What gave us the right to go into Iraq? These were the laws Saddam had created. Who are we to say that his are wrong and ours are right? And even if we DID do a good thing, why were we there in the first place? (and still there)
Just wondering. If there were no WMD's, then why were we there, if another country had (supposedly) attacked us?
Don't yell at me or anything; i just want to know WHY.
2007-01-13 01:55:30 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because the American government has a bit of a superiority complex. Sure, America might be the greatest country and I love living here, but that doesn't give us the right to just invade another country and force our beliefs on them.
The American government thinks that every other country wants to live like us. But I find that hard to believe. Life for women in other countries completely sucks, but that's all they know and some women are probably scared of change. And I'm not just talking about women here.
2007-01-13 02:13:35 · answer #1 · answered by Laci R 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We did not have the right to go into Iraq. The reason they wanted to rid the world of Saddam is because he was a dictator murdering his own citizens , and they believed he would murder others also. A small assassination team would have been the proper way to end that problem.
Murder is not right.
They had 30 days to move all WMD's that could have been there. Reports seen them moving them to Syria, and neighboring countries, but nobody really knows for sure here in America.
The alleged suicide bombers majority came from Saudi Arabia anyways.
They did NOT attack us.
2007-01-13 10:08:04 · answer #2 · answered by Kathy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
if Bush suddenly started oppressing the nation, killing your friends, or family because they don't fallow him. would that be OK with you. should some one stop him? it would be easy, any single person could do it if it was just Bush. but lets say he has the entire government and the whole military behind him. it would take a more powerful nation, to come in and set thing right. how would it feel if the US was a dictatorship like Iraq? but wait, that would mean that you as a woman would now be in jail and tomorrow you would be stoned to death, with out a trial, just for asking a question about whether or not your leader did the right thing. your husband would then be hung for not having enough control over what should be his subservient wife. and wife is a loose term, you would be more like his property. then your children would be killed just for good measure. they might even go after your friends, just because. and all of this would be because you asked a question. Feel better yet?
2007-01-13 10:19:08 · answer #3 · answered by Patrick M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People did think he had WMD. I believe he WANTED people to think he had WMD. He definitely paid $25,000 to surviving family of suicide bombers against western interests. I think there is a case for toppling him. After that, we owed it to the people to give them a chance to create a stable government. However, there is a difference between that and putting a new artificial lid on a socially unsustainable political structure.
Last I heard, they didn't want more troops and want us to leave as soon as they can step up to the job - and I am entirely in favor of complying with their wishes in that regard.
Personally, I think they should put the mineral rights for the entire country into a fund to be divided by region depending on population, then federate the country into 3 separate 'states' who are self determinative of social issues. But that is just me.
2007-01-13 10:16:41 · answer #4 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are on the right track, but you should also ask why did we support Saddam all through the 80's? Why do we continue to host and support the UN, who does more to erode the sovereignty of nation states than anybody? And why aren't the Dems doing anything to end the war??
2007-01-13 10:30:54 · answer #5 · answered by coconutmonkeybank 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shay-La,
You ask a good question. It depends on who you talk to. The UN did not sanction our going in. The Pope said we were wrong under every justification for a 'just war'.
It was essentially a "might makes right" theory by the US. It was sanctioned by our president and congess. There was talk of a theory called preemptive attack, meaning, "I'm going to get you before you get me". But we now know Iraq had no such capability.
2007-01-13 10:05:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It appears to me that you have not been paying attention to the news for the past five years. There were 14 UN resolutions that the Iraqi government ignored. The US gave dozens of reasons, prior to the invasion, as to why it was necessary. Study the history and you can answer your own question. You only have to go back to 9-11-01.
2007-01-13 10:05:07 · answer #7 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WHY- Darwin's evolution theory of saying the strongest survive
The US is the strongest. The US felt threatened by Saddam and what intelligence reports indicated was that Saddam had WMD's. The US then had the full right to go in
not necessary my logic, but i hope this helps liberal evolutionary lovers understand
2007-01-13 10:01:16 · answer #8 · answered by Short Haired Sexy-Person 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Why we went to Iraq is no longer an issue. The problem today is how to get out without messing up anymore.
2007-01-13 10:15:26 · answer #9 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look up Iraq and UN Resolution violations, that will bring you up to date.
2007-01-13 10:13:13 · answer #10 · answered by kathy059 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋