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

Here is one completely legitimate reason why we went in.

1. We defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War.
2. We signed a peace treaty that included inspections by UN weapon inspectors.
3. Since we defeated Iraq, we dictate the terms of their surrender.
4. Saddam refused access to the aforementioned inspectors.
5. Since Saddam broke the contract, we voided our part.
6. This meant that the Gulf War was back on.
7. We finished the job and took out Saddam.
8. Since we have 1 legitimate reason to invade Iraq, the rest are not relevant.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS LOGIC?

2006-09-16 05:47:33 · 11 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Politics & Government Politics

to uncle billy, how do you leave Iraq without establishing a government that can defend itself? To have permanent peace with Iraq, we must stay until the job is done.

2006-09-16 05:52:02 · update #1

to gwb22, finding or not finding anything is not the point. We had a contract with Iraq and they broke it. We defeated them and dictate the terms, whether it is fair or not. Try reading what I wrote and reviewing your answer.

2006-09-16 05:55:27 · update #2

I ASKED ANTI WAR PEOPLE WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY LOGIC? CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF RANTING AND RAVING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

2006-09-16 05:57:45 · update #3

to irumporayar, the strongest military rules the world. That is a fact and you cannot change this.

2006-09-16 06:09:12 · update #4

President Bush did say these things. Second, we are a soverign country. We do not have to listen to the UN.

2006-09-16 06:10:12 · update #5

11 answers

In the eyes or demolibs the fact that weapons of mass distruction were the motivating force behind this iraq war.

Which they claim do not and didnt exist. A fact that Syria, Israel, and even Hezbollah can dispell, since all their intellegence and even common citizens know that they did exist, and were dispersed through out the middle east, while we were dicking around for approval with the UN.

2006-09-16 05:52:56 · answer #1 · answered by amosunknown 7 · 1 0

The flaw in your logic is that the UN, not the US, defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War. The UN, not the US, dictated the terms of their surrender. It was not the US's place to "finish the job", it was the UN's.

And, yes, we are a soverign nation. No, we don't NEED to answer to the UN but we don't NEED to enforce their resolutions, either. Iraq was a soverign nation. They didn't need to answer to the UN either, using your logic.

Simon Templar- interesting link, especially the last section-
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .

2006-09-16 13:08:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Pick a reaon, any reason...It would be lovely if either the American or British governments had stated these as their reasons for going to war with Iraq, but they didn't. We went in for WMD that didn't exist and a falsified link to Al-Queda.

Your reasons may seem logical, but it doesn't hold up because the UN did not sanction this war, ergo it is illegal.

Um, being a sovereign nation does not mean that you don't have to listen to the UN. You JOINED the UN and signed a contract promising to abide by it's rulings. So yes, silly, you DO have to listen to the UN.

2006-09-16 13:00:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Inspectors were in iraq they found nothing they asked for more time and were denied it by bush. It turned out the reason for inspectors being there worked the WMD were gone. We made the treaty and when we became disatified with the outcome we violated it and attacked sounds a lot like what we did with the indians.

2006-09-16 13:00:37 · answer #4 · answered by region50 6 · 2 1

We armed and empowered Saddam in the first place, knowing fully well that he was an sob. We armed and empowered Osama too. It had nothing to do with fighting terrorists. It was a pure and simple business deal. When Saddam reneged on his part of the business deal only then did he become our enemy.

The other dictatorships we support, like Saudi Arabia and Angola, are your friends as long as they live up to their end of the business deal and we get the oil we want.

It has nothing to do with democracy or spreading democracy any everything to do with greed and power.

Prescott Bush (George W's grandfather) funded Adolf Hitler. It was a pure and simple business deal. Lack of morals, torture, brainwashing the masses and the other tricks of the dictator's trade were ignored by the greedy businessman who only cared about making money.

2006-09-16 12:55:38 · answer #5 · answered by Doc Watson 7 · 2 1

the biggest thing wrong with the logic, was nothng was found, thye did nothing wrong and now OUR PEOPLE ARE DIEING for it. while we get invaded at home.

all this was, was a plan to open up the home front to the invaders we are fighting here right now. nothing more nothing less. they are envading our homes, our neighborhoods, or jobs, our schools and the list goes on and on.

you wanted to know what was wroong with it here it is.

2006-09-16 12:53:04 · answer #6 · answered by NoBama For Me 2 · 0 1

your first question 'We defeated Iraq in the first Gulf War', doesn't give the reason behind the invasion. i am not sure just because US had the power, they had the right. hence, the whole list of questions is illogical. comprende?!!

2006-09-16 13:00:08 · answer #7 · answered by irumporayar 3 · 2 1

oh great ,8 more reasons we went to war,on top of the 15 million reasons we have already !

2006-09-16 12:50:47 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 1 1

you better check to make sure we didn't breach the peace treaty 1st

2006-09-16 12:51:34 · answer #9 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 1 1

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

2006-09-16 13:02:04 · answer #10 · answered by Simon Templar 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers