2006-11-14 10:49:37 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ditto Ingerk.
2006-11-14 10:52:02 · answer #1 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Which war? The one against the terrorists in Afghanistan that WAS justified and then basically abandoned? Or the war in Iraq that never had real justification and now we're stuck there? I'll assume you are speaking of Iraq. The answer is no and no, but now we're caught like a spider in its own web.
2006-11-14 18:56:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
War, any War, should be a last resort, but if you look at history, America has always had to take a stand one way or the other. Now with Iraq, if you look at it, its no different than Korea, no different than Panama or any other issue we have faced. The only issue I have is that the President, needs to tell the military, kick butt, take names, and lets "get er done" so we can come home.
We found out in WW2, that we couldn't ignore the world, cause it bit us in the behind when we did. Talking doesn't always work, as we see with all the UN resolutions that they couldn't enforce against Saddam, so that left putting boots on the ground. Heck, the UN cant control North Korea or Iran, so at some point, the world will have to deal with them. Is it when they blow up a major city with nukes??
With all the liberals celebrating, and talking about forcing a withdrawal, I want to know that when we do have another attack on the States, will they take responsibility for their foolish actions???
2006-11-14 18:55:01 · answer #3 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Saddam had been a bleeding sore forever. Strategically if a friendly stable regime can be formed. Iraq's ideally situated to begin changing the middle east. So yes and no, it was mishandled the timing was bad, and it's doubtful if America can install a regime that it want's. History will judge. Actually had a better casus belli for this one than oh say vietnam.
2006-11-14 18:57:14 · answer #4 · answered by charlieyankeekilo 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Seems some can justify anything. War is pre selective abortion, while the Repub's tout "shame to kill baby's" then kill when one comes of age. Guess it takes having a family, birth certificate and 18 to get God's approval to kill others.
2006-11-14 18:55:08 · answer #5 · answered by edubya 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Saddam was maintaining the capabilities to make WMDs and planned on resuming making them if we were to leave him alone.
He also violated the peace accords he had signed after the first Iraq War.
2006-11-14 18:53:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No. It is senseless to fight and have our men and women killed in the name of oil. How dare Bush and his minions murder our own people like that.
2006-11-14 19:08:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so. It was Bush's chance to get even and to take oil. All that oil, where is it? They could use the money to fix up that dump.
2006-11-14 18:52:39 · answer #8 · answered by Fireman T 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
nope!! i am still trying to find out what happened to afganistan and why we are in IRAQ??
2006-11-14 19:03:20 · answer #9 · answered by honeystrawdewberry 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
No.
2006-11-14 18:52:21 · answer #10 · answered by halfshaft 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋