In your opinion is what the USA did in Iraq an " Attack " or a " Liberation "...............

Question

Remember it started with " Shock and Awe "

and also if you believe it was an attack then don't they have the right to attack us? If we attacked them then they would be justified in bombing and shooting us too right?

Coragryph..........do you ever give a stupid answer???? One of the few people who i enjoy reading their reponses

Amosunknown........thanks for not answering the question, you should be a politician.

Answer 1

Do they look like they are liberated?
No US politician dares to announce a visit in advance, that should give you a clue.

Answer 2

Your fishing for the answers you want. If it was an attack, why was the country turned over to an Iraqi government? Why is Saddam on trial by Iraqi judges and wasn't just killed when found? Why is there billions of dollars pumped into the infrastructure there? Why is it that the Iraqi citizens are more at risk from other Iraqi's than any one else? And why is it that you have made up your mind about this and have not been there to witness for your self.

I am going to assume that you also feel that America attacked Bosnia during Clinton? We are still there.

Answer 3

that is humorous in a hack form of way, yet in answer on your question, no. A solid center east might have been a greater valuable oil procurement coverage via fact it would save risk to the provision lines down, save hypothesis down, and not value the U. S. this form of dramatic volume of money, time, and political clout. US efforts in Iraq have unquestionably served to destabilize the middle East customarily, a minimum of in the intervening time, inflicting the rises in oil costs that we've been seeing for various years. it quite is with the help of the fact the political challenge is uncertain, the provision lines may be endangered at any time, and hypothesis, as a effect, went for the time of the roof. The "conflict for oil" prospect does not make plenty economic experience, finally; the quantity of money positioned into the conflict attempt and the area outcomes it created do not sq. with a source conflict theory. there is one greater clarification that US leaders have been making use of the conflict in a conspiratorial way, to generate salary for his or her ex-corporation companions interior the oil industry. That clarification demands one to circulate to fairly severe allegations on spurious information. whilst it squares nicely with a traditionally Radical attitude, there is not probable sufficient information to assist that end very solidly. that is totally probable that there have been motives, or a reason, different than oil salary that led to the U. S. to circulate to conflict with Iraq.

Answer 4

I just thought I'd tell you that it was clearly an attack on a foreign country that was absolutely UNJUSTIFIED! 100%. And now our gov't wants us to stay the course so they can try and mend their mistakes, but it's way too late for that. Unfortunately the damage has been done, and now that we have thoroughly upset the majority of a country who did not ask for our help, we are paying dearly. Or should I say our troops, NOT George Bush are paying dearly. We are now the most hated country in the world thanks to him. Also, his policies make it look like all Americans want the same thing he does, and we certainly do not.

Answer 5

Shock and awe is another way of saying "blitzkreig". It was a totally unprovoked attack. Very similar to Germany's attack on Poland.

Answer 6

Your next door neighbor decides to kill his kids and bury them secretly in the back yard. He then sets up machine guns pointed directly at your house, he covers them up naturally, and never actually shoots them at you. Every time you see him he tells you he's going to blow you away, and that he hates you.

next, to be a toal asss, he gives some local gang members some guns, and tells them you have a few pet animals home all day, and helps them get in and shoot them all dead. Perhaps they even shoot your kid... or try.

You sit in your house and ignore it, and hope it will go away on its own. Completely unfazed by his race to arms, and threats, and the deafening dying screams of the children dependent on his care. Ignoring the fact that he possibly helped arm and educate the people who invaded your house.

You tell me if you'd do something about it. Or if you'd feel guilty for calling swat on his asss.


The Iraq war is much like this. Except on a larger scale, and farther away. Its a daunting concept, and really hard to comprehend. Especially for yuppy americans who live happy, simple lives where our biggest concerns isnt if our government is going to torture and kill us, but whether or not eating that second big mac is such a good idea.

Answer 7

Liberation

Answer 8

Attack, and yes they have the right to attack us. It's called war, that's the way it works.

Answer 9

Liberation, although we need to get out of there and let the Iraqis govern completely.

Yes, it was an attack on Saddam's regime, and Saddam's uniformed military did fight us, and they had the right to fight. However they are long defeated. Most of the insurgents are foreign personel. Most of the victims are Iraqi civilians.

Answer 10

Well, it was definitively an attack. Hard to deny that, unless the word attack no longer includes the use of force to cause damage.

It was also easily within the definition of liberation, since Saddam was a tyrant and his regime was toppled. Whether it was a liberation that the Iraqi people wanted or were ready to handle was another matter.