I have a general idea why the US is still in Iraq. But what seems odd to me is this: there didn't seem to be as much violence due to insurgents before we invaded in 2003. Now it's neverending. And there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. Everyone will say that that coalition forces can't just pull out now (even though Japan just did) because Iraq will fall to insurgent forces. I get this. I'm just wondering how we (the US) got into this mess in the first place. It seems we are fighting a war we cannot win, and our president still expects to win.
2006-06-20 03:00:41 · 6 answers · asked by dniewahner 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There wasn't that much lawless violence as their is now.
Saddam - as bad as America as made him out to be - was able to control the people and the cities were not in rubble as they are now.
The 'insurgents' are Iraqis fighting the real insurgents - the foreigners who invaded them in retaliation for 9/11 and the acquisition of their oil.
2006-06-20 03:20:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The people in that part of the world have made war and killed each other for thousands of years. They were doing it five years ago and will be doing it five years from now. We got into it because this particular country posed a threat to its neighbors and the rest of the world. Was there less violence there before the war? Yes, most of the violence was state sponsored and the people lived in a lot of fear ... good for current control but very bad for any continued peace. I think people get very confused by the term "win the war". We had some very stated goals when we went in .. namely to take down the regime and see a new democratic government installed. We are very close to seeing that happen. It was never a stated goal that we would bring peace to the middle east or any of its countries as, in my opinion, that would be quite impossible. What we have accomplished, however, is to put the country back into its age old condition of eating its own and as long as they are busy doing that then they should be a bit too busy to bother the rest of us.
2006-06-20 03:11:12 · answer #2 · answered by sam21462 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've guarded the mass graves that Saddam pock-marked his country with. The argument that it was more peaceful under Saddam makes me sick. Do you know that almost every family in Iraq had a family member that "disappeared" because of some minor run in with one of Saddam's cronies?
As I've said before, they only people who say the war is unwinnable are the ones who never went there. Re-enlistments are higher than ever. Those that have been there know the good we are doing and want to return to do more.
How many democracies has France created in the last five years? Because we've created 2.
2006-06-20 04:14:31 · answer #3 · answered by Richard M 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course, the wasn't that much insurgent violence before the war, they had control of the country and had everyone under their thumbs. The reason the US got into this mess to begin with is because Iraq was harboring terrorists that supported Bin Laden and his reign of terror against the US.
2006-06-20 03:04:38 · answer #4 · answered by Caleb's Mom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll say yes. Look at the mass killings of people in Iraq. Those graves are real. The media in every country didn't show on the news everyday that these mass killings had happened. It's the same with the Kurds. The news does show everyday car bombings and the number of soldiers killed. I'm not saying I'm not sorry for the familes of the soldiers lost in the war, I am, but look at the number of soldiers killed in a day in WWII. Our losses now are so much smaller than in WWII and WWI. Again, I am sorry for the familes that had someone killed in Iraq.
2006-06-20 03:10:06 · answer #5 · answered by Japal911 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no everyone was united agianst saddam. there was total control. it was not violent.
2006-06-20 03:12:24 · answer #6 · answered by xanman50 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋