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

9 answers

Umm... that's a really tough question. I'm originally from Australia, and i'm now 18, and i've lived in the U.S. for 7 or 8 years. I'm not much of a politics person, but when I know enough of the happenings in a subject, I like to put my 2 cents in. From what I've seen and heard on the whole Iraq deal, I believe that it was possibly best for Bush to do exactly what he did - go in and invade Iraq. Yes, I know - many lives were lost. But I figure if we hadn't have gone in, there would have been more big time attacks from Iraq (definitely nuclear) which would have been even worse than playing chicken, and not going out and attacking them. Even my stepdad had to go off to Iraq (he's a Marine) and I really missed him for the year that he was gone. He even said if we hadn't have gone out, we would eventually be struck by Iraq again. So I think the U.S.'s attack was appropriate - it puts fear into those who were going to strike again - and also lets them know that the U.S. isn't afraid to go all out and kick some ***. Now... the only thing is, how to reconstruct a fair government over there!

Damara (aussiechic2oo6)

2006-08-13 20:22:17 · answer #1 · answered by aussiechic2oo6 2 · 0 1

I personally think the US invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I thought so at the time and nothing I've seen since has given me reason to change my mind.

But I'm not qualified to make that decision. I don't know enough about military tactics, global ripple effects, and I didn't have access to the intelligence data that went into the decision.

I do think that staying in Iraq indefinitely, after Saddam was deposed, was a mistake. And that decision can be made based purely on project management skills. We expend huge resources, for a goal that is difficult if not impossible to achieve in any reasonable timeframe, in a situation where we are not wanted, and where we as a country derive no direct benefit for the resources expended. Any project manager will tell you that is a recipe for disaster.

On a personal level, several of my friends wouldn't have died there, and one of my best friend wouldn't be going back for his second tour, so that would make me happier.

In the end, the issue is what's best for the American people. And I haven't seen any compelling argument for spending billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in this particular endeavor.

Our efforts are better directed somewhere else.

2006-08-14 02:58:10 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1 0

me happy. in 2003 yes. Because Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11.

let me repeat that iraq and 9/11 are not related or connected. they are two diffrent and seperate things.

in the end Iraq will become something else, just like every other thing it will becom blow back.

for example say Saddam was dying and he died....what would happen......his sons would try to take over...

but say the country makes its move.......and sunni shiete and kurds all use thier tribal loyalites and fight for control of Iraq.....


this is funny because it was going to happen either way....that is what is happening now.
the U.S can claim to have created a state..but there will be a real fight for power....and we will have to take a side regradless.....

if the will of the people is a state like iran...do you think we will let that happen?
................................................................
fun reading.....................................


That spring period of '01, there is that meeting where everybody's talking about Iraq, and my memory of things as I've read it is at this meeting, Wolfowitz talks about Laurie Mylroie, [author of Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein's War Against America].

That's right. By the time we'd eventually had a meeting on terrorism, in the late February, early March timeframe -- I don't think the vice president was at it, but Paul Wolfowitz was representing the Defense Department, and Wolfowitz started saying, "Well, if you want to talk about terrorism, fine; let's talk about Iraq, not Al Qaeda," to which my reaction was, "Why Iraq?" Iraq, as far as we know, has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism directed against the United States, and hasn't since late 1992, early 1993.

This is the time when Wolfowitz spouted that "All of what you say is Al Qaeda must actually be state-sponsored, because no terrorist organization could do that without a nation helping them. And the nation must be Iraq, and we know this from reading the writings of this woman, Laurie Mylroie," whom we had known about and checked out several times. She kept writing things that essentially said Iraq was behind the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Despite all of the facts being the opposite, she continued to say this.

Here was the number two person in the Pentagon saying that he agreed with her and disagreed with CIA, with FBI, disagreed with all the massive evidence that Al Qaeda had attacked the World Trade Center in '93, not Iraq. Why anybody as sophisticated as a Wolfowitz or the others would attach themselves to that sort of stuff, I didn't know.

2006-08-14 03:01:29 · answer #3 · answered by nefariousx 6 · 0 0

Yes...

What were the justifications for the illegal war.

WMD's? - None found
Terrorism? - No link between Iraq and 9/11 - Infact bin Laden and the Iraqi reigeme detested eachother
Regeime change? - If so why not invade Zimbabwae for Robert Mugabe's constant disregard fo his own people.
Democracy? - Can you call the US a democracy after Bush lost the 2000 election?

Oil? I think we have our answer people

2006-08-14 05:22:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There will always be people on both sides of this argument/discussion saying either one is right. I believe people would have been angry if the government didn't react to 9/11 and the threats against us but at the same time none of us like to see our troops out there dying. We can't change the past, we DID go to Iraq and all we can do now is hope and pray the ones we love who are there come back to us.

2006-08-14 02:59:44 · answer #5 · answered by darkness_returns 4 · 0 1

If the United States didn’t invade Iraq, Australia wouldn’t have gone there, and I wouldn’t feel so much shame for the many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed!

2006-08-14 11:04:49 · answer #6 · answered by I_C_Y_U_R 5 · 0 0

I would only be happy if all the Muslim countries invaded your country....Just to see what you would feel like...Just to put yourself in their position....What do you think of that???? Would you like it???? Would you like others to invade your country to change your way of thinking and life???? Your regime???? I guess not! Anyway, I would really see sth like that happen one day...!

2006-08-14 06:31:37 · answer #7 · answered by inatuk 4 · 0 0

You Bet YA!! ALL of the DEAD folks would be alive--and gas would still be .99 c per gal!! THE ENTIRE WORLD would not hate the USA. AND JUST LOOK at the money that could have been spent ON this COUNTRY!

2006-08-14 02:59:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I'm always happy. I would feel cleaner though. Peace.

2006-08-14 02:57:42 · answer #9 · answered by wildrover 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers