why are people against the war in iraq?

Question

don't they realize that hussein used wmd's against his own people and if he had ever gotten a chance he would used them against us. don't people realize the reason we have found no wmd's in iraq is due to the un giveing hussein plenty of time to ship them to another country .

Answer 1

Yo , there is no way in hell you can justify the war in Iraq ... Where the F*** is all the nuclear weapons and powerplants bush talked about ???? Answer : none !

Answer 2

There are many reasons.
-A lot of us aren't that convinced the Bush administration had good intentions in going there. The 'reasons' that kept changing for invading Iraq sound more like a series of excuses. Bush has lied, has admited he has lied and has lied about admiting he had lied. It's hard for me, and a lot of people, to trust anything anyone says after that.
-We're not that convinced the U.S. is doing that much good over there. The place is on the brink of a civil war predicted by high-ranking military officials that were fired for saying so by the B. administration. Close to 50 000 Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of U.S. invasion. There seems to be little progress and most of the development is coming from NGOs anyway. This is not a peace-keeping mission.
-Anybody with any knowledge of geopolitics knows armies are no way to bring in stability. Instability fosters violence. Terrorism is one form that violence can take. Therefore, it's hard to see the logic that the invasion will somehow reduce terrorism.
-The unilateral way in which the Bush administration went about the war business has given America's image a black eye in the international community. European diplomats viewed it as incredibly irresponsible and destabilizing. It is one of the reasons Iran can go ahead with its nuclear weapons program today. The U.S. can scream and demand Iran stop all it wants, it cried wolf one time too many.
-Afghanistan and Iraq are an environmental disaster of unprecedented magnitude that future generations all over the world will feel the consequences of. A vast quantity of radioactive uranium is being used in an array of U.S. weapons that is being dissipated into the air and water whenever they are used.
-This war is costing a fortune. U.S. debt is reaching unprecedented levels. Nowhere is it written in the sky that the U.S. must dominate the world economy forever. This could spell disaster. It looks like the plundering of the nation by a rich elite to me.
- Why Iraq, and not Syria? Why not Somalia? Why not Ethiopia? There are a lot of bad regimes in the world. The United States can't just take on the role of world police.
- The whole argument of democracy in Iraq is flimsy at best. 1) Only relatively pacified parts of Iraq were set up with ballot boxes - in other words, those regions where local leaders were already on side with the U.S. It's invalid. 2) You can't impose demoracy. The very idea is contradictory.
- The U.S. has actually been involved in Iraq for more than 20 years, since before Gulf War I. Between the wars, an embargo lead by the U.S. strengthened the Saddam Hussein regime by isolating Iraq and created misery and death among the Iraqi people. Strangely enough, although an array of consumer goods were subject to embargo, weapons were not.
- Hussein actually used to be a friend of successive U.S. government. He was supported with money and weapons when his country was at war with Iran. The CIA helped out in the coup with put him into power originally (because the former government had ties to Moscow). This is all well documented, but seldom discussed.

Answer 3

because two wrongs do not make one right!!! while i agree that hussein was is an evil ba**ard who turned on his own people-bush's pretext for invading iraq was "the weapons of mass destruction that could be used against the world". since no such weapons were ever found (and a certain senior member of the united states armed forces in fact appeared on tv and admitted the weapons "probably never existed in the first place") this makes bush and his committee (including the puppet blair) liars and the invasion of iraq illegal. during the first conflict (1991) a top marksman from britians SAS had hussein in his sights-all he needed was the word to pull the trigger but because you need high level clearance to kill the leader of a country he was told to stand down-by the americans!!!. i beleive the americans told him to stand down because they were pissed it was an SAS man that got there first and not a navy seal-but for the yanks saddam hussein would have been assassinated in 1991. furthermore-it seems to have been forgotten that it was US companies that provided the funds that supplied arms to another army that planted the bombs that killed many innocent people- the ira. people who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones!!!.

Answer 4

There is no excuse for not finding any wmd's in iraq. America went ahead with the war without UN's approval, it should have went ahead too to secure those alleged wmd's so it could justify the war. America boasted of high tech surveilance technology (satelite based surveilance cameras, eaves dropping, etc) and yet it couldn't find those huge chunk of metals? CIA helpless and clueless in these wmd slips? Hard to believe... Maybe there's more to it.

Answer 5

I highly suggest you check out the website below which details why this war isn't justifiable. One small snip from it is as follows:

5 Feb 2004Former weapons inspector David Kay tells CNN that since Saddam was unlikely to have ever succeeded in developing WMDs: "If the administration had laid out a case based solely on the intentions of the Iraqi regime, I doubt you would have had massive public support or any international support for that. The argument last year was one not only of intentions but of capability and actual possession of weapons of mass destruction."

Answer 6

Our president and his administration of fanatical, selfish warmongers have disgraced this country and yet there are some people who want to believe the lies they keep on sprouting out. Try reading something else then the misinformation that has infected any rational though process you may have had. We invaded a country to steal its oil pure and simple. His cronies have stuffed their pockets with cash as they let this country go to hell. Hussein was a terrible leader but it had nothing to do with us invading. Do you really think if there wasn’t any oil in the Middle East this country would be there?

Answer 7

Because there are a lot of deaths on both sides, probably more than when Sadam was in charge.

Because terrorists are making it hard and also exporting their terror.

Because there is no end in sight.

Because of the lessons learned in Vietnam

Because our country is using a double standard.

We are potentially doing things all wrong.

We grab people who we think are insurgents without knowing their background.

If they are ignorant "peasants" then instead of torchuring them we should put them in a very nice cell, give them lots of nice local foods, let them watch Western TV (not Arab Television), give them clean clothes, take care of their medical problems. Pamper them.

Do you think an ignorant peasant with no job and no regular hot water at home will go back to the way they were after we show them Western ways!

Ruin them!

Then brain wash them. Let them know this is the way the WHOLE country will be after a while (and it's probably the truth, Lebanon and Iran were that way BEFORE Islamic invasions de-Westernized those places).

Now, the educated one's, that's different! That won't work with them, they already run arond in Nike shoes and sweat pants.

We're not doing that.

We're not passing out truck loads of Ipods and 501 Jeans.

We're not passing out happy meals.

We don't bring in a truck with food and give it to them for free.

A bar of Halvah goes a lot further than terror and destruction.

Instead of building jails we should build a big new power plant for Bagdad and provide electricity 24/7, then when terrorists try and stop it we make THEM look bad, we tell THEM Al Quada is why they lost power to their homes.

We make AL QUADA the enemy.

Instead we're making them the heroes

We have not "un-slaved" these people, instead we have brought DISORDER where SADAM had MADE ORDER.

We have not liberated them, we have ruined them.

We have not done one good thing and we are missing opportunities.

We whould build a water processing plant and make water available 24/7 we haven't!

Then when Al Quda bombs it, WE get on Arab TV and TELL THEM Al Quada is the reason they lost their water.

Now, who is the enemy!

We did not learn one thing from Vietnam.

In Vietnam the average person could care less about Communist or Captitalist, all they wanted to do was work their rice patties, live in peace and eat.

America's war got in the way of that

The communist take over has restored their way of life.

We did not learn from this mistake.

To this day Russia is asking "where are the beneifts of Capitalism!"

They gave up communism to live "our way" and they still have next to nothing.

Now, on the other hand, China learned a lot from Hong Kong. China learned it could finance things much better with OUTSIDE cooperation then by being isolationists. As a result Bejing is the new Hong Kong.

We need to take one area in IRaq and make it a showplace.

The poorest town or city. Take it and turn it around.

Put a wall up around it. Don't let anyone in that doesn't live there. Rout out all insurgents and ship them outside the wall. Put is electricity and water and sewers wthat work 24/7 and turn that town into a metropplis!

Turn it into a Hong Kong

Then give a tour of it to all the Mayors and Tribe leaders of other cities and let them drool.

Now, they might want the Western Ways of doing things.

Right now all we're doing is screwing them over and screwing ourselves over.

In 5 years we'll regret taking Sadam out of power!

Answer 8

Sure, using them against his own people was terrible, but I wonder why, if he did have them, didn't he just say "Here they are, try and get me"?

I don't understand why we had to go in. I'm sorry, we had the real war on terror to focus on, not some country Bush wanted to go after for God knows why.

We're having problems with North Korea and Iran, plus we haven't even finished dismantling the Taliban. And where's that one guy who set up the attacks on 9/11...what's his name again? Where's he? Bush the cowboy wasn't going to rest until he was found. Well, it's been 5 years, 6 days, and 22 hours since since the first plane hit, and we don't have him.

Answer 9

Actually the WMD line is a myth.
Even so, Saddam deserved to go, and in that aspect this is an achievement.
What made people be against it was the manner in which it was put forth- either with us or against us- in effect alienating not just people in other countries but also within the US.

Answer 10

Well, there are probably several reasons.

First and foremost - there are a group of people - most of them liberal - who don't like George W. Bush - or anything that he does.

Some people felt like we should have gotten that second resolution from the U.N. specifically authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

Some people felt like because countries like France, Germany and Russia weren't supporting invading Iraq - that we shouldn't do it - and that we didn't have enough world wide support - even though we actually have more countries in our "coalition of the willing" right now, than we did have in '92 when we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait.

Some people believed that since we haven't found any WMD that means that we were lied to about the reasons to go into Iraq.

Some people wrongly state that the Bush Administration claimed that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11, even though the Administration has never stated that. The Administration claimed there was a link between Al Queda and Iraq - but has never stated that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Some people think that Bush did this just to get revenge on Saddam Hussein trying to get his father killed on a visit to Kuwait after the Gulf War.

Personally, I think that the majority of elected officials and public figures who are against the war - do it for political reasons. They want to make George W. Bush look bad - and they want the Democratic Party to gain back control of Congress and the White House.

Answer 11

I am far, far, more scared of GWB than Saddam. A despot in a sanctioned and weakly deffended sovereign state is far less of a menace than our own pResident and his Neocon handlers.

So where were these WMDs? We probably sold him the ones he used against the Kurds back in the 80s.