It is inevitable that having installed a Shiitte puppet government, Iran will be running Iraq for yeras to come.... Is that why the Bushies are now arming the Sunnis....?
WHAT A MESS????????????????????
2007-09-02 13:50:51 · 11 answers · asked by Dream Realized 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not a single death or any of the physical and psychological injuries resulting from Bush’s war against the people of Iraq is justified. There are things in life worth sacrificing for – George Bush is not one of them (he does not represent, believe in, or care about America).
----------------
RLP =
The neocons’ Iraq/Middle East plan started as a stupid idea doomed to failure, but it did not necessarily have to be a total catastrophic failure (that was Bush’s personal contribution). Every non-partisan Middle East expert in the world predicted that the most likely outcome of invading Iraq would be a civil war and regional destabilization. Actually, anyone with the slightest real knowledge of the region knew this to be true.
The President’s own father knew it and said so in his 1998 book, ‘A World Transformed’. Colin Powell (then Secretary of State) told Dubya, “If you break it [Iraq], then you own it”.
The first Gulf War commander "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf knew it, saying that if America invaded Iraq it would become a, “dinosaur in a tar pit”. Hell, even evil Dick Cheney had said it would become a quagmire.
Conservatives rag on Democrats for not having a plan (which is true, they don’t) to hide the fact that they also do not have – and never have had – a plan either. The fact is that there is no ‘plan’ that produces a single positive for America. We are going to leave; the only question is when. Politically, and in terms of Iraq’s future, leaving tomorrow or next year is no different that if we had left yesterday or last year.
Well, there is the difference of the numbers of wounded and dead; the families destroyed; and the further loss of America’s standing in the world by staying. At least that is the conclusion reached in recent reports by the US Department of State and a consensus of America’s 16 Intelligence Agencies. But what do they know, huh? Maybe the Bush strategy of endlessly screwing ourselves will ultimately bring the terrorists to their knees – in laughter, anyway.
2007-09-02 16:17:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
No I wouldn't. We have bigger enemies right here at home than any in Iraq. I'd be willing to fight them but Bush (or any other president) will never have the balls to go after the bankers in this country. They have a firm grip right around his nut sack and have had the same grip on every single president since 1913. The best thing that could ever happen to this country is for brave Americans to take up arms against the federal reserve and kill every last stockholder on sight and any body that came to their aide and seize their assets. The biggest world problem would be solved with that one fell swoop. The congress needs to take back their constitutional mandate to coin money. This war in Iraq is all orchestrated by the world bankers to make a profit.
2007-09-02 21:11:37 · answer #2 · answered by rick b 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There are those who feel that the military is there to support and die for the president and his agenda. In reality the oath that an enlisted man/woman takes is the 'support and uphold the Constitution of the United States', not it's usurper and the one who treats it like it is a useless piece of paper. Here's a make you say hmmmmmm, if the military really supported and upheld the Constitution, could they legitimately 'dethrone' Dubya, since he has dismissed it on too many occassions?
2007-09-02 21:00:42 · answer #3 · answered by momatad 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
My husband is serving and I hope that the reason he is risking his life is for his country not for George Bush. He signed the dotted line years ago and understood when he did he might have to fight regardless of his personal feelings. You are probably right Iran will end up running Iraq as soon as we pull our troop out. But not yet. Our soldiers are there to make sure of it.
2007-09-02 21:01:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
When I am dictator for life, I will implement a marxist-socialist society so bleak that you will have no time to worry about such things. I will control the media even more than I already do, you will work the fields from sunrise to sunset, and no electricity to power your radio, tv, or internet.
2007-09-02 21:11:59 · answer #5 · answered by Hillary Clinton 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Americans are fighting for America and the people of Iraq. Would you rather leave them to the terrorists?
2007-09-02 21:11:16 · answer #6 · answered by Cherie 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's all about Dubya's 'Legacy' as a 'war preznit'.
History will not look favorably on him.
He is a miserable failure - and I have no doubt that there will be at least half a dozen responses to your question from trolls and idiots who support (or claim to support) dubya.
They are even sadder than he is.
2007-09-02 20:56:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Why do YOU want to lose so that President Bush fails? Why is it so important to liberals that we fail?
No one should have to die for the success of a President...it is the success of the United States of America...people want to fight for liberty and freedom.
2007-09-02 22:07:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
a mess my left..xxxx. the "mess" is when clinton ignored al qaeda for eight years and bush had do clean it up. would i be prepared to die in iraq to defend my country...ABSOLUTELY...i am a survivor of 911 and your attitude and lassiez fare attempt to mock the memory of the people al qaeda has killed here i find sickening. bush has nothing to do with it. i truly wish you liberal extremists would wake up and understand the threat of al qaeda is real and deadly.
2007-09-02 20:59:32 · answer #9 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
I don't think you understand-- President Bush is America-- so if he succeeds then America succeeds.
2007-09-02 21:20:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋