English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

we should have never gone to Iraq?

Who appointed the U.S. as the world's police, anyway?

2006-06-13 16:00:26 · 23 answers · asked by Professor Chaos386 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

23 answers

You will get nothing but hate mail for this post, repuglicans can't handle the truth. That is because that they are so used to lying that it becomes a way of life. You will never get a repuglican that the have made errors.

2006-06-13 16:03:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well, Since the consensus back then was 98% to attack Iraq, who said we shouldn't go?

President Clinton said that what President Bush had done was correct. Al-quida was very much alive and kicking in Iraq. Iraq WAS making WMD's and as stated by other posts and by the news, the known WMD's have been reported to have been taken to Syria. They did not say Nukes, they said WMD's. This includes BIO and Chemical weapons.

Who appointed the US as the worlds police? Well, since the liberal democrat's believe that the UN should be the Worlds ruling body, and the USA is the only superpower, they did.
The invasion of Iraq was due to them violating several BINDING treaties since the 1st Gulf war. At least 12 resolutions where also violated. These where not resolutions the US put up, they where put up by the UN.

2006-06-13 23:11:45 · answer #2 · answered by lancelot682005 5 · 0 0

I've been a Republican for maybe 25 years. I'm still technically a Republican. I didn't want Bush to start with, I wanted McCain. I didn't think going into IRAQ was a bad idea, but they screwed it up horribly. The museums in IRAQ being looted was the sign that we made an awful mistake. I have been voting straight Democratic ever since. The moderates should reclaim the Republican party before it disappears forever.

2006-06-13 23:14:22 · answer #3 · answered by David 4 · 0 0

If we never went to Iraq they would have had the war here and alot of innocent non soilders would have died. I mean didn't you see the two towers being burned and crashed into? THey came to us here and the presedent did not want their troops to come over here and declare war or put more acts of terrorism in the united states. Democrats are the liars and see things at the top. Every problem is like an ice burg, the solution to go around it seems easy but in the end there is way more mess in the bottom where you can't see under the water.

2006-06-13 23:10:23 · answer #4 · answered by ~*nellie*~ 3 · 0 0

No hatemail here.

They won't admit it.

They, like the Democrats (hillary too) think things are going fine.

We self appointed ourselves to be the "worlds police" primarily after WWII when we capitalized on the war profits and took control of vast area dominated previously by Great Britain. We inherited the whole Israel debacle... Japan reconstruction (permanent bases) and began years of violent restructuring of the world.
Iraq is just one more front on the Imperialist agenda. In fact, England did this whole thing once before us, the history is fascinating, they generals then said they would "be greeted as liberators" all the same rhetoric verbatim.
Check it out.

I hear you though, it is sick and tiring, but all we can do it resist it, by any means necessary.

2006-06-13 23:08:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Obviously because there is no reason why we shouldn't of gone to Iraq. Let me remind you, we were attacked by the enemy. This isn't an issue of just going to help a random country or using a policy of containment as we did in Vietnam. WE were attacked, 9/11. Iraq is clearly the area of battle considering it's home to thousands of terrorists and Al Qaeda members (aka people who attacked us and want to kill us). Not only that, but Saddam Hussein had clear relations with Osama bin Laden, and supported him with money. As we have seen with the recent death of Zarqawi, Iraq has even become more of the center of battle and that's why we're there. Zarqawi WAS part of Al Qaeda and was associated with bin Laden. Adding to my points, we havent had a single terrorist attack on our homeland since 9/11. Clear success that the country has been protected, and why is that? Because we're on the offense instead of doing nothing, which is the idea I think you are assuming is the right one. Obviously not.
Did you read any US History before? The US has been the superpower of the world since the ending of the Spanish-American War and has become even greater following the several wars we've had since that war. And just because we're in a foreign country doesn't mean we're "policing" the world. Like I said before, WE were attacked. That clearly gives us a right to defend ourselves and go on the offense against terrorists in the areas of Iraq and other middle-eastern areas--while at the same helping Iraq develop into a country similar to the ideals of our country.

--Also adding to my points, we HAVE discovered biological AND chemical weapons in Iraq--which were possessed by Saddam Hussein and his regime (which of course is now gone because of US' involvment in Iraq).

2006-06-14 02:55:52 · answer #6 · answered by varsdebater_conservative 2 · 0 0

Easy answer. We never will because there is no reason to admit being wrong when we are not wrong. The world appointed us World Police after WWII, when they were losing & needed our help to stop Hitler from winning & we would be speaking German now. At least my husband's ancestors were German so I could learn the language, how about you? Can you speak German - then aren't you glad we are the world police.

2006-06-13 23:07:22 · answer #7 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0 0

You must have amnesia, Both the repub and democrat Congress voted to fund this venture.Without that funding/no war.
Both parties profit from the 'war'. The war consumes resources, and the spending for these resources is tied to 'pork barrel' politics. Every stinking politician is gobbling up something relative to this conflict. Meanwhile knuckleheads like yourself are debating "duh, bad republicans,duh". I am for neither party coming to realize long ago, that most everything the government
does is corrupt and self serving. For instance, once a person has 'served'(himself), as a senator/representative/pres./vice pres., they have entitled themselves to a pension of free health care, full pay, and other services. So as uninformed people such as yourself go on and on about either party, they laugh all the way to the bank. Meanwhile they send your children to die in pointless wars.

2006-06-13 23:14:54 · answer #8 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 0 0

The one guy has a point about blaming all republicans on Iraq. I don`t think Junior and friends are real republicans

2006-06-13 23:07:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Being the only body capable of projecting the power needed to help the world, unfortunately, automatically made us the world police. If you were a real professor you'd already know that. Sigh.

2006-06-13 23:05:56 · answer #10 · answered by Self-Sufficient 3 · 0 0

"BUUUZZZZZZ!!!!!" ( "Thanks for playing") Never, of course--we should have gone in long before we did; then we WOULD have caught them with the chem weapons before they had any chance to move them. Remember that 1) Saddam Hussein was using chem weapons on the Kurds in the north of Iraq in the '80's, and 2) Under UN Resolution 1441, Iraq ADMITTED to having WMD's ( and the capability to construct more ) and would undertake dismantling/destroying them under DIRECT UN supervision--at least until he began denying access to a number of facilities.

2006-06-13 23:11:32 · answer #11 · answered by spyguy 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers