2006-06-15 05:35:33 · 14 answers · asked by Bradford A 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
No, it was wrong for the president to do that, he was just trying to copy his father in Desert Strom. They knew there was no weapons to be found. The president has been caught in so many lies that he should have been impeached long ago.
2006-06-15 05:42:16 · answer #1 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answers that have been given to this question are amazing. People quote things that were never said, state facts that just never happened. Here ARE some facts. First of all there is no evidence that saddam had anything to do with 9-11. However he had opened his door to terorists and had armed and trained al qaida. There were a variety of intelligence sources (international) indicating that saddam had been attempting to obtain materials necessary to manufacture nuclear weapons (later proved to be unsubstantiated). These reports were believed to be credible by more than just the Bush administration. Saddam HAD in fact used chemical weapons (a wmd) on the kurds...mass graves have been found. He had been engaged in biological weapons research. He had stalled and not given totally free unobstructed access to UN inspectors
as required per the terms of surrender after the gulf war. This man was a brutal dictator, we weren't quite sure what he was up to but there were strong indications he posed a signifigant threat to the region. His past history demonstrated the same. We had just been attacked by terrorists. Terrorist activity is rampant in the region. He gave us a legal reason by not complying with UN inspectors...and we took it. You may argue whether it was the best option or not, but for crying out loud stop this non sense that Bush lied, and we're fighting for oil, and Bush blew up the WTC..you all sound like a bunch of raving lunatics. Think sensibly. I'm not asking you love the man but George Bush is not the Antichrist and we are not evil. We ARE making progress in Iraq and yes we should have gone .
2006-06-15 08:03:49 · answer #2 · answered by RunningOnMT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When that war in Iraq first began, I could remember President Bush saying we would be out of there as soon as we found Saddam. He's since been captured and we're still there. I know a few people serving in Iraq and they say the Iraqi's hate us. I say let these men get back into our country where they belong. There should be no war. What are we doing over there anyway? Let them get their own country back in order. In answering your question, I believe the answer was YES, we should have gone (only because of the weapons of mass detruction...which weren't found anyway), but NO....we don't belong there any longer. The miliatary has done it's job. Our country has enough problems of it's own that needs to be straightened out before we try and figure out someone elses!
2006-06-15 05:45:05 · answer #3 · answered by trueblond195 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well. That's a very good question. I think there are a lot of facts and figures that were kept from the public for a long time before and after the decision to go to war became official. We still don't have that information. That said, I still think we should not have gone to war in Iraq, but should have taken action against the terrorist cells who were responsible for the attack on the US on September 11. They were two separate points of attack. One in Iraq, and one against terrorists.
2006-06-15 05:41:51 · answer #4 · answered by Akapoetry 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't mind that we're in a war in Iraq-- but I do mind being lied to about our motives for going over there. $h!t has to give in the Middle East, now more than ever with Iran legitimately challenging (even though its because of actions like entering a war in Iraq). If we were straight up and legitimate about our energy needs, our national security issues, and if we actually gave a $h!t about the value of human life in other countries, then we could wage war on the whole f--king planet and I'd support it.
There is no universal morality, only what individuals, and in this case sovereign nations, accomplish. If securing America's best interests interferes with others' interests, I'm willing to do what it takes to serve America's. Just don't f--king lie to me.
2006-06-15 05:48:43 · answer #5 · answered by ishotvoltron 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. So far, the present administration has been shown to be devoid of any real reason to attack Iraq. All of the reasons for going to Iraq has been proven to be untrue. The fact that Saddam Hussein was a cruel leader is not a sufficient reason to invade Iraq. There are many cruel leaders in the world, and the US hasn't attacked their countries. Let's face it. It really is about oil.
2006-06-15 05:42:25 · answer #6 · answered by Buffy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, we should not have gone to war in Iraq. Bush and his cronies had this invasion planned well before this actually happened and was just waiting for an excuse(even a trumped up one) to attack. Now, we have to live with the decision he has made and I don't think it will turn out well for anyone!
2006-06-21 19:46:33 · answer #7 · answered by recordproducer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope
2006-06-15 05:37:53 · answer #8 · answered by elkcityflash 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yup, I was there when we captured Saddam and the people celebrated in the streets, I remember the people cheering and tearing down the statues. So, Yes, we should have done that.
2006-06-15 10:00:39 · answer #9 · answered by jordanjd4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes always fight the enemy on their soil. We have always laid back and waited till it comes to us...Anyone remember Pearl Harbor?
2006-06-15 08:44:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋