"There are some who, uh, feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is: Bring 'em on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation. “ - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003.
hmmmmmmmm. Is that why we are still there almost 4 years later and sending 20,000 more troops. How long are we gonna let this idiot go on dumping money and risking soldiers lives in Iraq?
2007-04-27 09:17:15 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
lol @ cale. the majority of america and the world think iraq is a blunder.
2007-04-27 09:25:47 · update #1
lol @ johnny. Gw is gonna have to give up when he gets another spending bill with withdrawal time on it and then realizes he actually needs the money to continue. He can only veto for what another year and a half or until the military runs out of money. Dems don't even have to impeach they can just keep having hiim veto until they run out of money. Either way the dems got the upper hand.
2007-04-27 09:28:24 · update #2
He's much more than an idiot.
He is a dangerous idiot.
Guess you knew that since you answered your own question.
2007-04-27 09:32:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We are in Iraq 4 years after the initiation of combat because:
1. It was the intention of the Bush administration to objectively demonstrate that what they considered a large Military was no longer needed. They felt that by sending as few troops as requires and winning, which they did, they could then reduce the military and save money. Something they have in common with most Democrats.
2. Unfortunately they forgot post combat operations. When they did not have enough forces to police the country after their victory over Sadam all hell broke loose and we have been dealing with the consequences ever since.
3. The tactics we employed against the terrorists at the start of stability ops were ineffective because they isolated the troops from the Iraqi civilians and failed to provide security.
4. This allowed the Militias to assert themselves and gave wiggle room for the terrorists.
How do we fix this?
1. Provide sufficient forces to dominate the situation.
2. Use tactics that incorporate team building between our soldiers and the Iraqi people.
3. Kill the terrorists and dis-arm the militias.
4. Support Iraq’s budding democracy
5. Support the development of the Iraqi economy.
And oh yes: NO TIMELINE FOR SURRENDER
2007-04-27 09:37:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
This is one example of why people don't believe Bush should be able to continue the war in Iraq. There are many, we could run a whole day of things said by this guy that show he knows not what he said the day before, and continues to contradict himself.
I wish there was a place to go to just state an opinion.
Like for instance: Come on people this is one man, he's not allowed to decide for the whole country what we are or are not going to do in Iraq! He has overstepped his boundaries, and is acting on his own now, he doesn't have the backing of the country and we need to remind him that he isn't the president of Iraq, he is the president of the United States, which means he is to follow our rules of Democracy. No man is allowed to control our country without the permission of the people who live in it, and that would be the majority. Wake up, we are allowing this to happen like we don't know how to stop it, he's one man, with a couple of friends.
2007-04-27 10:03:22 · answer #3 · answered by Coulterbasher01 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
My family expect this war back in the 1950's and have wondered, ever since escaping Islam, why it hadn't been figured out. THAT'S why WE thought the United States citizens were rather stupid. Then President Bush caught on and took action (the elder one). We cheered! Islam could no longer hide it's goals for world domination and suppression of all other cultures.
So much beauty in Islams, so much ignorance when they turned their backs on progress and the West.
Oh, you're name-calling again with our elected representative. That's sedition. Amazing how you can't help yourself in that even though you have a post that could be made without it, hmmmmmmm?
President Bush IS controlling the situation, and sacrificing his short-term reputation. That's honor. That's integrity. History will show it, or if it doesn't it will be because we lost the war that Islam started at it's founding.
Read "The Art of War". It is a guide to strategy. President Bush is a master of it, and "that idiot" has managed to outmaneuver his enemies and opponents at every turn, even drawing the Liberals in my party (I'm a democrat, but FIRST, I'm a patriot) into revealing themselves over and over as socialists and as seditious.
The patriotic citizens of the United States are watching. They are making up their minds. When he is done, my party will be healthier and stronger, without the liberal (socialist) or seditious elements, but it will take us some time to regain the trust of the American people.
We'll do it faster if we clean house and get back to our core values.
2007-04-28 15:27:38 · answer #4 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
particular, Bush is ruining this usa yet not as a results of fact of gasoline expenditures. those are intense as a results of fact we don't have adequate refining skill to fulfill the glut individuals with SUV's and so on have for the gasoline. If we are able to have one greater refinery on each and each coast we would desire to constantly see expenditures flow down. as a results of fact of policies the oil businesses at the instant are not approximately to try this. it would fee them money. as a consequence they rake in the dough with what they have. What a large number.
2016-12-10 13:08:43 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's frightening and ironical - and highly suspicious - that Bush should have gone with the Iraq War, by sticking his guns out in support of Ahmed Chalabi, and the al-Maliki - two strange Iraqi creatures who never had any dreams of uniting all Iraqis in the first place.
2007-04-27 09:27:15 · answer #6 · answered by United_Peace 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, the real reason is that it would take a lot more money for better weapons for more troops and that would put the tax cuts to millionaires at risk - we are fighting this war on the cheap so that millionaires can have more money to sit poolside drinking whatever it is millionaires drink at poolside.
2007-04-27 09:23:28 · answer #7 · answered by Ben 5 · 5⤊ 1⤋
impeachment is politically undo-able. the military is fighting the war, the majority of the public is too busy shopping. looks like we got just under two more years of staying the course.
2007-04-27 09:24:41 · answer #8 · answered by jonny y 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If he signs the bill it will end soon otherwise sooner. If we give him money it could last just past January20, 2009.
2007-04-27 09:21:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Until The Failure is out to pasture.
2007-04-27 09:20:52 · answer #10 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋