Why do people act like G. W. Bush started an unprovoked war with Iraq when G. H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton both attacked them, too?
by 
the Otter
ANSWERS: 7
-
Because it is officially in style to hate/blame Bush for every ill, no matter how mundane or illogical.
-
Due to his reasons for doing so. GWB Senior did so to free Kuwait. GWB Junior did it to stop them from attaining WMD. Something which he later stated to be false. He lied. Also, the first war ended quickly, this war is a shambles.
-
Bill Clinton attacked MILITARY target specificlyy Nuclear plants, the same plants that GW falsly claimed were making WMD's when he went to war...
-
Because in this conflict there was never any proof that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US. The President lied about WMDs, and went against the caution of the UN and all of our allies and invaded and occupied a sovereign nation in the name of freedom. Saddam is dead. Who is our enemy? Who are we actually fighting? Why are we still there?
-
H.W. Bush sent US troops into Iraq under the pretense that Iraq invaded Kuwait and was an aggressor to US interests in Kuwait. Clinton bombed Iraq within the legal framework of the UN guidelines regarding it's violations of international law. Bush 43 ("dubya") invaded Iraq under completely false pretenses and against international law. I don't agree with HW Bush's war or with Clinton's rationale for bombing but at least it was not completely illegal according to international law. The current occupation of Iraq is without a doubt illegal and unjustified as was the invasion both in the international arena as well as in the framework of the US's constitutionally laid out specifications of a president taking this nation into war.
-
Because nobody remembers Sept. 12, 2001 - when every human being in the United States of America was screaming, "Go get 'em! Whatever it takes!" and now those same people are whining, "This is HARD! We didn't think it would be hard, or expensive, or that anyone would die!" We told our gov't we wanted war, they did what we said, and now we're crying about the consequences. Actually, if Clinton hadn't scaled back our military so steeply, terrorists wouldn't have DARED do what they did. We made 'em brave when we put away our guns, folks.
-
I am baffled why a question on the Iraq war is doing in the Al Qaeda section. Just as many are baffled why Americans are dying in Iraq, which has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. This, I believe, answers the question, the pretence for the war being partly that Al Qaede were there. You may disagree, but you would be wrong. No one in the UK would dare say it, it's been accepted here for a long time that it's untrue, despite what CNN or the like may say. EDIT- I take it CNN are the liberal crowd? Sorry for my ignorance! lol OTTER- thanks for the feedback. That's a natural assumption, but it doesn't mean the insurgents are members of Al Qaeda. If the US occupied Scotland (we've got oil as well), then I would certainly fight back, but that wouldn't make me an Al Qaeda member would it? Let's not forget that no matter where an invasion occurs, insurgencies happen. Vietnam had the Viet Cong, Ireland had the IRA, Scotland had William Wallace and others. It doesn't mean William Wallace or Gerry Adams was Al Qaeda either.
El Soupy RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC