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

Or is he just going to stay there long enough so he can invade Iran?

2007-04-03 20:02:35 · 19 answers · asked by Ugly Betty 3 in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

Bush had a strategy in Iraq from the beginning, but not the one he stated publicly. Since his motives were lies, why would he tell the truth about what he expected to happen? He knew the Iraqis wouldn't just wave American flags and be happy.
The stated "out in two years" strategy was nothing but PR and his advisers, at least, knew it was impossible.
Bush's strategy was this: gain access to Iraqi petroleum reserves, without benefitting a government he didn't like. Between 1991 and 2003, America could not buy any significant oil from Iraq. This was good for the price of oil but bad for the American economy which is so oil-dependent. Bush figured by invading he could score on two fronts, first by gaining access to the oil, second by gaining interest in the reserves themselves. The invasion of Afghanistan was done to secure a link to a lucrative pipeline for the same purpose: to gain petroleum, and make wealth from its production or distribution at the same time.
Bush's only long-term strategy was to divide middle-eastern muslims against themselves and weaken them politically. The last 2 years have seen Iraq align itself with Shiite Iran. When the U.S. withdraws its army soon, the civil war will broaden and nations closer to Iraq will become more involved. This will raise tensions between shiite and sunni elsewhere, or so Bush hopes.
Whoever really planned the campaign never meant for U.S. troops to remain "until the job was done," only "until Bush's term was done." It would never have done for Bush to say so, of course. Beneath his speeches he has always understood that the end of the invasion will be U.S. withdrawal and Iraq in chaos. He is a man very adept at lying about his intentions...

the furrowed-brow "dumb-innocent" look is one of his tools in carrying out the deception that he really means what he is saying. Like Ronald Reagan, he is acting. In reality he doesn't care what happens in Iraq after his term is up and it's no longer on his watch.

2007-04-03 20:43:59 · answer #1 · answered by kozzm0 7 · 1 0

He had one going in.
On April 26th 06 the Jordanian goverment foiled an Al qaeda plot to use twenty, yes twenty tons of chemical weapons.
Estimated dead would have been around 80,000.

How come we did not hear anything about this?
Remember the fuss about no WMD's in Iraq?
Scott Ritter saying no WMD's as a guest of Saddam.
Where do you suppose the chemical weapons came from?
Wal Mart? I think not.
The problem is we should have went after the head of the snake, IRAN.
You don't kill a snake cutting off small pieces of its tail.

I dont think we will go into Iran, we don't have the stomach for a real war.
Only a push button, remote control one.

I am a firm believer in the need for a strong military, but as important is the will to use it if needed.

If Iran gets the bomb it is all over.

2007-04-04 03:17:03 · answer #2 · answered by Jack L. W. 3 · 1 1

Do you think Bush will ever come up with a strategy for Iraq?

You’re Kidding! Right!!!

I think Bush will leave office and have the next president do all the dirty work, meaning clean up after him.

Because he does NOT have a strategy and has gotten out of control

2007-04-04 03:26:47 · answer #3 · answered by Just me! 5 · 1 1

Our illustrious Commander In Chief formed a "strategery" for Iraq long before we ever invaded. That is what the Downing Street Memo was about, in part.

The main "strategery" is to use this debacle as a vehicle for transferring tax dollars into the private sector, as a return on investment (ROI) for campaign contributions, political support, and cronyism.

If we committed sufficient resources for actually occupying Iraq successfully, far too much of that money would end up in the hands of grunts. "Support Our Troops" does NOT mean supply them with adquate armor, sufficient manpower, or decent medical care.

This administration only appears incompetent because it never achieves its stated objectives. It has been highly successful, however, in robbing blind the american public through the suppression of congressional oversight and the suppression and doctoring of intelligence.

2007-04-04 03:19:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Like the magician , he keps promising evolving of the most apt solution to the vexed Iraq Issue created by none other than himself.The audience keeps waiting for the last four years. Yet the promise has
not been performed.
Alas! Iraq will turn out to be the Waterloo for Bush (Jr.)

2007-04-04 06:29:03 · answer #5 · answered by The Tribune 5 · 1 1

He has no intension to bring some strategy for Iraq, He would love Iraq the way it is going on now becuase this is the best situation for him to stay there....if Iraq got calm and cool, there would be no excuse left for US to contain their army there.and it would be of no use if they come back now......they didn't lost their lives for just visiting it but they want to get some Big profit!and mark my words, There will never be peace in Iraq untill and unless US army is there !

2007-04-04 03:16:18 · answer #6 · answered by ★Roshni★ 6 · 2 1

He might have a chance if Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Hillary ever get off his back and quit pushing us to defeat. He himself said this wasn't going to be an overnight thing, and with the evolution of al Qaeda in Iraq, we need to be very careful about ending the war. If there's a justified reason to invade Iran, it's Ahmadinejad's fault for not giving up his nuclear problem - let me ask you this - do you want to be bombed?

2007-04-04 03:08:27 · answer #7 · answered by c.grinnell 3 · 2 3

The administration already had one, it's called the Project for a New American Century. Bush doesn't have a strategy for anything; he didn't even know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite until he asked a couple of their leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_a_new_american_century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxz1jbPCfTQ

2007-04-04 03:06:19 · answer #8 · answered by Cultural Eye 2 · 2 2

No he will be out of office and retired from politics and coming up with a strategy for Iraq will be someone else problem then.

2007-04-04 03:05:56 · answer #9 · answered by Derek T 3 · 3 2

They have a strategy its called "stay the course".

Problem is this plan is like having a lawyer oversee your brain surgery.

C.grinnells comment is priceless.

We finally question how long the war is going to last and now we are interfering with success?

They should have cut Bush off when they sent our boys to battle with no armor. That's how they prepared for this war.

2007-04-04 03:16:16 · answer #10 · answered by Malthusian 3 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers