Go to Bush's War, or The War Of The Gulf
- Add a comment
- Go to And So It Begins...
daisysface,
read any number of my blogs and you'll see that I believe Dubya is there on a personal agenda, a misconstrued idea that his father did not get the job done the first time around and he, Dubya, now that he is definitely in a position to do so, can now clear the family name. George the First didn't besmirch the Bush name, he played an intelligent part in the first Persian Gulf War, stopping short of Baghdad, then leaving. This accomplished two things: the American led Coalition forces at the time were not seen as occupiers and it ended a threat to Kuwait (and anybody else the Hitler-like Hussein was wont to invade)and the region.
Now that we're there, it's all about corporate profits. The Bush millions keep growing with the rise in oil prices. They also have ties with Haliburton. There is no reason for our troops to still be there, considering there never were any WMDs and the capture of Hussein has been effected. Ostensibly, Bush and crew say that we must remain there to develop the new Iraqi democracy, but that's a load of crap. Any halfwit can see that, democracy or not, Iraq (and Afghanistan also) is going into a period of civil war when we leave.
So it really doesn't matter if we leave today, or 2006 as projected, except to the thousands of American military personnel who will assuredly pay the ultimate price for Bush's personal agenda of cleansing the family name, lining his bottomless pockets, and spreading democracy because he beleives that is what god wants. (And that is a very dangerous idea to have floating in that moron's head, given his penchant for doing whatever he wishes.)
posted by
saul_relative
on November 9, 2004 at 5:04 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm just trying to get something straight.. We invaded Iraq in the first place for weapons of mass destruction, after 9/11... Of which we never found... or was it we did find... I'm getting confused with the flip flopping of the real story or the real reason...
Ok.. i understand Bush going there for a reason.. But now, we are there , just started up attacks so they vote in the next few months? That's not the reason we were there in the first place.
If we were there to fight for the freedom rights of the people there, is one thing.. one war.. But we were there for a whole different reason. But Bush still has our military there, almost finding any reason just to be there.
It doesn't make sense to me.. can anyone shed some light on this??
posted by
daisysface
on November 8, 2004 at 7:41 PM
| link to this | reply