Why must we die in Iraq?

Question

Our soilders needlesly die everyday and for what? Even if we can "liberate" Iraq down the line another psycho leader will take over and turn Iraq back into what it was. Why can't they just come home? Unless they come here, we should stay away, then we have more protection on the homefront anyway.

Answer 1

I agree with the people that question your "we" in your statement/question. Unless you wear the uniform, there is NO "we". I'm married to a man that's been there 3 times. WE believe in the reason we're there. WE believe in finishing the job. Sending the troops home before then, all the lives lost so far would be for nothing. They don't deserve to be disgraced that way. There's no need to cut and run like Vietnam. Iraqi's are glad we're there, just because it's not shown on the news. It's not needless. Unless you're willing to put on a uniform and go over there, or even worse, fight in your own backyard, I suggest you just let the troops do their job.

Answer 2

hey, i understand that the loss of life seems needless and the war seems endless, but what if the citizens of the USA had the right to decide when the military should fight and when it should not? The US is not just interested in protecting itself, it also stands up for what it beleives in. YES, military personnel are dying over there, but so are millions of helpless innocents who cannot protect themselves and have no training or strength to fight back. The military CHOSE that occupation, they knew the risks, they weighed all the pros and cons and made a decision for themselves, to go over there and protect these people...does anybody ever try to tell your company what they can or cannot deal with or where they can operate in (outside of appropriate laws of course).

Please remember that the people over there are doing this because they have a heart for these people who are getting screwed by dictators like hitler...what if the US hadnt stepped in? and we all are horrified by the consequences of the military entering in very late. THAT is what happens when a country waits until they are personally threatened before stepping in to protect the people who cant defend themselves.

I really do understand the pain of watching your friends and relatives die over there. I have so many friends in the Canadian army fighting and dying, but it was and still is their choice. And I'm not going to take that away from them, instead I will support them and I hope you can do the same.

Answer 3

properly for starters extra individuals die daily in automobile injuries than they do in Iraq. ought to we give up utilising autos? Saddam made Hitler appear like a saint and that i think we did the desirable element by using taking him out. in spite of if to easily bypass away Iraq now could be an excellent bigger mistake than invading interior the 1st place. What terroist company could take administration of Iraq then? Iraq could likely replace right into a haven for terrorists then. till the Iraq goverment can preserve there u . s . a . on there very own we ought to be there. by using how our militia are volunteer. No solidier became compelled to enlist and dying is component to conflict. God bless our troops! God bless u.s.!

Answer 4

Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.
--George w. Bush Washington, DC. 10/07/2004
at a White House Press Conference

And

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11.
--George w. Bush Washington, DC. 09/17/2003

Good question. Accusations of having WMDs and involvement in 9/11 were supposed to be the reasons that Iraq was invaded. It was just a 'soft' target and they could get some good political 'mileage' out of it, or so they thought. How wrong they were again

Answer 5

Why did we die in WWII? Were the lives saved worth the American lives lost? I believe it was our finest hour and I believe the war in Iraq is a similar event. I don't know that we would have stayed and won WWII if the same sort of news coverage was available.
As for them coming here and more soldiers protecting us, here....it is really hard to prevent people who don't care about dieing from killing. Much better there, than here.

Answer 6

Your are apparently immature and unable to use the "Check Spelling" offered by Yahoo.
In case you haven't noticed, our Country has not been attacked since 911, even though the Terrorists are still trying. It seems that they are too busy fighting the infidels in Iraq!
But of course YOU would rather be fighting the Terrorist in the USA. I wonder if YOU would have the integrity, and the intestinal fortitude, to fight for YOUR People then? REMEMBER 911 ???

Answer 7

We die over there so the civilians that we volunteer to protect can live their lives in safety. If we weren't fighting over there and waited for them to bring the fight to us then not only would our soldiers die but so would our civilians. I am happy that I have the opportunity to keep the fight over there so i know only my life is in danger and not the life of my family as well. Please stop asking why we are over there because although there is oil over there and that is part of why it is mostly to keep the battle away from our people,

Answer 8

We can't just come home. There is a job to be done. Once Iraq has a stable government and strong military they will be able to hold their own.

Answer 9

So sad that after all this time there are people still clueless but wanting to yak about Iraq. P.S. Have you gone to Iraq, have you ever even been in the military, if not, feel free to take the "we" outta your question.

Answer 10

As someone with a family history of U.S.Military service going back to the Revolutionary War, who spent 20 years on active duty from the end of the Nam era through the end of Desert Storm, I think you, like Bush, have never served in uniform. The purpose of military force is to kill people and destroy property until the enemy has no remaining capacity to wage war. Our troops are not over there to do that. Bush wants to Nation Build in Iraq the way we did in Germany and Japan, where we still have troops by the way, but you can't do that until you have conquered, pacified, and occupied the country. He refuses to send enough troops to do the job, the ones he did send are poorly supplied and equipped, and he has no actual goal to achieve. In Nam we tried to do the same thing we did in Korea, there we just prolonged the war until they got tired of fighting and made terms, and we are still in Korea. In Nam they prolonged the war until we got tired of fighting, and they got us out of their country. If our leadership has forgotten that, as I believe they have, you may be sure the Iraqis haven't. When anyone speaks of "liberating" Iraq one is forced to ask, "from who". This isn't WW2 where we drove the Germans out of France, there was no foreign invader in Iraq until we went in, there still isn't other than us. What people need to see is that the people killing our soldiers see themselves as patriots defending their families and homeland from foreigners trying to destroy their culture, abolish their religion, and steal their oil. It doesn't matter whether we see it that way, until we convince THEM otherwise they are never going to stop. Our leadership needs to make a clear and concise statement of what we are trying to accomplish and exactly how we are going to achieve it. Then we need to send in everything it takes, no holds barred, until we've we've killed or destroyed everything that stands in our way. Ugly or not, like it or not, that is the only way to win a war. Failing that, we need to give up and let the other side win as we did in Nam, half measures are a waste of U.S. lives.