I don't think much matters whether or not Iraq had WMDs. The war was still justified for humanitarian reasons. Sadaam was a ruthless tyrant that oppressed and killed his people. No one questions that the Iraqi people wanted us to take him out. There's a reason why people who try to defend him in court seem to get shot. The people hated Sadaam and had no way to take him out of office.
We are still there because it's morally improper not to finish what you started. If we left now, we'd be leaving Iraq in a huge mess.
Good work has been done. Good work is being done. Shouldn't we make sure it hasn't all been done in vain?
Side note: What would the effects of splitting Iraq into 2 or 3 different countries? Would this stem the tide of civil war?
2006-10-17 09:55:30 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Notme: theoretically it should be the responsibility of the global community not just the U.S. but yes that'd make more sense than simply allowing tyrants to terrorize their people with no relief in site.
2006-10-17 10:05:37 · update #1
Ri: I have talked to an Iraqi. He praised me as an American and thanked Bush for ridding his country of Sadaam. Please make an effort to see for yourself rather than just watching CNN.
2006-10-17 10:08:14 · update #2
Exactly, (even though he did have them, read General Sada's book Saddam's Secrets), but you will never hear a Dem/lib admit that. What you will hear is them shouting why didn't we go to Darfur or some other country with humanitarian needs and you know what if Bush had ordered a full scale troop movement to Darfur to stop the genocide there, trust me these same Lib ******* would be b!tching about the same thing. They are just pissed because they know Bush actually did something that their hero Clinton did not have the balls to do. W's dad started it and W finished it.
2006-10-17 10:01:30 · answer #1 · answered by jasonzbtzl 4 · 0⤊ 5⤋
If the war was justifiable for humanitarian reasons, then there should be another twenty wars that we have incited going on right at this minute.
WE GAVE SADDAM WMD!!! And now we were upset that he had them. He was gassing Kurds in 1983, we gave him more money and more WMD. He was gassing them in 1988, so we gave him more money and more WMD. The only reason we went after him in the first gulf war, is because he invaded Kuwait, and George Sr, had a load of money invested in oil over there. Had to save his wallet, didn't we?
More innocent people in Iraq have died from this war, than the whole time that Saddam has been in office. Iraqis HATE US and want us out. 63% of Iraqis consider the US more of a terrorist threat than Saddam ever was. They also want us out, cuz Halliburton is staking some serious claims on land with oil in Iraq, and the Iraqis, for some reason, don't think Halliburton should own anything in Iraq.
Talk to an Iraqi if you really want their opinion.
2006-10-17 10:04:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No without the WMD issue we wouldn't be there and could handle Saddam by supporting opposition groups to over throw him. Instead we got a civil war and have totally destabilized the gulf region and pushed the anti-American fundamentalist to all new recruitment high's good work Mr.Bush!!! If we leave now Iraq will have itself another civil war and the country will break into at least 2-3 parts depending on if the Sunni's survive. The terrorist would be next on the death list as this war is tribal only foreigners need not apply.
2006-10-17 10:06:03 · answer #3 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ask the folks in Baghdad who are getting beheaded and/or being intimidated into moving from their homes by sectarian gangs how much better things are now?
Your side note is slightly less silly. Iraq will likely turn out like Yugoslavia and Saddam will look much like Tito in history's eyes.
BTW, you should be a politician with that 3rd paragraph. That is exactly the kind of non-sensical jingoistic crap that we have way too much of already. What "good work" is being done and define "in vain"?
2006-10-17 10:12:38 · answer #4 · answered by Mark M 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"No one questions that the Iraqi people wanted us to take him out."
Says who? You?
The majority of the Iraqi people were ruled by fear, but still relatively safe and happy.
And if we invaded Iraq just because he murdered ruthless thugs in his own society, then why haven't we invaded about 10 other Arab nations?
Ever thought of that?
2006-10-17 10:01:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Always remember, If the US getting involved it will not be for human rights.
Totally destroying the infrastructure of a nation does not qualify as "good work".
2006-10-17 10:41:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I really hope the majority of americans do not feel this way.
I also really hope this is a joke
2006-10-17 10:59:12 · answer #7 · answered by stephaniemariewalksonwater 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IT IS NOT THE US MILITARY'S REPONSIBILTY TO GET A BUNCH OF KIDS KILLED GOING AROUND THE WORLD LIBERATING RANDOM COUNTRIES, I PAY MY TAXES FOR THE US MILITARY TO DEFEND THE USA, IT'S NOT THEIR JOB OR RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY AND FIX ALL OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS
2006-10-17 10:03:10 · answer #8 · answered by Nick F 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nope.
2006-10-17 10:19:05 · answer #9 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
damn righ
next up the gooks in Nam.
We gotta finish what we started.
We have a moral duty to spread freedom all over the world any way we can. No matter how many collateral we have.
Gotta break a few eggs to make an omlet.
2006-10-17 09:57:18 · answer #10 · answered by Tex-Con 1 · 0⤊ 7⤋