English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

call me naive, im only 19... why are we at war?

2006-11-08 16:03:25 · 18 answers · asked by Me 1 in Politics & Government Military

18 answers

first off we are not at war WITH Iraq, we are at war IN Iraq. There is no established side we are fighting its an idiology. The combatants arent all from Iraq as most of these people seem to think. They are muslim extremests from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and basically all over the middle east. People are too naive to hear the truth from the govt because it would be skewed. Fact is we are their for the oil. but not for us to profit. for these fundamentalist not to be able to profit. Oil is funding the assault on the US. The fact is there are weapons out there that if the wrong people get ahold of them can cause us great destruction. They need money to carry out that plan. We stop them from using oil and keep them fighting and exhaust their money they will be held in check to attack in your back yard. The advancement of weapons has made the idea of isolation obsolete. Lets use an example. If Hitler had chinas long range missle capabilities and one nuclear weapon you think he wouldnt have sent it over here? ofcourse. There are leaders in the middle east, and scary enough now in south america that would do the same thing now. Facts are we will be at war for ever. Alot of people are going to die and its sad but to allow this country to continue in peace our military is going to have to stomp out this idiology.

2006-11-08 16:52:58 · answer #1 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 0 0

The real reason we are there has been stated time and time again by the administration.
"To protect American interests." In other words, he who controls the spice (the movie Dune) "OIL". We already have agreements with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc.

Also remember, Saddam was the guy during the Gulf war 1991 who shot scud missiles at America's ally, Israel. If Israel is to remain safe, Saddam must go.

These are the real reasons for the invasion.
We knew he had no links to terrorism as he was a secular dictator, an enemy to the radical religious terrorists.

By removing this secular strongman from the region, we have also removed the check to Iran and the Iraqi shite majority.

2006-11-09 00:53:26 · answer #2 · answered by brad_spits 2 · 0 0

despite all the spin, there is no reason
he made an agreement with the UN and broke that agreement. As there was no agreement with the USA the USA has no right o enforce the UN agreement. The UN security council needed to decide to what to do.
Bush said it was to look for weapons of mass destruction. The CIA knew there were not any there. Busk knew. Saddam did gas some of his own people but not nearly as many as the USA has killed. Saddam was an anti islamist he hate Bin Laden and had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam didnt support the islamists not because he was a good guy, but becuse they wanted to over throw him, too. Saddam was the USA's ally for a very long time and was supported by the USA. There were no terroists in Iraq befre the american conquest they happened after the american conquest. Some of the explostions are from Bin Ladens groups but most are from Iraquis who hate the invaders, it is like the american war of independance with freedom fighters (iraqi nationilists ) fighting agains the the oppressors ( the USA)
Since the USA has lost this war Bush has been looking for a reason, you will note there is no clear reason it varies.
the whoel thing is a disaster, it has driven away the usa's allies , made the usa appear weak cost a fortune and killed americans for no advantage

2006-11-09 00:27:51 · answer #3 · answered by mohamed jihad dirka dirka 2 · 0 2

The U.S. is not at present at war with Iraq. Iraq and the U.S. are considered allies. But the U.S. waged a war on Saddam's government, against the will of the international community, based on false pretense. Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction and Saddam did not have any ties with Al-Qaida. Result: The U.S. threw the whole country in chaos, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and a few thusand Americans are now dead, hundreds of billions of tax-money dollars are needlessly spent, Invaluable pieces of Iraq's treasure of historical artifacts are lost or destroyed, Iraq is sent back into the dark ages and the country seems poised to be divided .

2006-11-09 01:42:40 · answer #4 · answered by seek_fulfill 4 · 1 1

We are not waging a "War in Iraq." We are waging a world war, in which the campaigns to topple the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were brilliantly successful, and the current "lukewarm" war demands great patience and determination from the American people as we ready ourselves for the next phase.

2006-11-09 01:06:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

1. We defeated Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.
2. By doing so, we have the right to dictate the terms of his surrender.
3. Since we were the stronger power, what we say goes.
4. Part of that agreement was Saddam was to allow UN weapon inspectors unfettered access.
5. Saddam refused to honor this part of the agreement.
6. Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the North.
7. Since Saddam breached the contract, we did not have to honor ours.
8. War is on, we finished the job.

9-11 showed the US that we cannot sit around and let terrorists do what they want.

2006-11-09 00:10:57 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 4 1

We are not at war with a country. We are in a country trying to oust outside militant factions destroying a perfectly good crop of democracy growing in Iraq. When are most of you who answer these questions going to see that if you had an evil dictator who gasses his/her own citizens, you would want a country taking an interest in your well being when you could not.

2006-11-09 00:46:44 · answer #7 · answered by Hushyanoize 5 · 0 0

Because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait back in 1991 and did not stand trial for it. Bush Sr. didn't finish the job and Bush Jr. has no respect for his father so he was gonna show him how much smarter he was and how easy it would be to take Saddam out and control the Iraqi oil fields. But, oops! Dad was a seasoned statesman and was correct in his choice of policy and his son is an imbecile and that's why we're occupying Iraq.

2006-11-09 00:20:13 · answer #8 · answered by Babs 7 · 2 2

A 19 year old should know this. Saddam was a criminal. He is guilty of all sorts of war crimes as well as crimes against humanity. He harbored and funded terrorists and gassed the Kurdish people in prisons. He had and was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. He hid his plans and his weapons stockpile when the U.S. announced their invasion plans. He refused to allow U.N. inspectors into the country and also wouldn't give up information of terrorist elements in the country. The U.S. decided to invade and create a strong, democratic country in Iraq in the hopes it would transform the region into peace. Now that Saddam is gone, we are simply trying to maintain order while the new government establishes itself in the country.

2006-11-09 00:12:38 · answer #9 · answered by ? 2 · 6 1

This question should be sent to the White House for the latest reason, as it changes to suit the leadership of our country. Ask Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Oh, but Rumsfeld resigned today.

2006-11-09 00:58:49 · answer #10 · answered by Schona 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers