GOOD QUESTION!! WIN WHAT??
What are we fighting for? I know Bush doesn't know. The government says we are trying to help them establish a government and stop the killing but there are situations like this happening all over the world.
2007-09-09 14:40:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by elims4ever 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
How bout this one:
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
Or this one:
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
or this one:
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
2007-09-09 21:46:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by John T 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Do you know who said this in 1998?
"In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace."
And this.
"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. "
Ex-president Clinton said these things. Here's a link to the transcript.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
The fact is that Iraq has become what it is due to many factors. One of those factors is people who would rather undermine any good that can come out of it in order to prove a point and justify their beliefs. America is making a fool of itself, not in the way you say, but because politicians have themselves as their top agenda, rather than the problem at hand and what can be done NOW. We can't go back to 2003 with our knowledge of what's happened since, only forward with the knowledge of what's happened in the past.
2007-09-09 21:52:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by kookie 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
Okay Lemme make some points here
When Nine-Eleven happened the general American public was for the war(attack) because it was supposed to be an In-Out operation.
But what most Americans don't get through there thick skulls is America , the greatest nation to exist , was attacked by terrorists and the few brave in American congress men said "Hey were not letting these low lives get away with that S*** . But once a couple thousand died and the terrorists started punchin holes in us the war is all of a sudden a crisis and its all of a sudden "Bushes war" so few have said.
And i don't know about you but i think those thousands that have died, were fighting for what this country is
about "freedom".
Also those terrorists ,who if we pull out of Iraq get away with killing thousands of Citizens ,who had nothing and wanted nothing to do with terrorism or fighting,
are killing Innocent bystanders from different countries who also had nothing to do with any of this
Which is NOT ok
We are fighting to keep America and Freedom safe and also prevent another situation like Nine-Eleven from happening
2007-09-09 21:57:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
I've been asking 'win what' for awhile now, I've also been asking what the difference between 'winning' in Iraq, and establishing world peace is.
Fighting for world peace seems an oxymoron to me, but Bush's most recent comments make it seem as though that's his goal.
2007-09-09 21:40:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by in pain 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes. Bush's biggest mistqake was appointing Rumsfeld as defense secretary. If he had appointed Colin Powell as defense secretary, it would have been over in 6 weeks, because Powell would have sent in enough troops to do the job right from the beginning.
2007-09-09 21:36:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by Renaissance Man 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
I can't prove it but I predicted 150 years when my daughter asked prior to the invasion.
The problem with the your question is that the response was in regards to taking down Saddam. Not how long the whole adventure would last.
2007-09-09 21:55:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Rumsfield said that and yea he is a bit of a fool but they thought it was going to be a quick win.
2007-09-09 21:38:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by footballgeek56 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
We won the war in Iraq in days.
Who are you kidding?
Saddam was captured shortly afterward hiding in a hole.
Then we continued the war on terror, using Iraq, the government we now had a handle on, as the biggest flytrap in the world.
Who are YOU trying to take as fools?
2007-09-09 21:36:25
·
answer #9
·
answered by mckenziecalhoun 7
·
2⤊
3⤋
Rumsfeld.
2007-09-09 21:34:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋