Anyone Still Think The US And UK Won In Iraq?
2014-06-12 9:59 pm
回答 (58)
2014-06-12 10:04 pm
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003
2014-06-12 10:30 pm
No.
Tony Blair and Bush lied through their teeth about weapons of mass destruction and have caused so many deaths including 9/11 which was revenge for the invasion.
Tony Blair and Bush lied through their teeth about weapons of mass destruction and have caused so many deaths including 9/11 which was revenge for the invasion.
2014-06-12 10:05 pm
Iran is sending in troops. Obama may have accomplished more than he thought. If you want an Islamic caliphate. I for one do not.
2014-06-12 10:01 pm
Obama lost that war after Bush came close to winning for the Iraqi people.
Now terrorism has home to attack Americans and the West thanks to Obama.
Now terrorism has home to attack Americans and the West thanks to Obama.
2014-06-13 3:27 pm
Nope the USA did a cr*ppy job.
2014-06-12 10:01 pm
Yes, what happened subsequently has more to do with the unpopular government in Baghdad. lol
2014-06-12 10:02 pm
Just like Vietnam, the US pulled out allowing them to fight among themselves.
2014-06-12 10:00 pm
Yes they WANT Iraq to be unstable and a safe-heaven for terrorism. This is what Bush/Cheney/Blair wanted to happen.
Iraq is worse off than under Saddam. Saddam was not a good guy but if at least if you stepped in line under his rule for the most part you were fine. Anyone could be killed by the road side bombs that are going off daily and weekly.
Iraq is worse off than under Saddam. Saddam was not a good guy but if at least if you stepped in line under his rule for the most part you were fine. Anyone could be killed by the road side bombs that are going off daily and weekly.
2014-06-14 12:30 am
Nobody won that stupid imperialist war. Saddam was overthrown and hanged, the Americans needlessly lost many soldiers, and the Iraqi people are now at the mercy of the terrorists
2014-06-13 8:46 pm
What do you mean "still"? I never thought we "won" anything in the first place.
2014-06-13 11:56 am
No winners.
2014-06-12 10:02 pm
It's a quagmire.
2014-06-13 1:53 pm
I think that inaction over Syria has encouraged ISIS. The situation is complicated.
Those now marching towards Baghdad are Sunni Muslims. Saddam Hussain was a Sunni. The majority (between 60 and 65%) of Muslims in Iraq are Shia. The democratically elected government is Shia. It is not, as biebs seems to think, an unpopular government.
Other countries still ruled by Sunni Muslims even though the majority of the people are Shia. Not surprisingly indexmundi simply says the the population of Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim, withoout reference to denomination.
When it suits, the US is not enamoured of Shia dominated regimes. Iran is 89% Shia.
I'm not a fan of the Prime Minister of Turkey (Sunni), but even he has acknowledged the dangerous situation by meeting the President Rohani of Iran (Shia) early this week.
Keith has it right, when he says it's Vietnam all over again, except that Vietnam doesn't have oil! Price per barrel has gone up since Monday!
Pity Syria doesn't have more oil!
Why do some people think Saddam was an OK guy as long as you toed the line? He gassed at 5 thousand Iraqi Kurds towards the end of the Iraq-Iran war in 1988, using chemical weapons he'd been using against Iran with the silent consent of the 'International Community'. Yes! They knew about it. Some Iranian soldiers were treated for injuries caused by chemical weapons in hospitals in Switzerland.
He also drained the marsh land in the south of the country and along the southern Iran-Iraq border, thereby depriving many 'Marsh Arabs' who were Shia and ethnically more Persian than Arab, of their livelihood.
Anyone with half a memory will remember that after the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait and Desert Storm was pronounced a success, two no-fly zones were patrolled by the US, one in the subsequently formed Kurdish autonomous area in the north and one in the south.
The reason for going to war against Iraq was that, having invaded Afghanistan looking for bin Laden and el-Quaeda (Sunnis), the US discovered that the organisation was active in Iraq.
ISIS is a branch of al-Quaeda and they are very much alive and kicking. I wouldn't call that a victory.
Those now marching towards Baghdad are Sunni Muslims. Saddam Hussain was a Sunni. The majority (between 60 and 65%) of Muslims in Iraq are Shia. The democratically elected government is Shia. It is not, as biebs seems to think, an unpopular government.
Other countries still ruled by Sunni Muslims even though the majority of the people are Shia. Not surprisingly indexmundi simply says the the population of Saudi Arabia is 100% Muslim, withoout reference to denomination.
When it suits, the US is not enamoured of Shia dominated regimes. Iran is 89% Shia.
I'm not a fan of the Prime Minister of Turkey (Sunni), but even he has acknowledged the dangerous situation by meeting the President Rohani of Iran (Shia) early this week.
Keith has it right, when he says it's Vietnam all over again, except that Vietnam doesn't have oil! Price per barrel has gone up since Monday!
Pity Syria doesn't have more oil!
Why do some people think Saddam was an OK guy as long as you toed the line? He gassed at 5 thousand Iraqi Kurds towards the end of the Iraq-Iran war in 1988, using chemical weapons he'd been using against Iran with the silent consent of the 'International Community'. Yes! They knew about it. Some Iranian soldiers were treated for injuries caused by chemical weapons in hospitals in Switzerland.
He also drained the marsh land in the south of the country and along the southern Iran-Iraq border, thereby depriving many 'Marsh Arabs' who were Shia and ethnically more Persian than Arab, of their livelihood.
Anyone with half a memory will remember that after the Iraqis retreated from Kuwait and Desert Storm was pronounced a success, two no-fly zones were patrolled by the US, one in the subsequently formed Kurdish autonomous area in the north and one in the south.
The reason for going to war against Iraq was that, having invaded Afghanistan looking for bin Laden and el-Quaeda (Sunnis), the US discovered that the organisation was active in Iraq.
ISIS is a branch of al-Quaeda and they are very much alive and kicking. I wouldn't call that a victory.
2014-06-12 11:20 pm
At least President Bush (Senior) had the good sense to invade but still keep Saddam Hussein in charge. Saddam may have not been a benevolent leader but he was a much better alternative to the chaos going on there now. Please U.S.A. do not try to "help" anymore. The world is messed up enough.
2014-06-12 10:49 pm
No we lost good people.
2014-06-12 10:05 pm
Well, Saddam Hussein is dead now, isn't he? You just think that "winning" would have made the other side happy, and love us, and that we'd all join hands and sing. At least the Iraqis didn't burn down our consulate and kill an ambassador like the America-loving people of Libya.
2014-06-12 10:01 pm
The Iraqis themselves lost their own country.
2015-10-29 6:21 am
Mrs Banquo Thatcher.
2014-06-18 12:34 am
It's a quagmire.
2014-06-17 10:46 pm
nope
2014-06-17 10:27 pm
Or in Afghanistan?
2014-06-17 3:31 pm
No winners.
2014-06-17 10:04 am
no I am not
2014-06-17 9:07 am
no I am not
2014-06-17 8:30 am
nope
2014-06-17 6:15 am
nope
2014-06-17 5:14 am
nope
2014-06-17 3:43 am
No winners.
2014-06-17 3:22 am
nope
2014-06-17 1:51 am
nope
2014-06-16 9:51 pm
nope
2014-06-16 1:41 pm
No winners.
2014-06-16 5:12 am
nope
2014-06-15 10:37 pm
Or in Afghanistan?
2014-06-15 9:24 pm
no I am not
2014-06-15 3:54 pm
They were succesful in managing to kill 1.5 millions Iraqi citizen from the last US. and UK. invasion to Iraq.
2014-06-15 1:32 pm
nope
2014-06-15 12:54 pm
no I am not
2014-06-14 11:52 pm
nope
2014-06-14 8:31 pm
Or in Afghanistan?
2014-06-14 7:28 pm
Or in Afghanistan?
2014-06-14 5:02 pm
No. We lost a load of soldiers for nothing. Innocent women and children died. In other words, civilians died. 9/11 was their revenge but they could have done it anyway. We were sent in there to kill Saddam but he was no worse than others. He stopped some terrorists.
參考: What's your Source (optional)
2014-06-14 4:52 pm
nope
2014-06-14 2:58 pm
bush and blair probably do but we never did
2014-06-14 2:23 pm
saddam was a dictator but no worse than many others around the world,but his country was not filled with extremists as it is now, the sunni have taken over 2 major towns and a shia cleric is now calling for his people to take up arms which is going to lead to bloody reprisals, or civil war, so bush and blair proud of yourselves are you.
2014-06-14 1:40 am
No winners.
2014-06-13 1:27 pm
No, Jihad Won.
Go on Blair, go get our Oil back...........
Go on Blair, go get our Oil back...........
2014-06-13 12:33 pm
Funny he does not want bizarre conspiracy theories, yet he is a slave worker for the very people behind all this.
2014-06-13 5:38 am
Or in Afghanistan?
2014-06-12 10:14 pm
"Winning" wasn't the plan.
Both Iraq and Libya were among several countries that refused to allow the private central banks to issue their nation's currency.
They were both destabilized, and Al Qaeda instered within them.
This is why they wanted Ambassador Christopher Steven killed: he was going to blow the whistle about weapons deals to Al Qaeda.
Now, it is happening in Syria.
The goal is destabilization, and a possible world war including Russia and China. Economic collapses will be occurring simultaneously, as well as social unrest.
The population will then beg for peace and a New World Order.
That is what they will get.
Both Iraq and Libya were among several countries that refused to allow the private central banks to issue their nation's currency.
They were both destabilized, and Al Qaeda instered within them.
This is why they wanted Ambassador Christopher Steven killed: he was going to blow the whistle about weapons deals to Al Qaeda.
Now, it is happening in Syria.
The goal is destabilization, and a possible world war including Russia and China. Economic collapses will be occurring simultaneously, as well as social unrest.
The population will then beg for peace and a New World Order.
That is what they will get.
2014-06-12 10:04 pm
Nobody won in Iraq. Nobody.
2014-06-17 11:36 pm
Or in Afghanistan?
2014-06-14 7:55 am
no but it would be even more immoral to leave them to sink or swim now, its an absolute mess
2014-06-13 8:07 pm
No one 'wins' a war.
You'll learn that when you grow up.
John
You'll learn that when you grow up.
John
2014-06-13 12:24 pm
Due to so many deaths, I would say no, they haven't won. All we've done is tried to help a country that's just tried to kill us since day 1, and won't help themselves.
2014-06-13 12:18 am
I think the reason for going to war there was to remove Hussein as leader and controller of the country. This aim was fulfilled so the people who wanted it done got it done. That's the definition of victory.
Obviously all that window dressing about promoting democracy, battling extremism and making western countries safer hasn't happened but that was always blatantly propaganda. It's like I don't expect using a particular type of shampoo to make the sun come out, though the adverts suggest it. They sell us wars in the same way they sell us everything else, with whatever lies they think people will swallow that week.
Obviously all that window dressing about promoting democracy, battling extremism and making western countries safer hasn't happened but that was always blatantly propaganda. It's like I don't expect using a particular type of shampoo to make the sun come out, though the adverts suggest it. They sell us wars in the same way they sell us everything else, with whatever lies they think people will swallow that week.
2014-06-13 2:50 am
Yes, most Brits and Americans seem to think they won.
2014-06-12 10:54 pm
yes..because the men who LED us in those wars are both out of office!.
收錄日期: 2021-04-21 00:13:46
原文連結 [永久失效]:
https://hk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140612135900AACHdWX