Is Bush trying to start more war fronts then any other president? Is he going for a record? Is he trying to beat Hitlers record? Is that the legacy he is looking for?
2007-12-04 00:48:55 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Nice lady..........I'm not a dem. I'm a republican. Not a neocon. But it does seem the dems were right all along, as usual.
2007-12-04 00:54:38 · update #1
I think at this point in the game-and do not kid yourself to him it is a game-he is not the slightest bit concerned with his legacy since turd blossom will change it to suit them anyway. The fact that so many of the people answering your question do not seem the slightest bit concerned as to the reprecussions of starting another war in the mid-east is very telling that the fear mongering tactics employed by this regime have been very effective. Otherwise intelligent people have allowed themselves to believe this is about terrorism when the truth is smacking them in the face they still refuse to see it. History will remember George W Bush as one of the biggest terrorist recruiters in the world. You can not go around killing innocent civillians and expect them to be happy to see you.
If Bush starts a war with Iran that will be the catalyst for major changes in this country. We already are so divided as a nation and a nation this divided can not stand for anything as we have fallen for so much. As hard as it may be for some on the right to accept-we were right about Iraq and we are right about Iran. Take care of the homeless here, make sure everyone that needs a doctor can go to one, make sure no one goes to bed hungry, and make sure every child has the same opportunity as the next to get a good education-only then should we try to cure any of the "evils" in the world. We need to erdicate the evils here first.
2007-12-04 03:28:50 · answer #1 · answered by liberalady 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they should not be if it is for the reason of spreading democracy to other nations, or for national security reason. Neocons would tell you that these are one and the same.
You obviously don't understand neoconservatism because your question is irrelevant to a true neoconservative.
Also, your analogy to Hitler's Nationalist Socialist party use of war and Bush's use of war are way off. Socialist tend to increase their borders for the purpose of inflicting their will on a larger group, while Bush believes he is making the world a safer place by implementing regime change, while attempting to create more democracies in the world.
And BTW, not all neocons agree that the way Bush is handling this is correct.
2007-12-04 01:05:22 · answer #2 · answered by ROIHUNTER 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Iraq has always been a proxy war with Iran. Until America deals effectively with the Iranian threat, we cannot defeat Islamic terrorism.
Please tell the "teacher" (and I use the term loosely) who gave you this misinformation that Hitler fought WW2 on only two fronts, Eastern and Western. (Best known accademically in the anti-war novel "All Quiet on the Western Front") *sigh* Stinkin' public school system.....
2007-12-04 01:03:57 · answer #3 · answered by cornbread_oracle 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Almost started, what? Evidence?
Good grief, a bit early to see another victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome. And, what exactly is a neocon? Does that make you a neolib?
But, to appease the YA busy-bodies, the answer is a resounding NO because Bush DIDN'T almost start a 3rd war front.
2007-12-04 00:55:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
whilst they arise with a prevailing protection rigidity innovations-set, they are going to come to a decision despite if or to no longer launch the attack with 3 weeks observe. They gave Bin weighted down 3 weeks observe. They gave Saddam 3 weeks observe. they are going to provide Tehran 3 weeks observe. they arise with a pretext whilst the time comes, or no longer. They now understand that the yank human beings won't raise a finger to renounce them.
2016-10-10 05:25:31 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, and it's not gonna happen. Hitler only had 2 fronts by the way, the Western and Eastern.
2007-12-04 00:53:43 · answer #6 · answered by booman17 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm a republican, not a new convict, and it doesn't upset me at all. By the by, how are you so certain that the new report is more accurate than previous reports with which you disagree? Is it because this one says what you want to hear?
2007-12-04 01:12:34 · answer #7 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nah, some folks like the idea that we threaten and bully the rest of the world. I sense it helps them compensate for their inadequacies...
2007-12-04 01:19:42 · answer #8 · answered by outcrop 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bush has been lying for months about the capabilities of Iran,
he was given the report that came out yesterday last June, yet he and cheney continued to push for a preemtive war against Iran
thank god at least the people in the intelligence community finally forced them to admit the truth that all this was the same baloney that got us into Iraq
2007-12-04 00:56:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Almost started a war?? Good grief.
Now dems call mouthing off almost started a 3rd war.
We have "almost" had hundreds of wars by your definition.
Even when things calm down and seem to be working out, you still complain.
2007-12-04 00:52:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋