2007-07-23 15:06:19 · 24 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I wish people would debate you instead of calling you names or spreading unfounded rumors about you.
This is an opinion question, not seditious, not necessarily unpatriotic (only you know if you put your country first ahead of your personal ideology).
I think people are confused about the "war".
We won the war. Saddam was executed. This is a single battle in an unending conflict against terrorism, a battle we have refused to knuckle under to anymore.
We've turned Iraq into the largest fly-trap in the world, have an incredible kill ratio (they're dying in a 6/1 ratio with us coming out with few casualties compared),
Terrorism will for the first time be placed on notice. There is no safe country for you. You cannot hide in other nations, they won't shield you anymore. No one likes you (worth knowing) and even your own people will turn you in.
That's not exactly a waste. I don't know if we will ever be able to measure how many lives will be saved in the long run by these measures. Many Islamic countries have joined in the hunt. I'm grateful for it.
2007-07-23 15:15:17 · answer #1 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because Dick Cheney told Bush Jr. that Iraq had WMD.
Not only did he tell him that he showed him evidence; flawed evidence obtained under torture and with nothing to back it up. But, Cheney had the whole song and dance routine ready to feed to his boss.
Cheney, took us into Iraq, Bush was just his pawn. In fact once when they thought they had enough proof to convince Bush to go to war he said, "No, but nice try." Cheney wanted to go to war because he was in a power struggle and Donald Rumsfled wanted to test his new way to run the Army; the smaller, cheaper, better idea that got the Thresher sunk. Those are the ones that got us into the War in Iraq.
George Bush Sr. had a chance to take out Saddam, he had the Iraqis on the run, the Republican Guard was stripped of all the normal troops and were outnumbered by the coalition. Bush Sr. stopped short of Baghdad. He let Colin Powell's moaning about the "road of death" give him a good reason.
Before Bush Sr. was president he ran the CIA. He knew about the Shiite and Sunni civil war and why the dictators of the Middle East were so cruel to their own people. He didn't want to plunge the US into that religious civil war. Too bad his son prided himself on never asking dad for any advice.
2007-07-23 15:16:41 · answer #2 · answered by Dan S 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It wasnt just Bush, it was a congress half filled democrats eager to please. Youre on here enough and you know better! Why be willfully ignorant?
I dont consider getting rid of Saddam a waste of a war considering he was our long time enemy. If you understood anything at all about our foreign policy since the 70's, you would no what Im talking about but youre ignorant and whats worse is you like it that way!
2007-07-23 15:31:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
decelerate there, chum. that's no longer historic heritage. It grew to become into in basic terms some years in the past. The Congress voted very almost unanimously to deliver the troops into Iraq. That coated the democrats. It grew to become into in basic terms whilst the insurgency emerged that he democrats started out to undermine the warfare attempt and seek for political benefit. definitely, do you think of the enemy isn't inspired by potential of the messages attacking the president and the warfare attempt that the democrats have been spewing? %. one: Democrats vote to deliver interior the troops then guard a extreme point of help and deliver a sturdy message that we are in it until eventually victory no count the cost. Democrats vote to deliver interior the troops then guard a extreme point of disapproval for the president and the warfare and demand the withdrawal of the troops. which might the terrorists choose? .
2016-12-10 19:58:51 · answer #4 · answered by hutt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It got him elected the second time.
Without the war in Iraq, he'd have appeared ineffectual.
Imagine him running without the invasion, no Bin Laden in custody, only the ongoing Terror War, with its misty results.
He'd have lost. So to appear to be doind something, he started a war.
2007-07-23 15:14:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
He chose a diversionary war in Iraq, despite there being no terrorists there at the time, because he had no idea how to capture/kill Osama & couoldn't find anyone to prosecute for 9/11.
2007-07-23 15:13:02 · answer #6 · answered by dryheatdave 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He hates America and all the men that teased him for being a Cheerleader
2007-07-23 15:32:02 · answer #7 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why is no longer an issue. Now all that matters is fixing this mess that we have gotten ourselves in to and get our troops home where they belong.
Bush has his agenda and he couldn't care less about who moves in after him.
2007-07-23 15:12:03 · answer #8 · answered by nana4dakids 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
First, he wanted revenge against Saddam Hussein for trying to kill his Dad.
Then, he wanted the oil.
Then, he thought the country would idolize him for vengeance for 9/ll.
Then, because he has a vision that he can bring democracy to the Middle East by force.
He's crazy....
2007-07-23 15:12:53 · answer #9 · answered by cherylincanada 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
PNAC. Plus I think there is money in keeping the country in fear. How else can you explain why Bush would let bin Laden just skate out of Tora Bora?
2007-07-23 15:11:06 · answer #10 · answered by expose_neocons 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋