Can we all agree that Bush created the problem in Iraq, even if we disagree on how to solve it?

Question

That country was ran by a dictator, but it was stable. Bush said they had weapons of mass destruction, and that we would be welcome as liberators. Well, neither panned out. Now it seems that he has created an environment for terrorism. Al Queda has apparently moved in. That country could be overtaken by terrorists if we leave.
Putting aside for now, whether we should continue the occupation or not, do you agree that Bush created this problem ? Don't try to rationalize it by saying that Saddam was a tyrant that needed to go. There have been many countries that we could have invaded to get rid of leaders like him. But we didn't. We didn't want to bother. Did we bother in Iraq for the wrong reasons ? Is it Bush's fault ? Or does he actually have a good excuse ?

ken, are you in a psychiatric hospital ? I really don't think mental patients should have access to the Internet.

Answer 1

Giving the Bush league credit for creating the Iraq problem is a bit generous. That situation has been brewing for nearly a century, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. A lot of players share the blame, from the men who wrote the treaty of Versailles to the Busher's own father, who organized arms shipments to Hussein when he was fighting Iran, finally had to wage a war against him and then let him retain power once the fighting was done.

All George the Second has done is destroy the Iraqi infrastructure and occupy some strongpoints while the survivors fight over the postwar spoils. Like would be statesmen throughout history, he was fighting the last war instead of the next.

The pattern he is applying to reconstruction worked in Germany after World War Two, but the defeated populations were culturally so different that the methods cannot be expected to work. The Germans were grateful for the Marshall plan, and for liberation from the Nazis. They further recognized that they had a burden of guilt to work off.

The Iraqis have no recognition of wrong behaviour, nor do they have a tradition of ethnic unity. The Germans were long over the Reformation and its Thirty Years War and Bismarck and his wars of unification. The Iraqis have at least a three way ethnoreligious divide unsettled that prevents their working together for anything.

George W. Bush and his advisors were simply too stupid to see these differences, and adapt their approach. That is probably because they were looking for a diversion to keep the press away from their domestic ineptitude, and if so, it worked.

Have they exacerbated the problem beyond resolution? Yes! Were they responsible for the problem in the first place? No! George should be compared to a child who pokes a stick into a wasp's nest: he didn't make the nest, but his brilliant use of it got the predictable result.

He has another eighteen months to solve it. That scares the excrement out of me.

Answer 2

It wasn't Bush's fault. It might have been his idea to go in, and overall the decision does sit with him, but Congress had to approve, so they can have fingers pointed at them as well. Saddam did deserve to he gone, and he DID cause the problems over there, if he didn't, don't you think he would still be alive?
As far as a problem over in Iraq, first of all, have you been there? I have seen Iraqi people and they are much happier without Saddam in power.
Before you say it, I know there are American's being killed there, but you know what, there are American's dying all over the place, and is that Bush's fault?
As far as the terrorists taking over if we left, that is possible, however, I think the Iraqi people would stand up and fight, if given the chance to fight, and if given the weapons to fight off the terrorists. The Iraqi people only know one thing, kill or be killed. They are trying to change that, and some have, however, its the extremists who are fearing the change. Its a third world country, and its like that for a reason, they are still living the same way since BC. Other countries have evolved into something different. Its going to take time for them to evolve, so we may have to stay there for a while.
Instead of sitting here and complaining about what is going on over there, you can run for office, or vote. The thing is, no matter who was elected, the Iraq war still would have happened, just because Saddam wasn't being a good boy. If he would have let the UN inspectors in and make the UN happy, then he might still be alive today.

Answer 3

'Bush said they had weapons of mass destruction.' This is false. Every intelligence agency in the world made this statement along with Clinton, Kerry, and many other Democrats. Not to mention the UN. So maybe you have other information that proves definitively there were no weapons but don't want to share it with us.
'that we would be welcome as liberators' and who said we weren't.
'Al Queda has apparently moved in' they existed inside Iraq prior to our ever going to war. Check you facts. Also Saddam had ties to Al Queda per the Senate Intelligence Report. And Saddam was paying $20000 per suicide bomber.

So one can conclude it is not Bush's fault. He did not create the situation in Iraq. This was done by Saddam himself. We can agree that you have no clue because
1) you have only offered unsubstantiated opinion
2) you want to use hindsight as justification for decisions made prior.
3) You have not read the Senate Intelligence Report
4) You are stating points that have been made by many others and are not you thoughts.

So one can conclude that this is a stupid question.

Answer 4

Yes, he most certainly did. Other than to satisfy his own personal agenda, he had no business invading Iraq. Some conservatives just can't or simply refuse to bear the responsibility of admitting the fact that the biggest screw up in our nations history was caused by a selfish, greedy man who tninks he's above all law.

Answer 5

W thought the whole thing would be a big pushover like the first one and he'd get some respect as the WAR PRESIDENT. He never has learned that the American people know he is a chicken hawk that not only hid behind his daddy to get into Nat'l Gaurd, He WENT AWOL DURING TIME OF WAR ( for over a year!)SO HE WOULD NOT BE DRUG TESTED AND THROWN OUT

Answer 6

You have posed a rational well thought question. The war in Iraq was born of and based on false, manufactured information.

There is no good excuse for continuing the war. The environment that has been fostered by this war only serves to inflame more terrorists who only need point to the reasons the war was started.

Yes, it is Bush's fault. But he will never concede that the war is a bad idea.

Answer 7

Had Saddam continued to cooperate with the U.S. and the U.N. inspectors I believe he would still be alive. The president has made mistakes. So now what?

And I disagree with you saying we shouldn't remove tyrants. When we have the opportunity we should. All presidents in the past 50-60 years have done what they could to remove evil.

Answer 8

no! bush didn't create the problem in iraq. look in the old testament under abraham who had a wife named sarah and a handmaiden named hagar. sarah couldn't get pregnant so she told her husband to lie with hagar who had his son, ishmeal(or some spelling like that). well, 13 years later sarah had a son by abraham called issac. since sarah was the original spouse hagar and her son got kicked out of abraham's family. hagar's son grew up and then started the islamic faith. then much later mohammed came along. abraham and issac were the seed to the furure jesus and christianity. so then we ended up with islamic terrorists because islam and christianity can't co-exist. it was inevitable.that's why the islamic terrorists hate israel and america and great britain.moonraven/cinderella

Answer 9

Bush did not create the problem, it was always there. Bush made it worse. Besides do you always believe what your president tells you? I would listen to him sure, but as always I listen to everyone else as well and make my own opinion.

Answer 10

No. Our government created the problem. It is a group of men and women acting in unison.(supposedly for the betterment of our country). No one person is responsible for all that has transpired. How hard is that to understand. To lay all the blame at the feet of one man is ignorant or democrat, take your pick.