Is it George Bush or did the problems start long before that!!
2007-08-31 03:56:40 · 14 answers · asked by L 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The Iraqis..All of them. Not Bush, not Clinton, not any American
2007-08-31 04:03:22 · answer #1 · answered by needhelp 2 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Well, long before that. Probably around 1950 US involvement with Iraq began. They could have let the confrontation go after the gulf war, but the Bush administration primarily resurrected the cause. Congress is partially to blame, they did and have been approving the war and funding. Probably the most to blame is fault US intelligence.
2007-08-31 04:08:40 · answer #2 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look, if we'd gone in and got Saddam at the end of the Persian Gulf War like Margaret Thatcher had said, none of this would ever have happened. So right now I'm blaming the Republicans and the stupid Labour Government. For some reason, Labour never learns their lesson. And neither do the people that vote for them, apparently. I'm blaming the Republicans for bringing this all back up again.
2007-08-31 04:13:16 · answer #3 · answered by Legate Tatiana 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Iraq was a very contained threat prior to the invasion. Saddam was quite the ****** but kept the sectarian nonsense in control and he was neutered by the UN sanctions. Iraq was no threat to the US.
Bush has now opened up a Pandora's Box of problems. When we leave Iran will come in establish part of Iraq as another radical theocracy, wipe out the Sunnis while the Turks invade the Kurds from the North.
OBL in his wildest dreams couldn't of turned Iraq into a better situation for chaos than Bush has.
2007-08-31 04:05:00 · answer #4 · answered by Cadillac1234 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Problems existed even before Bush showed up into the picture. Bush only made the situation worse. He doesnt listen and the situation in Iraq is only getting worse. His plan is to stay there for 2008 and beyond.
2007-08-31 04:05:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
For Iraq's problems prior to our invasion? Saddam. Him and the way they run societies over there lead to problems.
But the ill planed war is to blame for the more basic problems over there, like only having electricity for 1 hour a day, or still lacking running water.
2007-08-31 04:09:38 · answer #6 · answered by Kevy 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The "situation". What "situation" exactly?
If you're talking about the terrorist insurgents, they are to blame for the level of violence and the 10's of thousands of deaths they caused.
But if you think that just ignoring Saddam would have led to peace and stability, that's foolishness.
2007-08-31 04:27:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on if you want to place the blame on "who started it" or "who didn't stop it." Bush is certainly the most recognizable figure and had the most power to stop it if he wanted to, but instead let things roll along. It is unfortunate that decisionmakers at every level from every country do not have a greater regard for human life.
2007-08-31 04:05:18 · answer #8 · answered by altonmckinley 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Iraq's problems began long before this country even existed but Bush is totally responsible for OUR problems in Iraq.
2007-08-31 04:07:04 · answer #9 · answered by marlio 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The problems started long before that.
Dubya just made them worse.
2007-08-31 04:14:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam.
If he just followed the UN mandates and didn't leave room for doubt on what he was doing and rebuild his military on the black-market, he would not have given the appearance he was hiding thing. Saddam gave enough doubt to allow Bush the latitude to attack.
2007-08-31 04:08:05 · answer #11 · answered by mnbvcxz52773 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋