Why doesn't Bush bring the Troops home and let the UN handle the occupation of Iraq. At least this would stop

Question

a lot of our troops from being killed there!

And since his "War on Terror" is a Global thing should not the UN be involved in this mess more than we are?

Answer 1

The UN? The UN has nothing without US support. I am not saying it should be that way, but the fact is, when the UN needs money or troops, the US is the first place they come.

Besides, the UN did not want this war. Iraq is a mess created by the US and the world's opinion is the US needs to fix it.

Let's face it, the Bush administration really screwed things up and they have no idea how to fix it.

Answer 2

The media would have you believe that everything is terrible in Iraq and it's all falling apart. This is simply not the case.
There are some simple facts that you need to know in order to understand the implications as to what exactly is going on.

Fact 1. We have lost less military people in the last 4 years than in the first 32 days of WWII. Less people than in the first 21 days of the Vietnam police action, and less military people than in the first 23 days of the Korean War.
Fact 2. All but 4 provinces in Iraq are free from terriorists and are not only doing better than under Saddam's rule, but have new colleges, schools hospitals and an 81% overall improvement in the way of life.
Fact 3. The US "is the UN". We as a country pay 52% of all monies in dues that the UN takes in, have more say on the council than any other country and provide more troops than any other nation. We also provide the building, land, food (by catering), supplies, office equipment, transportation (on private planes and in limo's), Computers, networking, Hotels or suites, entertainment, and a host of other amenities to the UN body. And we still pay BILLIONS in dues.
Fact 4. The UN is more corrupt than our own government is. The UN security council has become such a joke that they are dismissed by 85% of all nations in the world

I currently have several friends serving in Iraq, 1 of which was killed by a roadside IED (improvised explosive device) just recently. I was almost recalled to the first Gulf War myself.

I believe that if we were to pull the troops out of Iraq right now, we would wind up with a worse situation on our hands than Vietnam was. Iran would immediately take control of Iraq and the next world war would be upon us instantly. The only difference is this one would probably be nuclear.
I will not get into geopolitical issues, because this is not the place for that. I will ask some questions for you to think about though
1. If Bush wants the oil, whay are gas prices so high?
2. would you rather be fighting terrorists in Iraq, and surrounding countries, or on American soil?
3. The Muslim extremeists declared a "Holy War on all infidels." and stated that "the only way to deal with infidels is to wipe them from the face of the earth." How do you deal with someone like that? (infidels are everyone that does not believe the way they do)
4. Spain withdrew from the conflict because of threats from the terrorists, the terrorists told them they would not attack them if they withdrew. Spain has had 4 more terrorists bombings in their own country since they withdrew. Why?
5. We have cut Al Queda's ranks by more than 63% since the start of the conflict, damaging their infrastructure enough to make a difference. Why not keep going until we stop the threat entirely? Do we want to do the job halfway?

By all means, do the research yourself. Find out what the media doesn't want you to know, or is just not telling you.
Have a great day

Answer 3

The UN couldn't enforce the sanctions imposed on Iraq from the beginning. If they had the US wouldn't have needed to take control. If that makes the US look like bullies in the eyes of the world, then so be it. For year's Hussein stuck his tongue out at the US and the UN and paid no attention to the sanctions set by the UN. What in the UN's history gives you any hope that they could handle this? It seems as if the UN's sole purpose is to bring the US to the level of the rest of the world. Why should we lower our standards just because the rest of the world can't or won't keep up?

The "war on terror" is global. However, for some reason, the rest of the world just sits by while Islamic lunatics dictate what the rest of the world should do. By going into Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has prevented anymore terroristic attacks on US soil. Would you rather fight terrorists and the people that support them in their country or ours?

Answer 4

George W. Bush doesn't want to send the troops home and let the U.N. handle the occupation. He unconstitutionally and illegally invaded Iraq for three really 'lame' reasons:
1. The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2. Bush, Cheney and their Exxon-Mobil buddies want all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands to that they can get richer and richer and richer as they feed America's dependency on cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
3. World War II showed how profitable 'war' can be, so the giant U.S. military-industrial complex bought up all the politicians, hired pricey lobbyists, and formed special interest groups to promote and encourage 'war'. Thus, the U.S. was involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm, all for the sake of war-profiteering.
Bush's "war on terror" is a sham, all designed to provide him with an excuse that Rush Limbaugh's 'ditto heads' will buy into so that the Bushites can steal all of Iraq's OIL.
This year (I'd predicted months ago by spring, 2007) the U.S.A. will also invade Iran for the very same reason: all those rich fields of cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL.
All Bush has to do is come with a new excuse that the 'ditto heads' will buy ('weapons of mass destruction' won't work a second time). So the Bush administration manipulates world events in an effort to justify the U.S. need to attack one more sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked American shores. It's a despicable way for America to behave. -RKO- 04/18/07

Answer 5

Because the UN would do nothing. Although going into Iraq was considered the wrong thing the US is there now and does have a responsibilty to stay, considering we created the mess. Now even as kids we are taught not to create a mess without cleaning up, no one else is going to clean that place up, and cutting and running would destroy that country. I personally could care less if everyone in Iraq died tommorrow, but I do understand that the US goverment, and all other governments for that matter shouldn't invade a country and liberate it in the name of freedom and then leave the place worse than you left it. Realistically the war in Iraq is not a huge slaughter of US troops, 25 times more people have been murdered in the US since the start of the war than have been killed in the war.

Answer 6

Whatever the war or mission is called, we really can't just leave. I'm not for the troops being over there this long either, and I feel horrible for people who discharged and got called back to Iraq. But if the government pulls the military out, it could be catastrophic to homeland security. God knows what they would plan out over there if we had no presence in the Middle East.

Answer 7

The is no war on terror. It's the new cold war, to bilk the american public out of trillions for "defense" offense contractors. Also to go on Godless crusades for the wealth of other nations. How many americans are dying now ( to avenge the death of fewer americans). Nevermind the mass genocide of countless people and families.

Answer 8

The UN is a peace keeping organization. They could not handle Iraq.

Answer 9

Because his buddies profit from the war, he gets kick backs.

Answer 10

He wants the oil.