Simply yes or no.
2006-12-25 20:45:20 · 24 answers · asked by firedup 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
legally justified - no
ethically justified - no
economically justified - no
politically justified - no
2006-12-25 21:01:03 · answer #1 · answered by Jack C 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
there have been very few those who knew that Iraq not had any WMDs after the UN inspections. If extra human beings had watched 60 minutes extremely of focusing on Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama, human beings would understand this. Iraq seen the concept they'd WMDs the important reason Iran replaced into not invading them. So i imagine we ought to continually have lengthy gone in there, yet waited for the UN, because there replaced into life like data that Saddam had WMDs and he necessary to be thrown out besides. in this "conflict on terror", besides the indisputable fact that, i trust the answer lies not as a lot with the military as with our overseas regulations, so at the same time as we ought to continually have some troops there, and in different elements, we ought to continually be engaged on our overseas status extra.
2016-12-01 04:32:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Richard yes but if we don't kick *** and come home then we need to get out. Yeah Richard I find it amusing too that the Bush haters ignore the facts that don't go along with how they feel. I posted documented proof of many different dicoveries of WMD found in Iraq over the past 3 years twice on here. But fiannaly learned what's the point? Can't confuse them with facts when they want to hate just because it's cool lol, there are a few things I disagree with Bush on. But is he more evil then Hitler and Stalin combined? come on folks geez get a grip. You are being duped by a bunch of left wing elitists that can't stand that he won the presidency twice.
2006-12-25 21:42:25 · answer #3 · answered by crusinthru 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, I cannot answer it with a simple yes or no.
While some retards, still believe that there were no weapons of mass destruction, contrary to the overwhelming evidence, and the evidence that they keep turning up.
I believe that we should have gone after other targets, before iraq.
I believe the President chose iraq both because of it's strategic location in the middle east and also because he felt it was an easy target.
It should have been an easy target. However the President, after taking Baghdad, chose to take the politically safer position of forcing young men and women who have no law enforcement training to, be police.
That retarded move by the President is what is costing us the lives of American soldiers.
Now that we are there, I believe we should see it through.
HOWEVER: If the President is unwilling to let our men and women kill people and break things, so that they can win the war, then we should get out NOW.
2006-12-25 21:26:06 · answer #4 · answered by unico_nocturno 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You cannot ask a question like this and expect a simple yes or no answer. War is just never that simple and neither are the average person's opinions on it. I do believe the war was justified. Saddam Hussein was in violation of numerous UN resolutions and also the ceasefire from the first gulf war. He needed to be removed from power. It is just unfortunate that the UN lacked the resolve to enforce their resolutions.
2006-12-25 21:06:09 · answer #5 · answered by Bryan 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Was it justified, going back to March 2003 I thought it was but I also thought it wasn't a great idea.
Now, looking back in hindsight I see why I thought it wasn't a great idea.
However at the time the governments presented a case and there was justified reasons for military action.
Answer-Yes (but not a good idea)
2006-12-25 21:17:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Logically, NOOOOO. Emotionally. Yes. Saddam was a bad man (OUT OF MANY)
2006-12-25 22:22:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hitlar and Bush have one common greatest mistake. Hitlar also rejected the majority who tried to stop to attack at Russia and Bush to Iraq.
2006-12-25 21:43:58 · answer #8 · answered by Moonboy 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No.
Millions of innocent lives have been "sacrificed" because of Bush's paranoia about nuclear weapons and greed for oil.
The people in Iraq are suffering more then the people in America itself -- Much more.
2006-12-25 21:28:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes, simply we have not had anymore attacks on U.S. soil- if Clinton would have done this in '93 when the first time the Trade Center was bombed 9-11 probably wouldn't have happened.
2006-12-25 20:52:10 · answer #10 · answered by josh m 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Not Justified; in short there was no mass destruction weapons found and no real big threat was there,so its wrong decision.
2006-12-25 20:48:49 · answer #11 · answered by salmanzk 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋