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

If we forget the lies and red herrings thrown about.
The first Bush didn't remove Saddam because he knew the void was dangerous.
The second Bush removed Saddam because he knew the void was dangerous.
Some countries might say that the fighting between Muslims, the destroying of the Iraq infrastructure, world wide distrust of every Muslim means success

2007-03-25 07:45:25 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

But the point is have we been conned, should we really believe they are that incompetent.
Was the outcome the way they wanted it to be...

2007-03-25 11:57:12 · update #1

10 answers

Nope its a total failure ! bush has shifted from plan to plan without thinking enough ! the latest "new way forward" is an awkward ,half hearted attempt , by intruduvcing 21,500 more US troops, and i know that would also come to a failure !! The thing is that Bush could not do anything there as what he has claimed once and now these are lies over lies..and these days he hardly mention word"victory" in his speaches.because i think he is running short of excuses now !!

2007-03-25 08:46:40 · answer #1 · answered by ★Roshni★ 6 · 0 0

The short answer is NO! Both GW and Tony planned to use the invasion of Iraq for political and economical purposes. At no stage was Iraq or Sadaam a threat to the security of either country. Successive years have shown that the reason for the initial strike was nothing more than a series of lies and less than truthful intelligence on both sides of the Atlantic. But in common with most other decisions made by this pair their judgment was faulty, if not downright ignorant. Iraq was the only politically stable country in the middle East. It kept Iran from growing too big for their boots, it was an enemy of Al Qaeda . He should have been used by the West to further peace in that area. He (Sadaam) was a despot a Tyrant, a Murderer etc but he could have been moved in a different direction with positive persuasion. The end result would be a stable middle east, with less terrorism world wide.

2007-03-25 15:04:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I don't think any of us really can think for ourselves. This isn't being said in a negative light either. It's just if someone gave you a summary of this war, ALL the facts (many of us should not even be commenting, for we know nothing of the war, as a whole. We just see what's on TV, really.) and set out the pro and cons, and the ramifications of pulling out or anything of the sort, we could make a judgment. But it isn't like that, unfortunately. I think everyone should stop undermining this war, especially by posting many false things on a widely accessed website like this.

I get it, you have the bumper stickers, therefore you're knowledgeable. I get it, you didn't vote for bush.

Many people protested WWII, in the same way people are protesting today. But we can all look back and confidently conclude that getting into WWII was the best choice. We helped a whole people. We now have years under our belt when concluding that. Perhaps this war is/ will be the same ?

2007-03-25 15:19:26 · answer #3 · answered by the.epictetus 1 · 0 0

Sadaam was not a good person but posed no real threat to the US. Taking Sadaam out was easy due to the superiority of our military. There were no plans as to what to do after he was out of power and the results were predicted by many people including Bush's father. Sadaam's presence was able to maintain some stability in the middle east even though his methods were brutal. The factions in Iraq have been waring with each other for thousands of years and it is doubtful that it will be resolved any time soon. We cannot impose a democracy on a people unless that is what they want for themselves.

2007-03-25 14:59:04 · answer #4 · answered by Jerry D 2 · 0 0

Sr Bush didn't remove him because he was not permitted to under the Law. The law was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, only.
The Iraq infrastructure is actually better than it was pre-war.
Read some of the success stories....Yes we are Succeeding

2007-03-25 14:52:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

these extremests have always been around they nearly took iraq after the u.s. withdrew from the gulf war. the gulf war was a half succes we didnt take out saddam because of politions...there always causing problems in war....
was iraqi freedom a succes YES because evil saddam is no longer in power murdering his people by the thousands.

2007-03-25 16:38:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It is great you mentioned this point.
I am Arabian, and a Muslim too, but forget it. You think about it, logically, as a human being. Do you think it is fair and justified?
I mean, sure he was a dictator who tyranized over his own people. But do these people deserve this whole thing? Their land being seized gradually only because of their leader?

2007-03-25 14:55:58 · answer #7 · answered by sonbola 2 · 0 0

sure has brought out alot of extremists into the open !! also has shown cair to be supportive of terrorism too !!

2007-03-25 14:50:21 · answer #8 · answered by fivefootnuttinhuny 3 · 0 0

Time will tell.

2007-03-25 15:09:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bush is EVIL.... and no we are losing.

2007-03-25 15:10:38 · answer #10 · answered by masterplumber75 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers