Does anyone else think that Bush took it too far back in 2002 by not listening to the UN after they told us not to go into Iraq?
I mean, we had no reasons to go over there. That was something the UN needed to take care of, not the US. Iraq didn't do anything direct to America for us to get over there. Iraq wasn't a part of 9-11. We should have let them take care of it.
Just wanting opinions...
2007-06-12 14:19:55 · 11 answers · asked by Jeremiah 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree I think the BS would have never happened if the Bush family didnt love war
2007-06-12 14:23:22 · answer #1 · answered by Kat A 3 · 4⤊ 4⤋
By now anyone who has paid the slightest attention knows the often-changing rationale for invading Iraq was bogus. There may have been valid self-interests to be served by this invasion but, for whatever reason, this administration decided its interests were best served by deception. I think it was hubris more than greed or pure evil, but then I'm an optimist.
2007-06-12 21:42:38 · answer #2 · answered by Mac 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've found that people in leadership positions have to make impossible choices while we sit back and complain (I'm guilty of a little of this too). If a democrat had been in office and kept us out of every conflict possible, the country would be up in arms for letting the rest of the world push us around. No one wins.
I'll take my multiple thumbs down now for trying to take the middle ground on an divisive issue.
2007-06-12 21:27:17 · answer #3 · answered by Action 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The UN is over rated. There was plenty of reason to go over there and Congress agreed. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
2007-06-12 21:24:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
yes it would have been better. Clinton bashers are funny,but they lack facts. GHW Bush involved us in the Balkan conflict and Somalia. they were NATO/UN actions
2007-06-12 21:46:05 · answer #5 · answered by here to help 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Attempted to assassinate one of our Presidents;
Invaded one of our allies (Kuwait);
Paid suicide bombers to attack one of our allies (Israel);
Repeatedly broke the cease fire after the first part the Gulf War.
We had a quite a few reasons.
We waited a decade for the U.N. to act and stop "warning" Iraq impotently. We were blocked repeatedly by countries who were breaking the agreement not supply war materials to Iraq (Russia, France) and we got tired of it. We were the one's they kept shooting at over the No Fly Zone.
2007-06-12 21:30:25 · answer #6 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
W
The Warmonger
2007-06-12 21:24:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Sure, in one breath people like you complain that his father listened to the UN and didn't take Saddam out when we could have easily with the war in 91. Yet, with another breath, you complain that his son didn't listen to the UN and went ahead with what he thought needed to be done--and those in congress, both Republicans AND Democrats agreed with him. Which is it?
2007-06-12 21:23:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Bush was following an agenda, whatever was done or said would not have changed that
2007-06-12 21:28:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They didn't take care of it ! and there was enough credible evidence for us going and Congress voted to go to war. We cannot go back to 2002, so let's let it go!
2007-06-12 21:24:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋