Was the Irag war necessary?

Answer 1

As far as ExxonMobil, Shell, Conoco, Gulf, Haliburton, Bechtel, et al and their front men (Bush & Cheany) are concerned - hell yes.

Answer 2

Yes. Yes becuase the first round (1990s) was never resolved and it was only a matter of time before hostilities errupted. Yes becasue Saddam Hussain did pose a threat to the national security of the US and her allies; as well as a threat to all surrounding nations. Hussian has a history of hitting below the belt and playing dirty (can you say chemical waste dumped on the Kurds and the Iran/Iraq war of the 80s). There is ample reason to be concerned about even the treat of Hussain having WMDs at his disposal. Besides Hussain has been making threats and supporting terrorist activity agianst the US for decades now.

Having said all that, I do wish it was not necessary for the US to go after Hussain, and I do think we need to pull out from Iraq. Our express purpose is finished. Like the first war with Irag (and Veitnam) we have set ourselves up to be there a while, and I disagree with that. I think it is time for our boys and girls to come home. Personally I would like to see the US tone down on the "whole big brother" mentality. True we are trying to help, and our intentions are good, but the rest of the world sees us a busybodies and are getting quite annoyed with us. I think we would be better off closing our boarders, dealing with our own affiars and toning down our "neighborliness". BUT we should never shut our eyes to known threats or become over confident, 9/11 shows us what happens when we do.

This is just my opinion. Take it or leave it as you wish.

Answer 3

As an American Soldier, I say YES, and you want to know why????...Because the freedom of speech that you have and use so freely against you're own president is not free.The reason is not oil or to see who's more powerful, the reason is Iraq should enjoy that same freedom that you guys have and that we fight for everyday.And NO, its not time to come back yet, we still have a lot to do and we cant let them down.Peace

Answer 4

about as necessary as any war. If you ask this question you know nothing of the subject. ever heard "dont knock it until you try it"? you dont have to enlist just go live over there for a few years and let us know if the war was necessary.

Answer 5

not for the reasons bush proclained. was it necissary for U.S safety absolutly. Iraq is a cross roads of suppys for terroriest, and a symbol of the u.s being weak. we went in once and left the goverment there so i looks like we lost to the middle east. Why did we leave there goverment alone. becuse clinton is smarter than bush. according to the geniva convention we now have to proivide a armed precence in iraqu for 10 years after there new goverment is esablished. to deter posiabble invaders from trying to take over a weak goverment after are army has left. So, If iraqu decides to go to ar with anyone we have to join in.

Answer 6

Absolutely not.(Ask Iraq!)
A war is never "necessary" in real terms...It might be considered necessary by those who started it in the first place, because of the oil...

Answer 7

No. The military should have never gotten into the oil business, and Bush is a war criminal as far as I'm concerned.

Answer 8

For what? To protect US oil interests, yes. To save the Iraqi people, no. Democracy imposed from without is just another form of tyranny.

Answer 9

Just think about this..... The USA has NEVER been invaded, if we didn't do something it would have continued. How would your life had been if we were under constant terrorist bombings? Did it occur to you that if we were to allow this to pass we would at this moment be living under the same conditions as Iraq?

Answer 10

No.It`s a war waged mainly for demollition and destruction of resources of Iraq.

Answer 11

Absolutely. Sadam Hussein had to be taken out for many years now. Better late than never. Also, better to fight terrorists over there rather than here at home on US soil.