Hmmm... Imagine a free democratic Iraq where we can buy oil from civil functioning Iraqi corporations; and taxes from oil sales build schools and streets. ... Is it ok to slaughter thousands of people to buy the dream? And how is killing "to protect our way of life" any different than the argument of the abortion seeker?
2006-07-10 05:32:51 · 11 answers · asked by jody k 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
We're not the ones slaughtering, it's all the terrorists out there, the idiots that speak in the name of a religion to kill and slaughter.....
2006-07-10 05:35:28 · answer #1 · answered by Sunny 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We didn't go to Iraq to stabilize oil trade. I believe you're the last person who still believes "War for Oil".
Your use of the word "slaughter" is inaccurate and inflammatory. The word slaughter should only be applied when innocent people are involved. Terrorists are not innocent people.
On the other hand, terrorists are slaughtering Iraqi men, women, and children who have nothing to do with the conflict. Why are you not upset with the terrorists? What about the their use of teenagers as suicide bombers in crowds of innocent men, women, and children? What about televised beheadings?
Why are you not upset that Saddam Hussein slaughtered tens of thousands of Kurds using poisonous gas? Why are you not upset about the thousands of innocent Iraqis that were tortured, beaten, and killed? Why are you not all worked up that Iraqi women had no rights whatsoever and were routinely kidnapped from the streets and raped by Saddam and his family?
This war is messy, violent, unfortunate, and whatever other labels you want to attach to it. But to throw vitriol at President Bush when the opposition is the most heinous bunch of humans known to man is just ridiculous.
2006-07-10 05:44:27 · answer #2 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No matter how we look at it, wars are always ugly. We claim that it kills thousands, but not going to war with Iraq could be worse. Back during WW II we did not know what Hitler was doing until the surrender of Germany. We did not fight the war because of the Holocaust, but after the war was over we were able to claim that what we did, we did for the good of humanity. While the Iraq war is much different, because we know the evil that Saddam and his sons had caused; I see no reason for us not to invade. If we leave now, it would be too easy for another dictator to come in and seize power and all the life lost would be for nothing. When you say "protect our way of life" we should look in a smaller sense -- what if your neigbor killed someone and would not kill anyone else unless they tried to arrest him. Would you call the police or would you let him go? Letting him go would hurt no one else, but calling the police, one or two people might be shot or killed. This includes innocent people who lives with him and/or officers doing their job.
It's not always to protect our way of life as it is to seek justice, there's always a cost.
2006-07-10 06:01:41 · answer #3 · answered by Craig S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you pose an excellent question but i think the conclusion you're after is flawed. saudi arabia has much more oil reserves than iraq and that is where most of our oil comes from. the war in iraq was a strategic move to take control of the oil fields so we would not be so dependent on the saudis. saddam hussein knew this in the early 90's. that is why he invaded kuwait. kuwait has more oil reserves than iraq and hussein wanted a bigger share of the oil market.
the real answer for the u.s. is to move away from an oil economy and into renewable forms of energy. no country should be dependent on another to the point that they need to start a war 'to protect our way of life' as you say. no economy should be dependent on one (unrenewable) resource to generate revenue.
10 billion dollars a week can buy a lot of textbooks. instead we spend it on, as mr. burns says, "...'do-nothing' nuclear missiles." all the death and destruction is not worth the price of protecting oil assets.
2006-07-10 06:45:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course America should pursue "it's own interests" there's nothing wrong with that.
And how do we count the number of souls that would have died under Saddam Hussein?? That "could have been dead" number is unknown, - but it's certainly not zero.
And if we look at the lives lost from 2002 to 2012, -is America's proactive activity better for the middle east?? A lot of say 'yes'.
As Marge Simpson has said, -"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it."
2006-07-10 05:36:01 · answer #5 · answered by MK6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it sucks big time but what can we do?
what we fight for democracy?
what a fu*kin joke democracy is.
vote em in and within 2 Min's you realise that you've been once again taken for a ride they can't and wont give up economic power till it's taken from them. anyway cos they give 2 flyin fu*ks what happens to the majority of us regardless of race, religion etc.
what cos there was millions of WMD's in Iraq wasn't there their still finding them it was totally just (sarcasm)
I think it's more than likely t be a thirst for black gold nothing more t bring us to the brink of destruction but our own inventions (currency, petrol etc, if that dont finnish us i'm sure we as a race can find some other way t fu*k ourselves up.).
Where will it end? Civil war? cos there isn't anywhere else to take over?
money makes the world go round
2006-07-13 14:46:41 · answer #6 · answered by G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Getting Saddam out of skill turned right into a needed accomplishment. He turned right into a poor dictator of the Iraqi people. even if, the warfare become very poorly planned, and with the aid of it, we are able to not take our infantrymen out. Now, a lot of them are death or are starting to be damage do to the poor aftermath. we are able to purely desire that issues will finally end up for the finest, and that a number of those lives and aspects will finally end up being nicely worth it even if or not they don't seem to be now.
2016-10-14 07:42:21 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, we're in this war to get back at someone who tried to kill Bush's daddy, and to take over his oil fields.
Abortions are legal you idiot.
Yet another NEO-CON faulty logic wet bomb to get an argument started and confuse the truth.
2006-07-10 05:41:04 · answer #8 · answered by AdamKadmon 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first off, what does abortion have to do with war? secondly, we haven't "slaughtered" thousands. they shot at us, so we shot back. that is war. yeah, we liberated Iraq for ourselves...to open a new market for American goods and they may possibly allow us to dock some of our warships there.
you are an idiot.
2006-07-10 05:38:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can fight extremists in Iraq or in New York. It is a tough choice for the President.
2006-07-10 05:41:28 · answer #10 · answered by saber36819 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋