1. George W Bush
2. haliburton
ooops same answer
2007-07-16 05:45:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
5⤋
Yes, the mission of removing Saddam Hussein from power was accomplished in 2003. But during that process and since, Iraq has become a major front in the war against radical islam. That war has been going on since they first bombed our innocent citizens in 1993. And because the footsoldiers of radical islam act like cockroaches and hide among innocent people including children, this war is going to take a very long time.
2007-07-16 05:50:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Asterisk 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
1. This is like WW2 we are not dealing with people who are operating with clear lines or uniforms etc.
2. We have to fight the war very PC which slows us down and get more troops killed.
3. Mission Accoplished if you were paying attention was taking saddam out of power that mission was accomplished.
2007-07-16 06:04:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
particular, the american human beings did no longer choose for the conflict in Iraq. It became the leaders who did it with out consulting or telling the american human beings the actual time table of the conflict. Had it no longer no longer befell to you why the twin towers collapsed whilst it became hit via the planes? basic experience will tell that this is impossible. although, if a bomb have been planted interior the development, this would be a probability. in case you had the social accumulating to make certain video clips or video clips of a development demolition, then you somewhat've an thought that even 10 planes will by no skill cave in the towers. in simple terms learn the footages, and you will see an somewhat excellent similarity. Ergo, this is the extra convincing way of coming up the american human beings to clamor for the decimation if no longer extinction of terrorism. yet whose terrorism, interior the sunshine of those activities? lots have been pronounced approximately this destruction interior the papers and tv. And info are pointing that Bin weighted down or those claiming to be in charge for 9/11 are in simple terms props hiding the actual nature/objective of the attack. it somewhat is why one among those good kind of are perplexed. yet then somewhat workout of the grey cells will show that the twin towers has been bombed, synchronized with the airplane attack. via ways, have been there any airline corporation who pronounced/claimed that it became their airplane that hit the towers?
2016-12-10 13:51:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The enemy is not clear, and the definition of winning is ever changing under the Bush administration.
By May of '03 the initial goal of removing Hussein's government was achieved.
IMHO it will take the next president to get us out of Iraq. The president went in with no idea that it was going to be a quagmire like this. That's a pretty gigantic gaff considering the advice he received from his father, the elder President Bush, and others.
2007-07-16 05:50:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Mister J 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because the Germans didn't walk around in plain clothes and plant bombs to take out civilians. The conventional war in Iraq lasted less than a month. We're good at fighting conventional wars, but stuff like this will take a lot longer. It's pretty easy to understand when you take the time to think about it.
2007-07-16 05:47:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dekardkain 3
·
4⤊
2⤋
World War Two: 1939-1945. That would be six years.
Iraqi Freedom: 2003 - Present. So far it has been four years.
Go back to school.
2007-07-16 05:48:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
we do not have a defined enemy. There is no country or specific person . . . we are fighting an abstract object that comes in all shapes and forms. Look at Vietnam. you should be relating the current war to that instead of WWII . . .
2007-07-16 06:26:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by vinsa1981 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You don't know the hidden mission of Bush & Co.
How can you say it is accomplished?
2007-07-16 05:48:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mustansar Dar 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Simple. In WWII, it was armed forces fighting against armed forces. When one side had clearly been defeated, they had leaders who could surrender, calling an end to the hostilities.
Here, we are not fighting against a traditional armed force, and the insurgents do not have actual leaders who can or will tell them to stop fighting.
2007-07-16 05:46:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Quite simple really:
One was to free people and countries from the 3rd reich with UN approval, the other is an invasion without UN approval
2007-07-16 05:51:21
·
answer #11
·
answered by theedge 2
·
0⤊
2⤋