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

Was this part of the objective?
Serious answers only please!

2007-04-24 21:49:57 · 11 answers · asked by Monan 2 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

if you only saw what we see in middle east news reports of iraq it would break your heart and only anger you. no matter how much the bush government spends to put media outlets like fox in the middle east we see what is going on uncensored.

THE PROBLEM IS AMERICA DOESNT.

2007-04-24 22:33:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

For the Kurds the answer is too easy. They are more secure from the terrorism than the rest of the country. They have freedom now and they have done a good job of keeping their area secure. They are better off than the Saddam days because the really would kill them without cause. I visited a few villages up there and they loved us. The Sunnis and the Shittes and the others that are effected by the sectretarian violence I guess aren't all that better off. But the majority of the youth will be because they are open minded and really just want a peaceful life and family just like anyone else. Eventually they will be in charge and things will change and that hope for the possiblity of a better life is something they didn't have under Saddam so thats an improvement. It is under their control now. PS Check out my 360 page. There are some blogs and pics about Iraq on there.

2007-04-24 22:10:52 · answer #2 · answered by Jared G 5 · 2 0

It has not improved life for Iraqis. Under Saddam, there were not daily car bombings. There were also no terrorists in the country because the secularist Saddam hated terrorism and radical Islam.

The one good thing achieved in this war was the defeat of Saddam's dictatorship. The biggest mistake handling the war was trying to replace Saddam with another government, but without enough payoffs to win the support of the populace.

When Harry Reid says the war is lost, he's telling the truth. However, he's actually not going far enough. The great English statesmen of the 18th Century, Edmund Burke was a far stronger opponent of his government's imperialistic war against the US. The 19th Century Democratic Senator from Ohio, Clement Vallandigham was also a far stronger opponent of his government's imperialistic war against the South. Neither man was unpatriotic (Burke was actually highly respected in England at the time), though Abraham Lincoln had Senator Vallandigham illegally arrested and contemplated having him assassinated, before he "mercifully" exiled him. Its pretty easy to see where the Republicans get their ridiculous idea that the opponents of the war are "unpatriotic," because Abe Lincoln shared their sentiment. Like Bush, Nixon also modeled himself on Lincoln and was surprised that the people didn't love him for it (because our history books don't portray Lincoln very accurately).

This war can just end as soon as Congress yanks the funding. Too many Congressman don't have the guts to vote down the Iraq War Funding Bill. Of course, Bush has the fantasy that he'd still try to fight the War with the Offense Department's budget, but the Congress can vote that down too. If the Congress had the guts to end the war, it would be over in no time.

2007-04-24 22:42:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

properly that's not what they're in there to do. all of us comprehend its all correct to the eco-friendly! It in simple terms bugs me to work out that quite some individuals think of that we are actually in those places to do good. No sovereign united states of america has any organisation messing interior the affairs of yet another united states of america. yet all of us comprehend its greater complicated than that. i think of that when the greenback is bumped off because of fact the worlds' reserve forex then we are gonna see some genuine adjustments; via which I recommend destructive substitute for us. Obama's presidency is gonna be an actual repeat of the Carter era. observe: we are inflicting all this in Libya to jack up the fee of oil, so we are able to maintain the greenback. Iraq grew to become into additionally correct to the oil. We tried to do what we did to Egypt and Tunisia to Iran final 365 days, even though it failed horribly. Afghanistan, comparable factor; oil pipeline, chinese language, organic deposits, cutoff Iran from Russia and China, and so on. remember the OPEC disaster in the process the Carter era and then governments began being toppled in each single place to maintain the financial gadget. different than as a substitute the U.S., those we are attacking the Euro (Greece), and forestall the chinese language from surpassing us.

2016-10-30 06:08:01 · answer #4 · answered by jerrold 4 · 0 0

Life for the Iraqis had turned to worse because of the Iraq war. There is chaos and widespread suicide bombings in their country.

2007-04-24 22:42:10 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 3 0

under Saddam hundreds of Iraqis were killed every year.
bush's war is killing 100,000 of Iraqis every year.
the war has not improved life in Iraq, in my opinion they are worse off being in a civil war. Iraqis are fleeing Iraq for their life's by the millions.

2007-04-24 22:02:31 · answer #6 · answered by ♥mtnsky♥ 4 · 5 0

Seriously, I can't say it has. But out of the chaos, Iraqis may be able to sieze control of their own destiny and send us home in the process. I think we have done enough harm.

2007-04-24 22:17:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It hasn't. Many Iraqis say they now regret the American invasion.

2007-04-24 21:53:51 · answer #8 · answered by BOOM 7 · 4 0

It was supposed to bring them democracy and freedom, but the problem is that the people who were in charge before don't want that to happen and that is why there is chaos.

2007-04-24 21:53:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Not the dead ones, or their relatives.

Arabs don't do democracy and it was naive to say the least to believe they might.

2007-04-24 23:54:13 · answer #10 · answered by aussiepom 3 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers