Do you agree with Bush's decisions on Iraq?

Question

I know on the surface that I am definitely not satisfied with his decisions since there is so much bloodshed in Iraq, and it just doesn't seem like he has any business there cus it's not his country, but what do you think? Reasons would always be good. :D

Feel free to express yourselves! :D

Lol, no need to try and provoke me into an argument anie, your opinion was heard and respected, so I expect the same from you, oh of course, unless that's too complex for you to understand.

Here's why I disagree with Bush on Iraq:
1) He sent American troops in there with no plan or purpose, and no strategies for an exit.
2) He seem to want to send a bigger portion of troops into Iraq cus he doesn't want to look stupid just by withdrawing them.
3) Saddam is history, and American troops are still there. What the heck. The troops are pretty much being used as toys and it seems like the more he send in, the more lives would be taken. If you are close minded enough to think that the troops are actually only killing the "bad guys" then you're well mistaken. At least hundreds if not thousands of lives have perished, and the refugees barely know if they would live for tomorrow or not. It's easy to say Bush is right, but imagine you being in the actual refugees' shoes.

4) He's pretty much invaded Iraq anyway, how is that assuring their freedom? Sure, getting rid of Saddam helps rid them of more cruelty, but Americans being there and controlled by the American president is just pretty much the same. The people are in a war zone. Did you actually think they would skip down the street and sing "halleluja"?

5) Even though Bush would accomplish something, which seems unlikely now lol, he is pretty much robbing Americans out of their tax dollars and resources, family members and friends of their loved ones. And that's only one side of them all; think about the people that may be mourning the death of their driving force and motivation to live.

Seriously, Bush is that little friction of a man that doesn't deserve to be elected as president for the second time. Period.

If you're stupid enough to think that I meant Americans should've minded their own business by withdrawing their support on Africa or so with AIDS/HIV or whatever, that's your problem, not mine. You're twisting my words.

I am talking about what concerns Iraq, so you're being off topic, too. Also, I was talking about Bush's decisions on Iraq, not anywhere else. Please don't stereotype. Please do think before you mention anything. It saves you from embarrasment. Get it? Rofl

P.S I asked what you people thought about Bush's decisions on Iraq, not give your opinions on my perspectives. I wrote because I'm interested in hearing opinions.

If that's too complicated for you to understand, go away. Lol.

Answer 1

Iraq is not, and never was part of the war on terror. There was no "l Queda in Iraq" until long after our invasion. There were no WMD's, and Bush knew that. Osama did not have a connection with Saddam in any way....in fact Osama hates Saddam and always has.

There were no "insurgents/foreign fighters" prior to our invasion....Now it seems that the entire country is a training camp for wannabee Al Queda.

I disagree with the war, because the case for war was never made. The reason, the mission, the goal...was never fully expressed to the American people, and still hasn't been. When you hear Bush talk about, "the mission"....he never actually says what that is.

So what constitutes "Victory" in Iraq ?....When Insurgents stop attacking ?, When oil flows freely ? When there's stability in the region ?...or perhaps when everyone in Iraq decides to throw down their guns and hold hands ?

You might as well call Iraq our 51st state, because none of that will ever happen.

Iraq and the entire middle east has been in conflict for thousands of years. No amount of "troop buildup", or "win hearts and minds campaign", is going to change that.

There still is NO "Al Queda in Iraq".....they are just wannabees using the name. That's like some kid in Beverly Hills calling himself a "crip"/"blood" gang member. It's complete BS, and those headlines/disinformations.. are cherrypicked and handed to the embedded AP journalists.

Anyone who thinks we are in Iraq, because we want Iraqi's to be free is delusional. Anyone who thinks we went to Iraq simply because Saddam was a brutal dicator, is also delusional...there are lots of brutal dictators that aren't sitting on a fortune of oil.

Anyone who suspects that we are in Iraq, because we want to put the worlds second largest oil producing country, who is not governed by OPEC, back on the world market.....is most likely 100% correct.

Our motives are not moral, and our means are not justified.

Answer 2

OH God! how gullible all of u may also be! I relatively have no idea what the hell we're doing now in Afghanistan. Don't u comprehend that the Neocons desired to difference the Taliban Regime and set up a puppet Mr. Karzai? We supported the Taliban ago. We paid them thousands of cash simply to enable us to construct oil pipes from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan to the open seas. Taliban rejected our present and all of a sudden has grow to be our enemy. Just for the reason that Taliban hosted Bin Laden, we invaded the nation, killed plenty of Afghanistanis, spent billions of greenbacks and sacrificed a few of our troops. Does this make any experience? Our charter states that we will army retaliate or invade different international locations if we get attacked through that nation. Bush twisted the information round and made up our minds on his possess that any nation harbors a terrorist, we must assault as good. In this example, permit's invade the entire global as terorists are in each and every unmarried nation in this earth. Taliban (Afghanistan) didn't assault us. By the best way, I am a well Christian all-American guy and do not supply a rattling approximately Muslims and hate terrorism. But, I wager I am extra expert than you're.

Answer 3

Honestly although I feel that the war there is pointless and to some extent is already lost. Why send your soldiers to another country to help them work out there problems and so many ppl end up dead or without parents??? The thing is that saying that they should mind there own business would also be something bad because they do over much assistance to a lot of countries around the world with volunteers, medical supplies and financial grants....

Answer 4

I agreed about Afghanistan , but Iraq was built on a total lie. if you'll remember he told congress if you vote for this before I go to the United Nations for war on Iraq , I'll come back and we will have another vote, that never happened. You keep bringing congress voted on it well with all the lies about WMD , he could go there over and lay his hands right on those weapons. Colin Powell showed trucks running in one side and out the other and he showed vials a small tube and said this alone will destroy America. A cloud will swoop down and engulf us all, he had us putting foil paper in our windows just sitting waiting any date for them to strike.
He told a damn lie about all of it, he is cold hearted war criminal and should be tried in a tribunal court along with Cheney, Rumsfield and Rice. Anyone that can sit there an state you agree with him is just a cold hearted as he is, he is a sorry no good SOB and a sorry Bastard.

Answer 5

I agreed with Afghanistan, but I disagreed with Iraq from the very start. Way back when it was still in the contemplative stages, before we had committed any troops to the maneuver, I was telling people "This is a bad idea. This is just like Vietnam. Going into a country under false pretenses with no clear objective--we're gonna get tromped."

And hey, guess what? We're getting tromped, just like in 'Nam! We're wasting tons of lives and money, just like 'Nam! We have no clue WTF we're doing over there, just like 'Nam! If Bush really believes he can magically make the entire population peaceful simply by sending American soldiers over there to kill stuff, he's an even bigger idiot than the 51% of Americans who voted him back in for a second term.

Answer 6

No. Not with the decision to invade in the first place (Iraq should have been a lower priority), not with the decision to comply with Al Qaeda demands by closing bases in Saudi Arabia and moving them to Iraq, and certainly not with the decision to fight an undermanned war of half-measures.

Answer 7

This questions has becomes so tiresome as it's posted like 100 times a day. Yes I agree with his decisiopn on being there, even though it has taken my son from us and his family for two years, and now once again! We do have business there, especailly after getting rid of Saddam. The newly elected government by its people want us there so they can get to the point of standing on their own and be able to protect their country. What we have done is provide them with the opopotunity of freedom and democracy, what they do with it is up to them!

Answer 8

When you have a war you will have bloodshed. That's pretty much a no brainer. I agree with his decision just as over 75% of congress did too. Including those same Democrats who are using it as an agenda item.

Answer 9

He is a self centered prick who only cares about his oil! The whole reason we're still there is to "spread democracy" Well, guess what! it's not gonna work...too many terrorists coming from Iran and Afghanistan to kill them all out...It's pointless and any conservative republican that agrees with him should be sent to war too alongside their precious president

Answer 10

I hate GW Bush. Things are worse now than they ever were. Can't believe he was voted in for a second term... the mind boggles...