are the very same people screaming and crying now, when Bush#2 did what they wanted his dad to do.
Short memory?
Just stupid?
or it is just popular to complain about whatever the president does and they want people to like them?
2007-03-29 19:30:47 · 9 answers · asked by Father Ted 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Let the spin begin.
2007-03-29 19:57:14 · update #1
Hey there Purple K. Remember seeing all of those people holding up their fingers to show that they had voted? What you hear is the bad parts. A lot of good things are happening in Iraq. The ones "making a mess" aren't the US. The mess already existed. That's why we're there. As President Bush predicted, Iraq is the battlefield because if the people of Iraq win their freedom and become a democracy, it will make it hard for the other dictators in the area to keep their people under their thumbs. They are going to want the same freedoms Iraq gains for themselves. Also, as President Bush predicted, terrorists are coming into Iraq from other countries. You think the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam? Ask the people whose family members were buried in those mass graves, or survivors of Saddam and his son's 35 year reign of sadistic torture, terror and murder if they were better off before. Everyone seems to be complaining except the main population of Iraq! Doesn't that give anyone a clue? As for the on going complaining about Bush #1's actions vs. Bush #2 actions? ALL THREE OF THE ABOVE !!! Their Libs!! What more can you say?
2007-03-29 20:15:03 · answer #1 · answered by DixeVil 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The U.N would only sanction the eviction of Saddam from Kuwait. They would not approve the coalition forces entering Baghdad. Just like it took 17 resolutions before anyone did anything because Saddam was paying off the U.N. with the Oil for Food money.
2007-03-30 03:54:52 · answer #2 · answered by ohbrother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which people are you REFERRING to? Liberals? Conservatives?
The reason why Bush 41 didn't go through with it was because he didn't think it was militarily "feasible enough" to take Baghdad and control it.
Reason why he stopped short and let the UN do its job. He later detailed his reasons why in a book published sometime in 1998.
But his son went ahead with a third of the force his father had, and made a real Manchurian nightmare out of the whole affair.
2007-03-30 03:07:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only people screaming 15 years ago, were the same people who ended up pushing Bush 2 to invade 4 years ago.
And we can all see how well thats turning out.
2007-03-30 02:37:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
When?10 years ago when Bush #1 was selling Sadam the choppers used to spray chemicals on Iraqis?That was 10 years ago!If you didn't get him then you had no right to get him now.Sadam was complying with UN and Iraqis weren't dying on their way to school
2007-03-30 02:37:15 · answer #5 · answered by RX 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bush #1 didn't go after Saddam because his advisors, especially Gen. Swartzcopp, counciled him to stop when he did or it would destabilize the entire middle east.
Bush #2 got his advice from a bunch of Born Agains and the Oil Companies and THEY WERE WRONG and this mess is ALL THEIR FAULT... Bush is an idiot and he is so arrogant he will not listen to good advice from outside sources.
2007-03-30 02:35:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Americans must be consistent that they wanted to get Saddam Hussien and it was just what George Bush Jr. did-catch Hussien and execute him.
2007-03-30 02:41:53 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they did?
Besides Saddam wasn't a threat to your country and you've managed to completely destroy Iraq which is now more dangerous than it ever was under Saddam.
Well done!
2007-03-30 02:35:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
The libs would whine if you hung them with a new rope.
2007-03-30 02:34:21 · answer #9 · answered by C J 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋