Going on 5 years now..IS BUSH saving IRAQ or killing them?

Question

cant do both lying repukes
decide

Answer 1

killing them

Answer 2

History will reveal that this war was in fact the personal vendetta of George W. Bush. You mentioned the killing of Iraqis. I am much more concerned about our troops. They are our sons and daughters. I'm not trying to sound cold but the Iraqis aren't the only ones living in a violent enviroment. Ever heard of Darfur? The only reason we aren't there today is because there is no oil in that region.

Answer 3

We are not saving anyone over there just holding up a flimsy government that we forced the Iraqis to vote for at gun point. The whole thing will fall apart as soon as we go and mark my word we will start pulling out shortly after September of this year and have at least 50% of our troops home before the September after that.

Answer 4

Instead of bashing the President, why not grow some and join the military, and go see for yourself. Be brave, step up the plate and take action, learn from doing, not just sat and bash. We have not been attacked again. May be a different story when the President you love to hate, is out of office and maybe replaced by one of your wanna be intelligent bunch. Nah!! want happen, that bunch will not take that seat.

Answer 5

There was never any intention to 'save' Iraq or bring democracy to that nation. The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Hussein, Cheney wanted all of Iraq's OIL, and the U.S. military-industrial complex needed a 'new war' to boost its sagging profits. We unconstitutionally and illegally invaded Iraq for OIL and WAR PROFITEERING. Nothing else. -RKO- 05/30/07

Answer 6

I dont think Bush is killing them. I would say its those "terrorist" who the U.S. went in to flush out of Iraq that werent there in the first place, which have been flooded in since the fall of Sadham are killing Iraq. Something of a paradox.

Answer 7

Actually, you can do both. You can 'save' someone from a 'fate worse than death' by killing them.

Not that I think Bush has either as his primary agenda. A genocide could have been efficiently completed long since, and Iraq was 'saved from Sadam' fairly early on.

Answer 8

Saving but then if you had the nads to join the military, you'd know that and you wouldn't have to take the lying media's word for anything.

Answer 9

in case you have not noticed democrat/liberal, puke,it is your allies the muslim terrorist that are killing the iraqi civilians,not Bush,or our troops,get a clue,why don`t you join the team and cheer for you`r American troops(if you are American,but must liberals are not),and concern yourself for the will being of American troops,and the hell with everybody else!

Answer 10

You mean making a killing???? No. I rather go with something less harsh.

Answer 11

the answer is both....
what happens when you try to tame a dog that has been beaten for years? it's never the same and usually remains wild and a danger...
same with Iraqis...30 years of only knowing tribal loyalties...they stick with what they know instead of forming political blocks to vote etc....plenty of good goin on just the lefty media never reports it.
why do almost all bombs hit around baghdad? cause that's where the bleedia is!!! most of the country is free of bombings, most happen in and around baghdaddyO'....bleedia can't cover the good only the baaaaaaaaaaaaad....democrat guuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuud...republican baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad..say it with me libbies....:-)~