When are people going to realize that Iraq NEVER attacked us?

Question

The world would have understood and respected us had we blown up every cave over there to find Osama. But invading a country that never attacked us is unforgivable. We have stirred up a hornet's nest that was under control by an evil dictator. I didn't like Hussein, but he had things under control. Now there is nothing but chaos, loss of American lives, and much of the world views America as an evil bully. I think most of us heard the erroneous statement by Bush concerning Iraq, "They attacked us." NO THEY DIDN'T!!!

K -- LOVE your answer!

truth seeker -- awesome answer.

Dolen: How right you are!

As for RLP, Griff, Mommyof 4, and CB: It's hard to believe that anyone still believes the way you do. In fact, I REALLY don't think you believe it. How could you? Have you been listening to the news? Some of the comments you made cannot be reasoned over because it's not based on reason.

Answer 1

You are correct, we took a pre-emptive measure against Iraq, which was later proved false. Whoops, oh well, now we deal with what we're doing.

And the 'terrorists' that are there now came after we did. Saddham would have never allowed them to be in his country, especially since he was already declawed by the first Gulf War and wouldn't have wanted to attract the attention of the UN or US.

And if we're going along that line, then we should invade Pakistan, or at least the border of Afghanistan with Pakistan. Maybe then Lebanon (Hezbollah), Palestnian Authority (Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade), and Iran (lent aid to Hezbollah) should be invaded.

To defeat the terrorists, we cannot invade countries. We need to fight underground, like they do. We need to use covert means, we need to build relations with countries in order to extend our influence. As of now, we're wielding a 40-pound, 2 handed mace to kill a 4 ounce mouse. Sure, it'll work, but how much will we catch in collateral damage?

We need to find a good mousetrap.

Answer 2

If by "under control" you mean he was committing mass murder and torturing citizens who dared to open their mouth in opposition you are dead on. He killed more people during his reign then have died since. Ask a Kurd if we did a good deed by getting rid of him.

In my book that is not the type of "under control" we should let take place.

Iraq attacked American planes patrolling the no-fly zone on a regular basis. A fact which is conveniently ignored by the left. The UN response was essentially like telling a three year old he had to stay in a "time out for" 15 minutes.

If by world you mean France and its allies you are right. They don't like us. But it is because we exposed a level of corruption in the UN that only amplifies why we should pay it no head.

America has been viewed has an evil bully for a long time. Iraq did not sway any nation to change its mind in either direction.

Answer 3

You are right. They never attacked us because we didn't give them a chance to. They threatened us with Weapons of mass destruction which they did have but hid before the US invaded them. By the way, When did Bush say Iraq attacked us?

Let me ask you a question. If we knew 9/11 was going to happen ahead of time should we have just ignored it and waited for them to attack us? Would that make you happy?

Hussein had Iraq under control. Under HIS control 100%. He is a dictator that killed, maimed, and raped his own if they disagreed with him....Yep, sounds like things were just peachy in Iraq!

Answer 4

Neo-cons don't care about facts. They will say whatever their Pied Pipers tell them to. Even after Bush confessed that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, the Pied Pipers will not allow the neo-cons to wake up and smell the truth.

They quote the same empty slogans from coast to coast. I know as I've lived all over the country on six month assignments.

Answer 5

The ones that are going to realize it already do. For the ones that don't realize it they never will. And there is a third group out there that doesn't care. It truly doesn't matter to them. They are blinded in their loyalty to Bush.

example: look at RLP's answer. "a lot of terrorists have taken up residence in Iraq. What she neglects to point out is that those terrorists that have "taken up residence" were not there prior to our invading Iraq. Then she goes on to repeat the Bush mantra of "fighting them there instead of here." Anyone who says that , truly does not understand the terrorist. They are not a country. Fight them there instead of here.... what is that. Terrorists are all over the globe. They attack in small groups or even individually. That is extremely hard to defend. Bush has reduced our ability to fight the real war on terror by invading Iraq. He has taken away our resources to fight terror. They just don't get it.

Answer 6

You are ok with an evil dictator torturing its people, but you are not ok with America having a poor image. Get your priorities straight. I could care less what the French think of us, or just about anyone else for that matter. I agree that going after Iraq was ridiculous, but your argument I find disheartening.

Answer 7

Try telling that to the neos that would follow there leader blindly off of a cliff!! The only thing we have to be concerned about now is that if we leave then they will attack us here with their extensive fleet of aircraft carriers, ships, fighter jets...etc (pun intended)...

Answer 8

the bomb used in the 1993 wtc bombing was made by an iraqi.

Answer 9

No COUNTRY attacked us and everyone knows this.
A lot of terrorists have taken up residence in Iraq now so it's as good a place to fight them as any...
Would you rather we fight them here in the US?

Answer 10

when people stop believing oil hungry presidents that needed a reason to invade an oil rich country.