They try to put a good spin on Iraq but the truth is Iraq did not do 9-11. Iraq does not have WMD. Iraq is no threat to the USA. Do you agree the Iraq war is wrong?
2006-06-05 18:31:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
wrong as wrong can be, every death that has happened over there since the day of our invasion, has to blamed on bush. he should be tried as a war crimminal in iraq.
2006-06-05 18:35:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Iraq probably did have WMD. Iraq was a threat to the USA because of non compliance with the UN and now Iran is playing the same game. I think fighting terrorism is right, and I hope we can leave Iraq soon but we can't leave a void for terrorists to fill. There's no good spin on either side of the debate. If you're trying to win a popularity contest you'll get the US in more trouble down the line.
2006-06-05 18:38:43 · answer #2 · answered by chamcham 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
K-9, let me clearly state that I did not support this war at the time it began. I have always supported our troops. I gritted my teeth at the decisions that Bush made at the time we went in. It is true that Iraq was not the culprit behind 9/11. It is true that there has been no evidence ( I stress evidence) that WMD existed. However you know as well as we all that they have found everything that is necessary to make those weapons. Regardless of what led us to Iraq we are there. We started something that should not be left unfinished. It would be devastating to Iraq for us to leave at this time. You don't just go in,destroy a countries structure and then leave it to the wolves. We are doing the right thing at this time remaining there to help rebuild this country we knocked down. I no longer at this time disagree with the reason we are there, as at this time we are there to rebuild and assist in restructuring Iraq so that it will thrive when we do leave...
2006-06-06 02:41:18 · answer #3 · answered by misstic_fire 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree that the war was carried out entirely wrong. If America would have swept through and kept right on going it would have been alot less destructive on our forces. Then if need be you could go back and do it again in a year or two. The loss of life would have been reduced by 90%.
A better way yet would have been to place a bounty on everyone we wanted to get rid of. If you paid say a million a head we would be in far less debt. This option while unpopular with some makes the most sense.
Americas reasoning was very hasty and illegitimate. The reasoning used does not make alot of sense to me. I would say that if it was truly due to the oil that would have been reason enough, very few Americans, including bleeding heart liberals would be willing to give up their fossilized wilderbeast fuel.
All war is wrong yet it will always be present, as it always has been. world peace is a pipe dream, too idealistic. The War is wrong yet the alternative of love waves sent to terrorist would just result in more American deaths.
Many Americans expect more deaths in the future, more attacks. It may be inevitable. So what would we do? we would fight, kill, attack, defend our country, State, Family and friends to the death if need be. The only other alternative in a worst case scenario is to die while sending love waves. This is against mans nature, its just not within Americans to concede in the face of terror.
2006-06-05 18:54:11 · answer #4 · answered by James H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Has it ever occured to you that there are no "war supporters" just Americans that are smart enough to know that what is going on in Iraq is a required mission. How can people like you not realize that the fight was going to happen no matter what. Just like the war with Iran, We dont want it, but who wants a little crazy man running the streets with a big gun pointing it at people. by your logic you would walk up and try to give him a birthday cake to make his world a better place. think.
2006-06-05 23:43:56 · answer #5 · answered by not coming back 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
anybody knew it was unlawful while Blair twisted it and Conservatives supported the conflict on the 2d. This was the view of Lib-Dems for in any respect situations. Lord Goldsmith admitted it replaced into no longer authorized on the 2d besides the undeniable fact that he replaced into silenced Few stunning politicians like Robin cook dinner, Clair short and Galloway attempt to protest besides the undeniable fact that each and each man or woman, British fools listened to Blair. yet actuality could succeed.
2016-11-14 06:49:33 · answer #6 · answered by garneau 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The good spin is morphing it from WMD's, to terrorism, to Liberating the Iraqi people and also stopping the spread of terrorism. Seems like they spun it pretty good to me.
2006-06-05 18:49:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't need to put a spin on it. You don't need to know how I feel about it. What are you doing about it anyway? Sitting in the stands and commenting on what you "see"?
2006-06-05 18:35:48 · answer #8 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We aren't there to spin, we're there to win.
2006-06-05 18:37:57 · answer #9 · answered by Radio Spy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋