Didn't Bush declare the war in Iraqi over ?

Question

when we cought Saddam ...Ummmm Yes he did....He said we are over there to help the goverment to protect themself's....So why is bush useing our troops in iraiq as a war for the funding for the war in afgan.

I call that abuse of power

I think he called it iraqi freedom NOT A WAR

Answer 1

Way before he was President-- in his run up to the nomination -- he made several very distinct statements that have proven to be the Base Of His platform of lies !! The one that stands out clearest to Me is the one that he remarked on over and over again where he said that "of all things (his) ...administration would NEVER be about Nation Building on foreign soil" !! AND it still racks me up to this day to remember the "Uniter Not a Devider" thing !!!
Then the "We've won" garbage from the aircraft carrier deck ! And, the statements of how the Iraqi's were going to "love" us for what we were doing there----- then there is the "no more than 10 to 15 Billion dollar total " speech (with the newest package we're looking at 770 BILLION ) and the "when a central government is installed by the Iraqi people " thing----- hummmmm---- that's been two years now !!
When do we finally GET that this man wouldn't know how to speak the truth if it stuffed itself straight up his yah yah ????

In just about ten to twelve days from now---we will all get a second major dose of this man's ignorance--- he is poised at this very minute to make another military attack on a nation of PRECEIVED THREAT----this time with actual tactic nuclear weapons --- and the bloodshed will increase ten fold and the hatred of America will increase twenty fold-- and our credibility will decrease by a hundred fold when this happens-- look for it by or around Easter !!!!

You call it abuse of power--- there are many within the world that call it criminal ----- in Texas it is known as going Rabid !!!

Answer 2

First the Iraq War is not a war, as Vietnam and Korea were not technically wars. We are fighting and dying but no declaration of war was issued by the Congress.

Second, Bush did not declare the war was over, he declared that major combat operations were over. He carefully worded the phrase so this argument could not be used against him. Also he posed with the Mission Successful banner behind him to make it look better, though it was clear that we would be in Iraq for some time. Recently the Bush White House gave blame for the Mission Accomplished banner to the Captain of the ship and wiped their hands clean of it.

All of that said, I never thought this was a good idea and I think 150,000 troops should still be considered major operations, but that is just me.

The problem in Iraq goes back thousands of years and was made worse when the British in all of their wisdom decided to create the country with ridiculous boundaries. Now we have three factions that have been fighting for years and with very stupid reasons and no one government that we install will win out. More work needs to be done to show that the Iraqis are working independently from the US command in Iraq and better conditions need to be available for every day life. The US should spend more money and time making sure the electricity is on, people are working and going to school and secure, then the rest will work itself out. Right now too many people have too much time and not enough hope and this breeds hate and the fighting.

Answer 3

Honey, you are dense. Possibly more so than Bush himself (if that's even possible).

We all knew that our troops were not coming home right after Saddam's capture, and we all knew why. You can not just pull out of there and leave Iraq in total anarchy. That would have an even worse effect on Iraq. We are there to help their newborn government gain a foothold on Iraq and become stable.

And also, your timeline is all screwed up. We were already in Afghanistan, and are gone from there for the most part. We're still in Iraq because, unlike Afghanistan, the Iraqi people had no government in place after Saddam.

It's kind of hard to use a current war to gain funding for a previous one.

Answer 4

We have not declared war on another nation since the second world war. Every use of military force, and every president since Roosevelt has used some, have taken place under the use of executive power. It is a sad gray area, these police actions.
The ending of a war, like the starting of one, is an official act. Of course, this not being an official war, the president has not brought an official close to it.
I believe you are right, this war is an abuse of power. Just as Kennedy sending troops into Vietnam, Bush #1 sending them to Somalia, or our attacks on the Serbians under Clinton. We should only use our military in such offensive actions under the guideline of the constitutional provisions for war. These require a vote by the legislate branch to start a war. We would have fewer wars, but those would have broader support.

Answer 5

Remember when we attacked Iraq? The war was supposed to be a slam dunk. We would be out and our people home for New Year 2005. Well, here it is two years later and we are still there getting killed or severely injured. Here we are with an almost totally depleted treasury. Here we are with inadequate armor for our troops and their equipment. Here we are with Halliburton and other such companies rolling in our tax money with enormous profits. Here we are with the people of the United States saying we've had enough bring our people home. Here we are with a President that defies the people and continues to send people to what has morphed into a civil war. Some slam dunk!

Answer 6

WRONG!!!!! Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" which it WAS. The initial "mission" was to oust Saddam, we did that and in short order. The insurgency was expected, but not in such large numbers. The mistake was when Rumsfeld decided to try to appease the liberal anti-war sissys and try to fight a kinder gentler war. Not possible. He should have given orders to go do what needed to be done and if that meant going into Mosques and being brutal to the enimie, then so be it. The terem Iraqi Freedom as the name of the War Operations, its a military thing, not a Bush thing. Get your facts straight before posting.

Answer 7

He called the war is over for the conventional battlefield. The terrorist inflitrated from Syria. Those Islamic Fascist terrorist started to attack us in June of 2003.

Answer 8

nope , the mission accomplished banner that is on every liberal website was for capturing hussein ( the current mission ) a war is not based on 1 mission , it is based on many to achieve a goal . And yes , the war in iraq is called "operation iraqi freedom" among other names

Answer 9

No, sorry Amy, he said the major hostilities were over.

If he declared the war was over, the POWs would have to be released.

Answer 10

Unfortunately, he is just not ready to leave Iraq for his own personal reasons.

He sure is not there for the benefit of the troops.
To him, the troops are expandable.
He has a mission and until that mission is completed, he is not ready to leave. Hanging Hussein is not IT!

Don't you see how tenacious he is?
His ego refuses to let him admit his error in judgements.
He even wants more troops to be sent over so more can be killed.

He is placing the responsibility of pulling of out Iraq on someone else.
When he's in charge, no way are the troops coming back.
The sad suspicion is, if the Republicans win the Presidential election again, more soldiers will continue to die till the decade ends.