2006-09-30 16:10:56 · 18 answers · asked by Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan-Maria Ramirez 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
NO! Bush and Blair have started a conflict, which will continue for years and has cost hundreds of lives already!!!
2006-09-30 16:14:58 · answer #1 · answered by Hipira 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Way back in time (1968) when 'the Troubles flared up in Northern Ireland, I wondered why UNO couldn't intervene. It seemed wrong to me that the British Army should go in, because they could obviously not be regarded as impartial. In those days, the UN couldn't get involved in what was laughingly termed an 'internal conflict'.
Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but he was allowed to kill thousands of Iraqi-Kurds because he also opposed public enemy Nr. 1 at the time (Iran). When he invaded Kuwait, he threatened the western World's oil supply - which everyone knows is sacrosanct.
Connections between Saddam and the el-Quaeda have never been proved. Can't imagine Sadam linking up with anyone, he was too full of his own power.
Ask the Iraqi people what they think. All that has happened is that more and more Muslims are convinced that the west is out to annihilate them and are becoming more extreme. What right does a foreign country have to try to impose their form of government on another country? Especially when the main protagonist doesn't respect the rules of democracy and the Human Rights conventions.
I'd like to read some comments from people who can justify this war on grounds other than the defence (defense) of the American way of life.
2006-10-01 07:36:03 · answer #2 · answered by cymry3jones 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've always wondered, if Bush with all sincerity and honesty wanted to free the people of Iraq from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein (who was once very much supported by the US e.g. Rumsfeld), wasn't there a way he could do that without destroying the beautiful country and killing all the innocent civilians?!
Plus, where are the weapons of mass destruction they made such a big deal about? And it has already been proven that Iraq has no links to Al Qaeda. So what now? Too much damage has been done and all Bush did was stir up more hatred towards the American govt.
Many Iraqis and Americans have died in the war.. all for nothing. So thank you Mr Bush, for nothing!
2006-09-30 23:38:54 · answer #3 · answered by Mawarda 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
hmmm.. interesting question. First it was right to get rid of Saddam Hussain. The way we conducted it was not right. You see the way we conducted the battles and the actual fighting part we did perfectly. but.. the what we did afterwards was horrific.
First we did not put enough troops to secure the place
Second we needed more allies to help us out
Third we should have used the good nieghbor policy, where our soldiers get to know the iraiqis so they are less likely to help the terrorists
Fourth our idiotic president (not trying to judge anyone) sent people who were only completely loyal to G.W.Bush instead of the people who were more quaified for the different jobs to help restore order to the actual society and econimic issues for Iraq.(the is entire article in the Washington post of all the crazy things the person who headed SSS did)
Fifth we should have a very large border operation on all of the countries around Iraq so we could make sure guns and other terror supplies could not get to the terroists in side Iraq.
And there were probably other things we could have done but i am not in the position to know all of those details.
What we can do now...
We can pull out or...
we can try to do atleast some of those things that i listed. but as times goes on, the more idfficult it will be to enact them.... God give wisdom to our government officials, they are gonna need it...
i hope that answered your question
2006-09-30 23:23:56 · answer #4 · answered by me, myself and I 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No!
It has been a hopeless tragedy of errors from day 1.
You cannot force people that are not ready for Monarchy to take up Democracy. They aren't ready, they don't understand, and they can't be forced to understand.
Now it is evident that a strong dictator was required, like Sadaam (or Tito for the Yugoslavians), to keep the Shi-ites and Sunites from ripping each other and their country apart.
Are we going to learn that our way is not the one right way for everyone?
Are we going to learn that nations and cultures have rights?
Are we gonna Impeach Bush after the next election and do whatever it takes to get the war powers taken back from the president to the congress?
Don't talk about any of the BS about them threatening us, if we truly believe that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be erroneously put away, then we have got to extend that to nations in the world as well, and allow tiny fanatic countries make stupid rhetorical threats all over the place, and not act until there's a missile in the air.
2006-09-30 23:21:01 · answer #5 · answered by raxivar 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No it was not right.
It was motivatived by greed and a need to control dwindling oil reserves. Bush's first priority was not to "free" the people but to take control of all oil production. Big hint there.
Terrorism was an excuse.
On PBS frontline there is footage from the first troops to enter the concentration camps from WW2 amazing how the acts of atrocity towards human life mirror what is being done in the middle east by Bush.
The world has forgotten the lessons and heartache of the past.
Leaders in the world use cruelty, force and fear to control events and people.
Study history and you will find that all Bush and his government say has been said before.
By Napolean, Stalin, Cromwell, Hitler, Mussalini.....
Think about it!!
2006-10-01 05:47:03 · answer #6 · answered by dragonaotearoa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. But it was 11 years over due: We should have Crushed Hussein's Regime in the Gulf war. We got a lot of people killed for pulling out after liberating Kuwait then and because of that we lost a lot of allies in that region. There were ten's of thousands of Saudis and other oppressed people ready to fight and when we left, at the advice of the U.N., many of them got butchered; this is why so many Saudis don't trust us.
The Iraq was right and it is still right; if we pull out now it will get a lot more people killed then if we stay. And let us remember not to listen to the rhetoric of the U.N.
2006-09-30 23:28:31 · answer #7 · answered by Shazaaye Puebla 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not sure, was raping your wife, suppressing your freedom of religion, speech, and life in general right. I don't know, but for the liberal hypocrites that supposedly are all for freedom of speech and women's rights it sure seems like they don't care much for those people in Iraq that lived under Saddam's rule. Hmmm, don't hear too much about women's rights for Iraqi's now do I? Or is it they are too concerned about being opposed to Bush to actually care? Hypocrites?
2006-09-30 23:16:15 · answer #8 · answered by Murfdigidy 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No war is right.
But this war in particular is both illegal and immoral.
There are no justifiable grounds for the war, other than the deranged minds of the Bush administartion.
2006-10-02 06:57:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is complete and utter evil. over a hundred thousand innocent peoples lifes GONE to take out ONE man who might maybe could have had a weapon that could kill some people.? and you crazy *** humans go along with it like a bunch of sheep that you are. the future is very bright. trust the feds.you bunch of. ba ba ba ba ba sheep. they know best hahahaha,
2006-09-30 23:59:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋