2006-08-03 14:58:51 · 7 answers · asked by Tom 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
First of all, the deal with Iraq cannot even be called a war. We had superior technology and information than they did, and yet we still did not have a breeze of winning over the country. We thought we would be welcomed with open arms, and only when we got there did we realize, or the media finally told the public, that we were not as welcomed as we thought: we were aggressors.
Secondly, you cannot tell me that this is a war when insurgents are constantly attacking, and the government just so happens to be modeled after what the Americans want, and the Iraqi Prime Minister happens to voice the exact politically incorrect opinions of the United States President. We revamped the country because we wanted the oil, and we wanted Saddam out of power. It wasn't because of the war, or terrorism. It was the oil. Oh, and that Bush didn't like Saddam.
2006-08-03 15:20:27 · answer #1 · answered by mommy_mommy_crappypants 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well...if the United States hadnt declared war on Iraq, the US would have been out of there a long time ago.
according to the war powers act of 1973
Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.
2006-08-03 22:45:22 · answer #2 · answered by Bill 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Congress never authorized war in Iraq. Therefore the war in Iraq is illegal, run by a bunch of people who were never elected to office, for a bunch of corporations who feed off the government tit. On what grounds would we even declare war on Iraq. There is no tie between them and the events of 911. I believe it is time we demand our constitution be upheld and congress impeach this administration for its acts of treason.
2006-08-07 04:25:33 · answer #3 · answered by barbara o 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
we havent declared war on any country since World War II.. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq are all conflicts... either way i thought it was wrong.. they were doing just fine over there and they posed to threat to us... it was just Bushing tryin to finish what his daddy started...
and the Iraqis didnt destroy WTC... it was Binladin... dont go around saying things that arent true bryan
2006-08-03 22:05:08 · answer #4 · answered by underagelying 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they had nothing to do with 911. Plus, we gave Saddam weapons and support all through the Reagan years. There's a city in the US that has even given him the key to the city, due to his funding a church over here.
This has set a dangerous global precedent and was just bad of us.
Where's Osama? Bush promised us his pelt, where is it?
2006-08-04 02:51:11 · answer #5 · answered by boogiewunker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
declare war on Iraq? Didn't we take them over and spead "Democracy" (aka Civil War) to them?
2006-08-03 22:03:02 · answer #6 · answered by trafficer21 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush should do it before,when America decided to give them a time to think.They were not thinking.But who said HE is smart? Now it is too late. Better not to declare,it can be even worse,if to do it now.
2006-08-03 22:05:40 · answer #7 · answered by s 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋