2006-10-12 04:04:41 · 19 answers · asked by El Pistolero Negra 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The entire fight against terrorism was ignited by Osama Bin Ladden. From their we continued to fight (which lead us into Iraq) to fight against past and possible future threats of terrorism. Saddam Husein is known for his underhanded tricks of attacking other countries without the blame pointing directly toward him, so we attacked him.
The answer to your question will depend on who you ask - If you ask a liberal, typically they will say No...
In turn, if you ask a conservative, they will say Yes...
The people you need to ask are the civilians living in Irac that were tortured and/or treated unfairly for the many years Saddam Husein ruled the country. Or, you can ask the families of the women that were raped and killed on a daily basis by Saddam's sons, with his knowledge and permission!
The war in Iraq is more than what it seems (and a lot more than the reasons you will see on TV which is typically a liberal media source or on talk radio which is typically a conservative media source).
2006-10-12 04:25:20 · answer #1 · answered by Navy Chick 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No one with any compassion or sense of fair play could support a person like Saddam, but in the interests of accuracy, he _did_ allow UN inspectors in for much of the pre war period, and when the threat of a US led invasion grew stronger, he offered to let them re enter; (he might have been a bastard but he wasn't stupid, and knew he'd have to give in). However, Bush and his cohorts refused to acknowledge this offer - they wanted a war. Don't forget (and it is all on record) Bush and Rumsfelt had planned for the Iraq war long before 9/11 - the latter event, though nothing to do with Iraq, was used as a convenient excuse for invading. Maps showing how the oil fields would be allocated were also prepared way before 9/11 occurred. So it was obvious that no matter what happened, Iraq would one day be attacked; and the reason is obvious to any one with half a brain cell...
I hope every time we refuel our vehicles we remember that a fraction of that fuel has been paid for by the deaths of many US, UK and other troops, to say nothing of deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
And the sad fact is that, in the West, we are now at far more risk of Islamic terrorism than we were prior to the Iraq war. Inevitably, more coallition troops will die before the penny drops that the war can not be won - despite GWB saying that he is going to "stay the course". Fine words from a man who dodged the draft, and who does not have to risk his own life in Iraq. What a mess! And all so that SUV's can keep rolling...
2006-10-12 04:35:53 · answer #2 · answered by avian 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not. Saddam Hussein didn't start the shooting. Yes, he was stalling. Yes, he wasn't entirely cooperative. But in the grand scheme of things, he was still talking and pliable under sufficient pressure. The war was unnecessary and has made Iraq a more dangerous place, full of sectarian violence and a vibrant new Al Qaeda organization. Bush deliberately escalated the tension level and refused to support a diplomatic path which would lead to the re-introduction of inspectors.
2006-10-12 04:13:44 · answer #3 · answered by Mark P 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What makes you think of the conflict in Iraq is a failure? the only people dropping to the insurgents are the timid people here at homestead. Al Qaeda is pinned down there, it extremely is their quagmire, not ours. we've a presence in the Persian gulf, in case you force a automobile or get your food from a preclude remember on oil to stay, so kwitcherbellyakin. Vladimir Putin and the chinese language prefer to do some thing yet they comprehend they are too vulnerable precise now. Attacking Iran could remedy a great sort of issues and make contact with Putin's bluff. i'm nonetheless pissed with regard to the 1979 Hostage disaster, i'm hoping we nuke Iran off the planet.
2016-10-16 02:52:49 · answer #4 · answered by goodgion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, look at the facts.
1. Hussein agreed to let the inspectors in (he signed the treaty).
2. Hussein refused to let the inspectors in.
3. Hussein didn't get rid of his nerve gas stockpiles (yes, we found 500 shells of Sariin in Iraq)
#2 If I remember correctly, the UN inspectors were allowed in.
#3 When were these found? We know the US & UK had supplied him with it, to use against Iran, Were they stamped "Made in the USA", god knows, there is not to much getting that stamp,, now a days, Thanks to the present Administration.
2006-10-12 09:06:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Which war in Iraq? The first one absolutely his fault, the 2nd one not really because he didn't have any WMDs, he wasn't helping to shelter Al Qaeda (like are friends the Pakistani's do), he wasn't invading anybody and he wasn't a threat to the US or any of our allies.
2006-10-12 04:16:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, look at the facts.
1. Hussein agreed to let the inspectors in (he signed the treaty).
2. Hussein refused to let the inspectors in.
3. Hussein didn't get rid of his nerve gas stockpiles (yes, we found 500 shells of Sariin in Iraq)
4. Hussein tried to (and failed) to acquire nuclear materials.
5. Hussein didn't think the US would really attack and was calling our bluff.
But somehow, the liberals are goign to blame Bush.
2006-10-12 04:16:24 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It is America's fault. Saddam was never a threat to America, so they should have left it alone.
2006-10-12 04:09:45 · answer #8 · answered by james44_20 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course no! But the fault of the powerest country USA!
2006-10-12 04:25:37 · answer #9 · answered by hanfg168 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
are you KIDDING ME?
the war on Iraq is the fault of Capitalism, the fault of the businessmen who found OIL SHORTAGE in the US so they tried to find an easy prey, which is.........Iraq
2006-10-12 04:16:57 · answer #10 · answered by ahmed_mo2nis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋