Yes or No?

Question

Bush's foreign policy has stopped Iran from building a nuclear bomb, stopped Saddams' dictatorship, and has almost ridded Iraq from Al Qaeda.

How they got there is not the question, it's is he ridding Iraq of Al Qaeda.

Answer 1

YES.

Answer 2

1) Bush has not stopped Iran from building a nuclear bomb though, international pressures have slowed the process.

2) Clearly he has stopped Saddam's dictatorship.

3) Since there is an endless wealth of Al Qaeda recruits in and around Iraq, they will never be rid of them.

Answer 3

NO.
The presence of Al - Qaeda was non-existent till we invaded and pretty much made it a terrorist haven. Even though Saddam is a Sunni, he prosecuted and rejected the presence of Al-Qaeda in his country.
his "Foreign Policy" just made it worse.

NO.
his "Foreign Policy" did not stop Iran from building nuclear bomb. Is the Republican drumbeat for conviction for war is that Iran is building a nuke in this year, 2007 ? where in fact they stopped building back in 2003. riiight, his "foreign policy" *wink.

YES
he stopped Saddams dictatorship, but at what COST ?
9 trillions dollars, 4000 dead americans, and more than 60,000 amputees ?
or maybe we should have to stick to the policy of containment?
Where's the wmd ? again the wmd ?

Answer 4

So Bush alone did all this? I doubt it. Saddam was no threat to us and really none of our business. His regime was heading for a fall anyway. By being in Iraq we have generated more Al Qaeda than we have eliminated. Bin Laden is recruiting as I write or you read this.

Answer 5

yes, yes, no

Yes, his diplomacy has helped stop Iran. Yes, his war stopped Saddam. No, Saddam kept Al Qaeda out of Iraq. The entered only after Saddam was removed.

With that said, it was with reluctance that Bush used diplomacy instead of violence against Iran. Really, the other US politicians and the UN can be credited from keeping Bush from starting a War, and using diplomacy. Also, with Iraq, it is now obvious that the same diplomacy would have worked much better then a war.

Edit: I like how you credit Bush for getting Al Qaeda in Iraq, then ridding them of it. Classic. Sort of like praising Exxon for cleaning up their own oil spill.

Answer 6

Much more complicated than this. There was no al qaeda in Iraq prior to entering Iraq, friend. Hussein kept a balance of power away from the Iranians, so, we ousted a foe of Iran and political extremism in the middle east. Moderates in Iran stopped the nuke program in Iran.

So, to answer your question, a resounding NO.

Answer 7

No. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went in there. Saddam would never allow them a presence in Iraq. This is a well documented fact. Iran is still building the nuclear bomb, just as N. Korea did.

Answer 8

No to the first--as the NIE reprot out yesterday makes crystal clear.

Yes to the second--though using agression and invading another country without just cause is NOT excused by the fact that the head of state happened to be adictator-.

No to the third--there WERE NO al-Qaida in Iraq before Bush's invasion. He is responsible for al-Qaida being in Iraq in the first place.

Answer 9

No. And look I don't agree with N. Korean policy nor do I agree with Iranian policy but who F#%K said only America may have the bomb. I completely understand why another nation may then also want it for mere protection from the United States. This whole "I have it and no one else can," is completely childish. "World Police" or "Dominating Terrorist" I really don't see the difference.

Answer 10

Could be yes.
Perhaps Iran quit working on the bomb because the USA invaded Iraq and didn't need a nuclear bomb anymore. After all, Iraq was Iran's biggest enemy.

Answer 11

No, Putin was the first one to engage Iran about their program.
Al Queda came to Iraq for the easy targets Americans made of themselves.
And no one would have had to stop Saddam if Reagan wouldn't have sold him the weapons to stay in power.