Bush failure or stable Iraq?

by Spartacus 100 Replies latest social current

  • Spartacus

    Would you rather see Bush fail or a stable society for the Iraqi people? Why?

    Do anyone hate Bush or America so much that you would rather see military failure which will mean more death and carnage for the Iraqi people and the US/Allied military? Or would you like to see a Bush/Allied military success, giving the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves toward a stable democratic society?

  • Simon

    No one would "rather" see military failure in Iraq. What we want to see is the people spared the nightmare that they now endure since Bush went off on his right-wing religion inspired crusade.

    And before you start saying they they are better off than they were under Saddam ... I think that is only a decision that they can make and also Saddam was the result of previous US foreign policy.

    I'd rather the US grew up and stopped acting like a spoilt, immature, brat.

  • Spartacus

    OK, Simon, going forward what do you want Bush/military failure or stable democratic Iraq? I know you answered that but deep down I think you would find some satisfaction in a military failure. To teach us spoiled Americans a lesson, right?

  • Spartacus

    Listen I think it is worse for the Iraqi people at the moment but since all this has happened what is greater, your support for a stable democratic Iraq or a Bush/Allied military failure?

    right-wing religion inspired crusade.

    Simon, do you believe everything you read that puts America in a bad light, that is blatant left wing propaganda, don't believe all the hype. Bush is a Church goer indeed but he did not start this thing based on religous reasons did he, I thought it was for the oil? Which is it? Could there be more objective reasons for going into Iraq? Perhaps ill conceived but is there a chance it was based on geo-political reasons and not religion? If I were president I would not have gone in there myself but I think the UK have nothing to feel so proud about all the countries the UK invaded and occupied for economic reasons, the UK still enforces today, how about Ireland? The UK enforce it's will on it does it not? I could be wrong perhaps I may have the wrong impression yet I do not see you whining about all the problems the UK has caused around the world. It was the GB who drew the borders in the Middle East yet was it any of your business to do so?

  • SixofNine

    The failure is already well established. We failed and we are failing.

    Now it's a matter of making the best of a horrible situation. The idea that the brain dead morons who put us in that bad situation, are the best ones to get us out, is ridiculous, but it's also the situation we are stuck with.

  • undercover
    The failure is already well established. We failed and we are failing.

    My thoughts exactly.

    The war was justified by claiming WMD and a connection between Iraq and the Al-Qaida attack on New York. There was neither. Then the war became "Iraqi Freedom". The insurgency that has followed will lead to civil war after the elections.

    Yea, Hussein was a bad guy, but the US is not the world's policeman. If they were, why don't they invade North Korea and confiscate their WMD? Why don't they invade Iran(not so fast there, they just might). Why not invade Cuba and dethrone Castro? Or any other third world country and it's dictatorship that makes it's people suffer?

    Bush got re-elected because he posed with the American flag in one hand and the Bible in the other and conservative, church-going, gay bashing so-called christians bought it.

  • JH

    I'm anxious to see if the elections get on without a bang.

  • Spartacus

    I think some of you watch too many movies, I think things are progressing quickly consdiering it is a war. 6of9 said:

    We failed and we are failing.

    Talk about instant gratification, don't act like a spoiled brat. After WW2 how many years and how many billions of dollars did it take to settle Europe again and how long did Europe need our military to protect it from any other aggression from the USSR? Was it entirely wrong to do that too?

    Wars are not wrapped up in just a few hours but they can be shortened doing the right thing by pulling together and making a success out of a mistake it happens all the time through out history. So are you hoping for failure and more chaos it sounds like it to me. Just be honest about it.

  • hillary_step

    The 'elections' in Iraq are a farce.

    There are political banners urging people to vote for their candidates, but no names for the candidates as they are scared of being assassinated. People who would like to vote are remaining at home because they do not want their legs blown off in the continuing slaughter. Whole tribal factions are refusing to vote until security is established. The known polling stations are being bombed daily, the ones not yet known are not being announced until the last minute of the election for fear of obliteration. The US & UK armies in Iraq are on red alert to stop mass uprisings and civil war breaking out on election day.

    This 'democratic' election is a farce maintained by the US and UK public relations and their Iraqi stooges who have sat on the sidelines living in splendour in St. Johns' Wood while their 'people' suffered, as a means of at least appearing to be succeeding in this Bushist quest of bringing Baptist theology to downtown Middle East.

    What a mess!


  • undercover
    Talk about instant gratification, don't act like a spoiled brat.

    WWII lasted from late 1941 to mid 1945 for the US. Four years. Four years to repel Hitler and bring the German war machine to it's knees. Four years to push the Japanese back to defending their own island nation and surrounding area. And yes, it was a concerted effort by several allies to make this happen. Four years to bring two powerful nations with strong militaries to unconditional surrender.

    What about this war?

    The US has/had its allies as it led the war on Iraq. This is one little two-bit nation with a delusional dictator who had next to nothing of an army. They crushed the army, they (finally) captured the dictator and then declared victory and an end to hostilities. But the war isn't over. Every anti-US terrorist in the region is leading an insurgency against the US placed government and against the US forces. They are creating the perfect scenerio for a civil war in this country once the elections are held and it will be a bigger mess than ever.

    After WW2 how many years and how many billions of dollars did it take to settle Europe again and how long did Europe need our military to protect it from any other aggression from the USSR? Was it entirely wrong to do that too?
    Actually the US is now rushing things. They broke up the old government and before they cleaned up the country they try to hold post war elections so that they look good to the rest of the world. To really have done the job right, they should have invaded, conquered and ruled. But to do that would make them look like the agressor nation that they really were. So they stopped after the invading and pulled back from conquering and ruling. Doing that has what has led to the current insurgency. The elections are a joke and after they're over full scale civil war will break out. If they had conquered and ruled for awhile they could have cleaned up the country and presensted a nice, clean, safe nation to the people and then let them hold elections and form their new govenment.

Share this