I know the word "freedom" resonates heavily in the U.S., but really, Iraqis never asked for U.S. soldiers in their streets, and I think what matters is the ability of moms and dads to raise their kids in a normal environment. Saddam, frankly, was a secular leader who led the Arab world in things like women's rights. He was also a blood-thursty monster. But if that madman was more capable of protecting moms and babies than the United States, isn't the operation an utter and total failure?
2006-10-15 15:36:20 · 16 answers · asked by superstar dj 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Interesting question, and the answer is all opinion base, but I am going to answer with a no. Think about it this way, Germany, Japan, and Italy all wanted to conquer the world in WW2. Now, if all the countries laid down, and let them do so, many less deaths would have occured. So was it evil to fight back these forces? I think not.
2006-10-15 15:42:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Freedom is worth fighting for. Pray we never
lose what we have here in the U.S. Some of the
people in the middle east have lived a life of hell
for years and years with moms and babies thrown
in huge pits alive. We are civilized and do not do
such things here, thank God. All we want to do is
work to make their lives better so they can enjoy
life as we do. Some civilians may accidently be in
the line of fire, but our military do not kill civilians
on purpose. So, hooray for the U.S. Military. The
servicemen think they are doing a good work (just
ask them), so people that call it "evil" are on the wrong
side of this war with terrorists.
2006-10-15 15:51:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not only that but Iraqi's now have an environment polluted with radio active depleted uranium left over from the use of depleted uranium munitions by the American military during the conquest of Iraq to give them and many future generations to come higher than normal rates of cancers!!!
2006-10-15 15:48:45 · answer #3 · answered by H.I. of the H.I. 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. Since terrorists dress as civilians, how can we tell the difference?
2. Iraq is the first freely elected government ever in the Middle East. That is a huge victory.
3. Blame the terrorists and not Americans. Terrorists are the cause of the violence. GET A CLUE
2006-10-15 16:28:28 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As time passes we are becoming more and more a failure, the Bush administration that started this war based on lies are criminal and ought to be prosecuted for their crimes against the people of Iraq. They should also be prosecuted for their crimes against humanity for the torture and atrocity's committed by the American solders under their direction.
2006-10-15 15:45:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Once again you are confused by the rhetoric. This is for Oil. All resistance to American occupation of Iraq must be crushed by the USA. If this includes death squads and torture, If it includes disappearances and random killings just like in South America and South Asia, guess what. It will be so.
2006-10-15 15:43:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The thrilling element approximately each of those adult men is their motivation. In Haiti and maximum different third international international locations the guideline is, "could makes precise." you ought to kill people to stay in means. the only thank you to triumph over the international is to kill a great sort of people. those adult men have been in basic terms inspired. What makes those adult men "Evil" or "Out of their F'ing minds" yet we are saying the Alexander the large is large, he killed a great sort of people. we are saying that Caesar is large, he killed a gaggle of people. Pizzaro, Cortez, i'm able to bypass on and on. those adult men replaced the international and killed and maimed hundreds even thousands and thousands. i'm not condoning the strikes of any of those adult men. i'm in basic terms asserting that historic previous is written by using people who triumph over. If Hitler conquered the international he could have been theory-approximately in yet differently.
2016-10-16 05:59:21 · answer #7 · answered by valda 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It got rid of Saddam and of any threat that he would use WMD. Saddam was within hours of launching a WMD attack on Israel when the Gulf War broke out, rendering it impossible. See reference for details.
2006-10-15 16:14:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
More Iraqis are dying under !merican rule, than under Saddam Hussein.
The USA can't win the peace, because American foreign policy is so screwed up most of them hate us.
2006-10-15 15:40:47 · answer #9 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yep
2006-10-15 15:41:05 · answer #10 · answered by dstr 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋