Tough question guys! Many people will get this wrong. I know the answer so I am awarding 10 points to whoever is the closest. Hints to answering this correctly:
#1 You have to believe that there is a War on Terror.
#2 You have to know the correct reason America went to war with Iraq.
If you don't apply with the above two prerequisites, you will answer incorrectly. Good luck and don't think too hard.
2006-09-29 19:23:32 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
There are really several points.
1) hussein never complied with the sanctions from the kuwait war and intended to continue in his search for nukes and other nasties.
2) there were connections to terrorists, including payments to widows of suicide bombers, training facilities and al queda on the ground.
3) congress approved in 2001 our war on terror, whereever that took us, including afghanistan and iraq, they also approved iraq separately based on evidence of threat to regional and international peace.
4) although not new, there were WMDs found which meant hussein never complied with the sanctions. There is also the proof that he was seeking a dialogue in Nigeria about yellow cake.
5) perhaps most importantly, when we win and there is a stable democracy in Iran it will significantly diminish the ability of the islamofascists to recruit, after all they have admitted that we have killed over 4000 of them in Iraq. Isn't that odd, the dems say there were no al queda but yet al queda says we have killed 4000, not sure which one to believe......haha.
2006-09-30 08:20:44 · answer #1 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what you are thinking--but
#1--there is no war on terror. Terror is a tactic not an enemy. The enemy is the persons who are engaging in the tactic--this would be revolutionary Islamic militant fundamentalists of some various varieties.
#2 This dosen't matter. I opposed going into Iraq because I believed it was not the place to engage the enemy and would lead precisely to the type of problems we have now. George Bush the first believed removal of Saddam would cause this type of problem--and was the reason he did not finish the job in the Gulf War.
I also believe the Iraq war has created more terroritsts. It is a rallying cry for them. They swarm to there as Leftists did to the Spanish Civil War and as Jihadists did to Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. And regardless of the outcome of the war--many are going to go home and fester further trouble.
All that said--what should be done now? And I gather that is what your question is about. All of the rest of the considerations are irrelevant to this issue.
If abandoned now Iraq would become a major staging area for terrorism abroad, and be a huge moral victory for the jihadists. Andit is very likely it would fall under the umbrealla of Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran. It would be at the very least an Iranian version of pre-9-11 Afghanistan--although given its geographical location and potential oil reserves--much more dangerous.
No responsible person thinks that we can just pull out. Frankly, the answer is probably increased military presence--something that George Bush does not have the political balls to say. When he makes the claim this is essentially World War III--if he truly believes this then the country should be mobilized--increased taxes, the draft, etc.
I don't know if all that is necessary--but a win in Iraq is essential.
2006-09-30 02:50:24 · answer #2 · answered by beckychr007 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree with Becky and Houso.......the only correct reason would have been to really find Osama. I originally supported the war because I hoped this would be achieved (I want his head on a platter with his one-eyed-snake in his mouth.) Anything else was just pointless and the huge endless mess we have now.
The world hates us more than ever........I fear one of these days all of those countries that hate us are going to band together and attack us.
2006-09-30 05:01:38 · answer #3 · answered by M&M 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If America was concerned about eradicating terrorism, it would not support Israeli atrocity oppress, and would stop TERRORIZING the world, then there would be virtually no reason for the oppressed to resort to acts of terror.
2006-09-30 03:57:36 · answer #4 · answered by peace m 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It doesn't matter where you start skinning the cat as long as you skin it.We are here now and we have to stay the course and complete the job.Even if it was a big mistake.
2006-09-30 02:30:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because Haliburton told Bush to do it, and Saddam was going to sell oil in Euros to the European Common Market and not in US dollars.
2006-09-30 04:02:11 · answer #6 · answered by houso44 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bill O'Reilly is going to be on Leno tonight
2006-09-30 02:27:51 · answer #7 · answered by not coming back 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
hmmm...if you don't know by now you will NEVER get idiot.
2006-09-30 02:25:21 · answer #8 · answered by Ted Kennedy aka Swimmer 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋