It appears Bush wants the Iraqis to be free and govern themselves. Do you think he's right or wrong?

Question

The more detail, the better. I'm trying to better understand this complex situation. Thanks.

Answer 1

Actually that is the desire of everyone. The problem is they have not been able to do that. Bush's hand picked lackeys in Iraq are unable to effectively govern. The civil war is still going on over there. It is not an easy thing to comprehend and it is a mess we shouldn't have made in the first place. There will need to be a time when we will have to finally cut the cord and say you're on your own come what may and boogie on out of ther. Sooner is better than later. That way any further killing is not the killing of Americans but their own people. They have handled their problems their way for over 3000 years and eventually they will deal with the ones they have now. Outside interference just delays the inevitable.

Answer 2

In WW2, we freed the Holocaust victims, but it wasn't a goal of the war. More like a positive by-product of ending Nazi Germany's tyranny. Same thing with the civil war in America, we fought the south, but not to free the slaves. Another positive by-product. While freeing Iraqis and letting them govern themselves does seem like a positive goal, I'm not going to delude myself into believing it's the sole primary focus of the mission. I can't think of a conflict in history waged simply to free a people without offering some other incentive for the country to fight.

It seems part of the goal is military industrial complex supply side economics to stimulate the US economy. Another goal is simply to call out anyone that hates the US to do battle with us in the Middle East, instead of encouraging them to join terror cells and plan the next 9/11.

Answer 3

An Iraqi was governing an Iraq before we invaded. What Bush means is he wants an Iraqi lead government that will do what America wants, and in trying to create one he has created chaos in Iraq. As Colin Powell told Bush before the war that if we break it, it is ours. So now we are stuck and they are living in hell. It adds insult to injury to have to listen his moralistic justifications for what he has done.

Answer 4

Bush did not attack Iraq because he wanted the Iraqis to be free or to govern themselves.

He took advantage of Americans' irrational fear and attacked the easiest target on his radar screen, not to free the people, but to create an atmosphere of chaos in which his corporate thug buddies could enrich themselves.

Our military must now be retooled by who?

Nothing about this war was about spreading democracy or freeing a people.

Answer 5

It appears that Bush and the Neocons want OIL for the American empire. And so... Yes, I do think that it is morally wrong to invade a foreign land and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians under the guise of "their best interests" and "their freedoms." Bush has indeed created 10,000 more OBL's with his ill-fated invasion of Iraq. DISGUSTING.

Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dead_iraqi_would_have_loved

Answer 6

Saddam Hussein was the elected leader of Iraq before Pres Bush had the USA attack them. It seems that he is NOT for a free and self governing Iraq.

Answer 7

we first went there because the Iraqis refused full disclosure to the UN task force. this gave to impression they were hiding weapons of mass destruction. both parties knew we had to attack. now that we are there, to not Free the Iraqi people would be wrong.

Answer 8

I think every country should be free to govern themselves, without interference. Let the will of the people carry itself out (by itself) and all things will fall into place.

Answer 9

He's right. But have you ever heard the saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."? The country has to be ready to govern themselves for this to work.

Answer 10

That is what Bush SAYS he wants. Actions speak louder.
I think he is dishonest.