Iraq, how far would we of been if we had stayed united?

Question

it seemed to me that the democrats undermined this government every step of the way when the presidents polls were getting high. did this scare the democrats an have to come up with a way to bring him down? if so what will be the final cost for this action? come on demmys u can jump on this.

iraq was never about terrorism, most dont get it. it was about the road map for peace the democrats undermined. they have hated us longer than either bush has been around washington,, they even have cartoons telling the kids to kill westerners. u people just dont get it an your scared. pity by dividing on this you only made them stronger. history will have all our answers while we continue to stay devided. still strong tzimmer44

Answer 1

We would have done what we need to do- kick ***, and go. And, Bush did not ignore the UN. The UN made a resolution, then refused to enforce it. Bush finished their job. They had been sitting on their hands for EIGHT YEARS because they didn't want to offend anyone. Well, when the right thing is done, those who are in the wrong are GOING TO BE OFFENDED like the liberalist, leftist Dems were when the election law was enforced in 2000- "we been robbed!" The only thing that happened was Gore and his bullies were made to obey the law.

KrazyKyngeKorny
(Krazy, not stupid)

Answer 2

You are very idealistic. Bush was warned about what would happen when we invaded Iraq. Conflicts like this have been undertaken by other countries. The results are always the same.

He made sure that congress thought Saddam Hussein was close to having a nuclear weapon and so they voted for the use of force. To blame democrats for the situation there now is to neglect all of the facts. If it makes you feel better, go ahead. It won't change one iota.

By the way, Bush's rating started dropping when he promoted the sale of our ports to Dubai. Its been downhill ever since and that was before the democrats had a majority in congress. He has been his own worst enemy.

Answer 3

~I will jump on this one because you are SOOO confused. Being united would not have made the terrorists kill any less of our soldiers than they have. Thanks for offering us so much credit for bringing Bush down, but Bush hung himself. He didn't care what the UN said, he said "Either you're with us or you're against us!" Would that make you want to be "with him?" Oops, it worked on you.
He's been bull headed from the start, dead set on killing our troops for his gain in power and oil.
There were NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION and the terrorists weren't in IRAQ! This war was never about peace or concern for the Middle East, yet you people still believe him. Say whatever you have to, to make yourselves feel better, don't let us stop you.
I haven't told any kids to kill anyone, in a cartoon or otherwise. Democrats are against war, REMEMBER? Maybe if you stop doing so much dope, you'll get it straight?
Democrats aren't scared of you people, we know we have the next election, suck it up.~

Answer 4

Oh please, Rumsfeld, Cheney, PNAC, Wolfowitz, Perle, they are the ones responsible for the utter incompetence in "planning" (and I use that word lightly since they didn't plan for anything but shock and awe) a war turned FUBAR. Not to mention the billions of dollars down the drain in reconstruction, corruption and no-bid crony contracts. Take responsibility for having a president who was too dumb to realize what mess the people around him were making, it's not the Democrat's debacle. And don't tell any American that you have to support everything a president does to be a patriot. United behind what? Gross incompetence on every single level imaginable?

Answer 5

The democrats couldn't pass their recently proposed Iraq War Funding Bill even though they are in the majority, and for the past 6 years they have only had a minority whisper of a vote in Congress. So, tell me. HOW THE HELL COULD THEY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDITION OF THE IRAQ WAR???
Come on repub, you can jump into this.

Answer 6

The president undermined himself, by lying to the country to start a war based on a personal vendetta and oil. And then by being completely inept and losing the war and getting a lot of people killed for nothing. Poll numbers are nothing. That jackass should be in chains in the dock for what he and his cabal have done.

Answer 7

You're blaming the democrats for what's happening now in Iraq? Oh please, that war was lost the day it began ILLEGALLY. And no, I'm not a democrat. Besides you don't take out Terrorism with an army, it's police work for our intelligence agencies.

Answer 8

Congress voted for war but the nation was never united on invading Iraq.

Answer 9

THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT BUSH IGNORED THE ADVICE OF OUR OWN MILITARY.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15570330/

1999 war games predicted problems in Iraq
Exercise showed that chaos was possible even with 400,000 troops

Updated: 5:42 a.m. ET Nov 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

In its “Desert Crossing” games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.

The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University’s National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.

“The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops,” said Thomas Blanton, the archive’s director. “But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground.”

There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.

'Replacement regime could be problematic'
The war games looked at “worst case” and “most likely” scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:

“A change in regimes does not guarantee stability,” the 1999 seminar briefings said. “A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability.”
“Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments.”
“Iran’s anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq,” the briefings read. “The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad.”
“The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development.”
“Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government.”
“A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners.”
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Answer 10

We Americans no doubt would have a balanced""" budget ""now and every American would be""out of debt and our soc security would have been in better condition and our health care would have been in better shape, But wars cost mo ney and that is not the case...{the above}