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

I do.....

2006-07-04 03:57:57 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

16 answers

Absolutely, for more reasons then I can go into here.
The war we are in is a war on terror. Most rational people would agree that terror (in its current form) comes from militant islamics, primarily based in the Middle East. The two biggest state sponsers of terror left in the Middle East are Iran and Syria.

By placing our troops in Iraq (and eliminating that threat) we are flanking both Iran and Syria. By establishing Democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan we can show muslims that they can have a better life. Iraq was just one move in the large chess game that is the war on terror. But it was a brilliant move. Checkmate is at hand.

wittylildevil: What is your deal, your answer to every question I have read today is the same answer?!? Trying to unite the country that has been split because of the right. Your premise is wrong, and in this case it has no bearing on the question.

bakesomebread, and others: remember you can blame this all on Bush if you like, but the majority of Democrats voted to move against Iraq as well. And they continue to vote in large numbers to keep financing the war.

2006-07-04 04:07:01 · answer #1 · answered by tm_tech32 4 · 2 3

Totally NOT!!!! I am totally against war but this war is even worse coz it was illegal war. We were all deceived into being told that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction wen he totally neva!! People will argue that Saddam needed to be removed of is power as dictator I agree with this but you may not be aware that they could have removed him as leader without using military action.What is still even worse is that the negative aspects outwiegh positive aspects have come out of the war including that thousands of people have killed, a civil war has started, unemployment has risen, the economy has become worse,the government is still in turmoil,hospitals are in a shortage of beds an medicine and the list goes on and on and on . You still think it was worth it all?????

2006-07-04 11:21:53 · answer #2 · answered by Nadoodi 1 · 0 0

Saddam Hussein had thousands of people put to death. Many just because he got angry about something they had little or nothing to do with. He had political or religious differences with others so in his eyes they weren't worthy of living. He had plans to ill thousands more if they didn't conform to his way of thinking.

Should a guy like that be left in charge? Should we have let Hitler kill ALL the jews and black? What group would have been next to die? Mexicans? East Indians? Canadians? Dictators like Hussein and Hitler can't be left to commit genocide. If you found you had cancer, would you just leave it there if a surgeon said it could be cured by removing it? Dictators like them are cancers to society.

As far as staying in Iraq, once the old government was removed, NATO has the obligation to the people in Iraq to maintain order (a very difficult task) and to help set up a new government. Once that government is stabilized, NATOcan leave, knowing the people will be relatively safe.

2006-07-04 11:10:52 · answer #3 · answered by David T 4 · 0 0

Yes, I think it is the right thing.

Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of 1,000,000 Muslims.

Saddam Hussein wanted us to think he had weapons of mass destruction so he could hold the world hostage

Saddam Hussein was deteriorating the core of the UN through the world's biggest scandal (Oil for Food) and ignoring resolutions (UN law)

Saddam Hussein offered Osama Bin Laden sanctuary in Iraq

We want immediate gratification. War Sucks good don't want it!

2006-07-04 11:21:04 · answer #4 · answered by Ben Jammin 2 · 0 0

I wouldnt say it is not right to go to war because they need authority and control but the terrorists are interfering with operation iraqi freedom, so it is the right thing and the wrong thing to do. Plus, it is bush's decision if he wanted to pull the troops out or to keep fighting.

2006-07-04 11:01:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

no....the reasons given for starting this war (BTW, it was not called a war at first) weren't valid. There were no WMD found and Suddam and his co-horts had nothing to do with 09/11.
It's all moot point now though, isn't it?

BTW....Iraq is not spelled with a U. You really should be able to spell the name of the country where many, many of your young soliders are dying!

2006-07-04 11:06:24 · answer #6 · answered by Chatty 5 · 0 0

We had to go to war. Don't forget what they did to us we needed to stop them before they did anything else.

2006-07-04 11:07:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There's no need for war anymore.

2006-07-04 11:01:05 · answer #8 · answered by toejam_rummy 3 · 0 0

I dont think there is country called Irauq - future english major, right?

2006-07-04 11:01:42 · answer #9 · answered by DesignR 5 · 0 0

first... you have to write Irauq correctly (Iraq).
then, lets think about the enemies of USA.
Russa,Vitnam,Japan,Afghanistan,Iraq,Cuba,Korea...... and more
Oneday Usa should face all.
it's not American people false, but the leaders.

2006-07-04 11:20:16 · answer #10 · answered by Muatsem 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers