery of a few , provoked by ability of comparable savagery paraded by ability of States as Patriotism.Savagery of anykind is merely that and can't be embellished as morality or patriotism. The Mahabharata conflict and later the Kalinga conflict proved the comparable.

Answer 10

In some ways I agree with you, in others, I don't. I feel that we are currently policing a civil war between the Sunni and Shia. Those two groups have had bad blood for centuries....basically over different interepretations of the Koran. Sadaam was actually a stabilizing factor in the middle east, despite Bush's rhetoric. He ran a more secular form of government when compared to other leaders in the area, and really the war is being fought against religious extremists. Sure his lust for oil is a big factor in why we went in, also I think a little revenge for Daddy's sake...but the reason why we can't seem to leave is because of the constant in-fighting between "Muslim brothers". This kind of muslim brotherhood is displayed all over the world, take the genocide in Darfur for example...

Well, that's how I see it anyways. Good question and I applaud you for thinking outside the box! :o)


EDIT: Moltar, oil may be $3/gal, but keep in mind that Exxon and other oil companies have been breaking their previous profit margin records every quarter...coincidence, I think not.

Answer 11

They are very tribal. When you have tribal individuals it is easy for an outside instigator to needle both sides into civil war.

Even in the movie Lawrence of Arabia that part of their culture was shown.

When Yugoslavia broke up after a Strong dictator died their tribal attitudes came out.

For the Iraqi people to be better off than when we deposed Saddam, They must drop the old hurts & move on. They must choose to create wealth for themselves & have a vested interest in THEIR country.

If the 1st world capture ALL the fossil fuels they'd still have to share. Both to make & consume our product requires energy. Most of the 1st worlds products are aimed at the higher levels of Maslow's of needs. For a country to prosper they need other to consume their ptoducts.