Question for those who support the war in Iraq?

Question

I know we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, but is it ok to bring them all to Iraq and fight them on neutral grounds? Just seems that we brought the war to Iraq, and the Iraqi civilians are sufforing the most.

Should India and Pakistan bring their military's to the U.S. and go at it in Washington? Does that seem ok too?

My bad, I forget that the people that support the war in IRAQ are RETARDED!! my bad...

New question.. Is everyone who supports the war in Iraq as stupid and uninformed as the first two answerers??

David M- Show me a link for this. "They were funding terrorist in millions of dollars to formulate plans mainly to attack the United states."

Answer 1

You're asking a rhetorical question that doesn't have a correct answer. Here's why:

1)Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11. Yes Zarqawi relocated to Iraq from Afghanistan in late 2001, but he moved to Kurdish UN-enforced no-fly zone territory Hussein did not control. There were two or three instances in 2002 where the US had the chance to kill him but Bush declined because he thought it would weaken arguments for a war in Iraq. Zarqawi formed "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and pledged allegiance to OBL in 2004 when the insurgency had been under way for a year. OBL doesn't like Hussein, and even if they were in cahoots, Bush disbanded the FBI OBL-hunting team a year ago.

2) The bulk of the Iraq insurgency is homegrown. They are Sunni Iraqis who fear a government of the Shiite majority. Originally members of the Fedayeem Saddam, a part of the Iraqi army trained in guerilla warfare, the insurgency has grown to include disaffected Sunnis and those who have lost family and friends in collateral damage by US counterattacks. A Shiite insurgency led by Muqtada Al Sadr has now gone legit and Sadr's Al Mehdi Army militia is now part of the Iraqi forces Bush likes to crow about.

3) The US has been hit by terrorist attacks since 9/11. Someone mailed ricin to Congress in 2004 and shut it down. An Iranian grad student drove his SUV across the UNC campus running over six and injuring nine in "protest of US treatment of Muslims". And the Anthrax Killer is still out there, although supporters of the War like to pretend those attacks never happened. Just recently a group of Miami-Atlanta based angry young Black men were arrested who were trying to establish an Al Qaeda cell and blow up the Sears Tower. They were green nobodies but it certainly kills the "Fight them there or fight them here" argument.

4) None of these armchair warriors who posted above has ANY intention of doing anything to help this war effort beyond yellow stickers and waving a Chinese-made flag while yelling "GO BUSH! SMOKE DEM SANDN*GG*RS! YEE HAW!".
They are all for the war so long as someone else does the fighting and future generations pick up the tab.

5) Finally the "fight them there or fight them here" bumper sticker slogan was cooked up when Bush could no longer deny the insurgency was taking place. It means as much as his other meaningless hoary old cliches: Absolutely nothing.

Answer 2

The Iraqis killed a lot of their own people using chemical weapons. They killed hundreds if not thousands of Kurds.
They were funding terrorist in millions of dollars to formulate plans mainly to attack the United states.

Bin Laden may have been the leader of his band and may have started out with family wealth but an awful lot of the money used to fund the terrorist attacks on the US came from Iraq and a few other countries but chiefly Iraq.

If you are saying that it was wrong for the States to try and stop this then you must be saying that 9/11 was OK. You therefore have some of their blood on your hands.

Every time a question like this comes up on Answers, damage is done to the reputation of the United States and strength and succour is given to the terrorists. I do hope that the NSA monitor this site and passes details to the local FBI office closest to the persons home who asks such questions.

Answer 3

Wait. Amber, you trully believe it was Iraqis that attacked us? You've really had your head in the ground for THAT LONG? It was Saudis, you know, the ones he caters to and ignores, despite killing over 3000 lives on 9/11. Gay G, you're just as mentally frozen as the sap? Lemme clarify: Osama bin Laden, a well known terrorist and Saudi Arabian at that, attacked the United States and then hid out in Tora Bora in the Pakistani Mountains. Please, just open one book, you'll see the truth. We're there for oil, period. To say that Iraq was the perpetrators of 9/11 is like saying that we shouldn't have went after Japan, but rather China. Forget avenging those who died at Pearl Harbor, let's try to re-open the spheres of influence in China, get more trade. Better yet, let's attack France for losing, while Hitler and Mussolini achieve power.

Such stupidity in these answers, I mean the top two and the Reich Wing *****, david m. Turn off the Faux News and open a book. Better yet, look on the internet, read up on it. Don't get it twisted, don't think like Bush or his Administration, think like a human being.

Answer 4

I can appreciate your nievety. The purpose for taking the war to Iraq is to send a powerful message. If you want to attack the United States, we will reign terror on your country. It's a deterent that the US has used from its inception. The War for Independence, all of the World Wars where the enemy has attacked, the US Anihilates the enemy and others will not be so likely to come here to attack. I would hate for North Korea to carry out their threat of missile attack on the US. The US wouldn't even have to go to Korea to destroy the entire country. We could draw back the troops to the southern coast of Korea and send enough ICBMs to level the entire country and never risk an American life.

Answer 5

Yes jamie s those 2 first answers are ******* stupid and pointless. My answer is kind of a mix of the above answers. Yes we are in Iraq to ensure future oil trade WHY? - Well believe it or not most of the modern world is based on oil. Gasoline is only a bit of the oil use. Commercial use plastic is made from OIL. Look it up it's a fact. Look around and count everything made of plastic. If you didn't have oil, it wouldn't be there.

Now another reason we're in Iraq - Saddam DID help terrorist in the planning and carrying out of the 9/11 attacks with financial aid. It seems only fair that if we're attacking Al-Quieda who carried out the attack that we should take out Saddam and his scum bag friends who paid for it and planned it.

Another reason - Iraq had bought weapons grade uranium from Algeria (another country on the long list of countries that hate us). What can you do with weapons grade uranium? Make WEAPONS like Atom Bombs. Now Saddam has many many many missles at his disposal. All he had to do was add one thing to the other and push a button. We stopped him before he got that far.

Why are we still in Iraq? - well the country is full of insurgents and looters and as soon as we leave they will attempt to loot everything and take over the country. if Insurgents take over the country all we had done will have been for nothing.

now to answer Q2. Pakistan and India are too busy fighting eachother to mess with us. and if they did to us what we are doing to Iraq (Getting rid of a greedy and crappy leader who doesn't have the balls to stand up for himself and not lie about why we went to Iraq and then blame it on the CIA or to tell the UN what we are intending to do instead of asking permission - being denied and then going against the UN so we now have to credibility in the UN now, and then pakistan and india would leave the USA with a better government and understanding in life) I would welcome them.

Well i think i'm done for now. You can tell me your comments about my little rant here at [e-mail]

stay frosty everyone.

Answer 6

You are wrong

Iraq has 9.6 trillion dollars worth of oil, that's why were in Iraq.

Also read The Project for the New American Century articles.
They were planning to go to war with Iraq in 1998.

Why? OIL -WMD was a lie and Spreading Democracy is BS!

Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Germany and France were already planning to trade with Saddam Hussein after the Sanctions were to be lifted. U.S. Oil companies would not have this. Russia, Germany and France contributed over 40 billion dollars to Saddam in 2001-2002, to construct and rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructer.


Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough

William Kristol & Robert Kagan
The New York Times
January 30, 1998

Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail.

The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is clear that Mr. Hussein wants his weapons of mass destruction more than he wants oil revenue or relief for hungry Iraqi children. Now the Administration is reportedly planning military action -- a three- or four-day bombing campaign against Iraqi weapons sites and other strategic targets. But the bad news is that this too will fail. In fact, when the dust settles, we may be in worse shape than we are today.

Think about what the world will look like the day after the bombing ends. Mr. Hussein will still be in power -- if five weeks of heavy bombing in 1991 failed to knock him out, five days of bombing won't either. Can the air attacks insure that he will never be able to use weapons of mass destruction again? The answer, unfortunately, is no. Even our smart bombs cannot reliably hit and destroy every weapons and storage site in Iraq, for the simple reason that we do not know where all the sites are. After the bombing stops, Mr. Hussein will still be able to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Pentagon officials admit this.

What will President Clinton do then? Administration officials talk of further punitive measures, like declaring a no-fly zone over all of Iraq, or even more bombing. But the fact is that the United States will have shot its bolt. Mr. Hussein will have proved the futility of American air power. The United Nations inspection regime will have collapsed; American diplomacy will be in disarray. Those who opposed military action all along -- the Russians, French and Chinese -- will demand the lifting of sanctions, and Mr. Hussein will be out of his box, free to terrorize our allies and threaten our interests.

Mr. Hussein has obviously thought through this scenario, and he likes his chances. That is why he provoked the present crisis, fully aware that it could lead to American bombing strikes. He has survived them before, and he is confident he can survive them again. They will not succeed in forcing him to abandon his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. The only way to remove the threat of those weapons is to remove him, and that means using air power and ground forces, and finishing the task left undone in 1991.

We can do this job. Mr. Hussein's army is much weaker than before the Persian Gulf war. He has no political support beyond his own bodyguards and generals. An effective military campaign combined with a political strategy to support the broad opposition forces in Iraq could well bring his regime down faster than many imagine. And Iraq's Arab neighbors are more likely to support a military effort to remove him than an ineffectual bombing raid that leaves a dangerous man in power.

Does the United States really have to bear this burden? Yes. Unless we act, Saddam Hussein will prevail, the Middle East will be destabilized, other aggressors around the world will follow his example, and American soldiers will have to pay a far heavier price when the international peace sustained by American leadership begins to collapse.

If Mr. Clinton is serious about protecting us and our allies from Iraqi biological and chemical weapons, he will order ground forces to the gulf. Four heavy divisions and two airborne divisions are available for deployment. The President should act, and Congress should support him in the only policy that can succeed.

Answer 7

What? Those f*ckers came over here and killed thousands of innocent civilians on 9/11. We're just finishing what those bastards started. Tearing up their country like they alredy tried to do here. Ever heard the saying "Tit for tat. You kill my dog, I'll kill your cat." War is always wrong. But those S.O.B.'s started it. How mature is that?