Or rather, since you already blame him for everything -- ever think how nice the iraq effort would have been if any other major power had put the effort we did into helping bring order there? or would you rather we left saddam to kill more kurds and try to catch up to iran's growing nuclear capabilities, and just waiting us out?
2007-09-09 18:25:45 · 17 answers · asked by john knee 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Don't try to use logic with liberals. They are too busy trying to justify abortion, gay marriage, and islamofascist terrorists to be bothered with the truth.
2007-09-10 00:53:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well then it's Regans fault because the republican god "Regan help put Saddam in power". Was Regan indirectly responsible for Saddam's killing of the Kurds??? Here is the problem I have with Iraq. Before we stored into Iraq we should have captured Ben Ladin the dude reponsible for 9/11. IF we had nailed him then the chances of Al Quedia building up Cells in Iraq would have been greatly diminished. So now not only do we have the problem of Ben Ladin we also have the Iraq situation to deal with.
2007-09-09 18:44:55 · answer #2 · answered by wondermom 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Have you ever thought that other major powers were smart to stay out of Iraq? Maybe they realized it would be a hopeless war, as it has turned out to be. Taking Saddam out of the picture was not a bad idea, but everything after that has been a very bad idea. We have practically destroyed their country and it wasn't much to begin with. We certainly haven't improved anything and, this egotistical group trying to lead the US, continues to make FATAL mistakes! Of course we blame Bush...he's supposed to be our leader!
2007-09-09 18:41:14 · answer #3 · answered by ArRo 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would rather we let the Iraqi's deal with their own problems. Saddam was no threat to the US, so we should have stayed out. Oh, and in-case you have forgotten - there were no "weapons of mass destruction" found in Iraq! Also, I would rather have had a "competent" General prepare the "war strategy", and not the incompetent Donald Rumsfeld! I would rather have all of the above - BECAUSE the US cannot count on the other nations of the world to join our side.
2007-09-09 18:36:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
What are you talking about? Let me make it VERY clear to you so that even YOU can understand.
a. there were NO WMD's IN Iraq, even COLIN POWELL said that they never had viable evidence to support this position, basically he was told to LIE to congress about it.
b. we went to war with no full approval by congress. A violation of the laws put in place.
c. Terrorists were NOT in Iraq when Saddam was in power, yes he was a cold SOB, but that's why there were no terrorists.
Even Osama said he never liked the guy..
Yes I blame Bush and all our other spineless politicians for not doing the right thing. We are basically sending our troops over there to get killed for corporate greed! They are not dying for a good cause..but hey you want to keep drinking Tang...go ahead.
2007-09-09 18:38:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Where do you get your information? The media?
I don't blame Bush for anything. I blame the country that elects such a person. I blame a country for believing whatever it reads on a website or hears on a TV station, before actually getting an education in political science and economics.
We are too busy being entertained to actually gain informed insight into the nature of political and economic incentives from foreign policy. And we release all of our ignorant frustration on websites like this. I'm a victim of this pattern too. Why else would I have answered this question?
2007-09-09 18:31:54 · answer #6 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
whether they agreed with the invasion or not, every country must see that a destabilized Iraq would destabilize the entire region. Jordan and S.A. should step in with forces to help end the violence in Iraq.
2007-09-09 19:02:26 · answer #7 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Americans that defend Bush need to do some research before doing so.Saddam didn't kill for over 10 years and was complying with UN.By the way - Bush Sr. was in power then and he cared less how many people Saddam was killing.The oil is what made him attack.Like father like son....
2007-09-09 18:33:33 · answer #8 · answered by RX 5 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Bush should have never got in in the first place.
As far as I remember GORE got the Florida vote
Of course Bush had lots of friends in high places in Florida , so....you know ...that helped
Have you ever seen the movie Farenheight 911 ?
If not I suggest you do :-)
2007-09-09 18:47:32 · answer #9 · answered by Wishing 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
#1 no nuclear deivices found #2 we killed and started to get more people to ever hate the us than sadam himself could have in power. It is anarchy over there. We took away all stability and it is now a breeding ground for terrorists. My friend you need to read and watch the news. We ****** up real bad. Sadam may have been a monster but he had control over his country. We invaded for no reason, dont say we are fighting terror because we created and made it worse over there.
2007-09-09 18:34:24 · answer #10 · answered by Median 2 · 5⤊ 3⤋
bottom line, it was not our PLACE to get rid of Saddam; we have NOTHING to do with that, and Bush merely used 9/11 as an excuse that we did.
2007-09-09 18:46:39 · answer #11 · answered by dj543 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋