Now that saddam id gone,why cant the US army and its allied pack its bags n baggage n peacefully leave iraq.
Does anyone think that the war in iraq would be an evelasting wound on the consience of the world?
.The world is in many wars far more dangeroue than it was at the height of the cold war.its really a shame that with all the (USA)military might and modern war technology its has failed to defeat such a rag tag army called the insurgents.l feel ashame comparing the gulf war(1990) nthis present oil war because their was a clear cut reason and justification for that war and it was so well mapped out that the US army didnt suffer the kind of casualty we have in iraq now ..l have no qualms hunting down this terrorist and murderers(islamic fundermenatlist). but the truth need 2 be told.G.W. B is just evoking the fear of terrorism to enhance HIS EXECUTIVE POWERS is double speak has been breathtakingly shamelss.He his not fit to be a leader,his emergence has cast a darkshadow worldw
2007-05-23 05:57:39 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Bush does not want peace.. Bush does not want to leave Iraq... Bush wants to keep going and going... He thinks he is a war president... He thinks he is going to be famous.
He is a fool.
2007-05-23 06:02:10 · answer #1 · answered by Debra H 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not treating the whole world as a battlefield. Just a few countries.
"Now that saddam id gone,why cant the US army and its allied pack its bags n baggage n peacefully leave iraq."
They're trying to, but it'd be a global image disaster for the US if Iraq becomes anything other than a prosperous, stable democracy - looks like they're stuck there for a while then.
"Does anyone think that the war in iraq would be an evelasting wound on the consience of the world?"
No, just on the coalition for a few years. Business as usual for human affairs sadly.
That's all your questions answered. This isn't a forum, so I'm not going to respond to your whole rant. It's been said before.
2007-05-23 13:10:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, first, the war was won.
This never ending group of civilian killing insurgents are not local, it's not Viet Nam by any stretch of the imagination.
We are currently trying to get the Iraqi Government on it's feet and we are out. Viet Nam was trying to stabilize an exsisting border between the North and South and the "insurrection" there was actually part of the military action.
The situation in Iraq is completely a religious based insurrection that is more interested in killing it's old enemies than new ones. The main targets have been the civilian populace who are also, by and large, allowing these butchers to live with them. This is not part of a military action or a government plan.
The part of this that is really annoying is that if the religious terrorists hadn't decided to go and kill all these people, Iraq would have been rebuilt better than it ever has been in the past and the people enjoying the benefits.
Sadly, instead of taking advantage of the opportunity that was offered, the psychotic religious leaders decided to fight the coalition and create this situation that we have today.
2007-05-23 13:18:46 · answer #3 · answered by Talen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I initially felt that the war was necessary given the excesses of Saddam against his own people. Just look at his record of destruction & genocide. The reason why the situation deteriorated after the conquest of Iraq is based on the most stupid politician imaginable, one Donald Rumsfeld. He was initially told by the U.S. military that it would take 100,000 more troops to secure the peace than to win the war. After the conquest he withdrew troops. GWB should have shown him the door after the conquest. Just look at DRs record prior to Saddam becoming an evil in the world. He advised the incumbent U.S. President to use Saddam as the strong man of the area and subsequently armed Iraq with sophisticated weaponry in order to face down a resuurgent Iran. Twists and turns here my friends; am I being unfairly cynical when I hoist the arm of Dick Cheyney aloft as the overall winner and award the victory to the Haliburton Corporation.
2007-05-23 13:39:17 · answer #4 · answered by Mikey B 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I hope all good countries are treating the entire world as one giant battlefield against terrorists. Radical Islamics are a cancer on the world and should be dealt with wherever they are, and anyone who aids them should be treated the same.
2007-05-23 13:12:08 · answer #5 · answered by GABY 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No more than the WTC was treated as a battlefield. At the height of occupancy there could have been as many as 100,000 people there. No, not a battlefield, a killing field. ( can't answer your added comments)
2007-05-23 13:04:17 · answer #6 · answered by make room for daddy 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its a rerun of the Vietnam fiasco with all the same excuses and Iran will be blamed for the failure to control the insurgents.
2007-05-23 13:01:55 · answer #7 · answered by James Mack 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, its is not. Its so sad how so much confused and dillusional a person can be made to be by the left wing propaganda machine.
2007-05-23 13:07:48 · answer #8 · answered by Sane 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm keeping the Queen busy up in the hayloft
2007-05-23 13:35:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We would all be better off if BUSH had DIED in his sleep from natural causes Ten(10*) years ago...
2007-05-23 13:02:19 · answer #10 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋