A war would be when two armies are fighting on similar or equal grounds.
Before we attacked, Iraq had no planes, No Fly Policy, hardly any tanks, Hardly any weapons due to UN sanctions....
Isn't this more like a case of bullying?
2007-01-24 03:05:42 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
AND DEFINITELY NO WMD's
2007-01-24 03:06:25 · update #1
First off there would be a session of Congress called, and a declaration of war written, as it was done with previous wars. Bush noted this open ended war was to fight terrorist that he has yet to produce. Iraq can't be 100% full of terrorist and Bush is still talking out the side of his mouth. Bush said Osama Bin Laden was the #1 suspect, and he is a Saudi, and the rest of the people Bush claimed were from Pakistan and Jordon. Just last night Bush mentioned in his BS speech that it was Sunnis, not Shiites that were the enemy, and the problem right now is a Shiite controlled militia ran by Maliki....George Bush lies so much he can't keep up with them, and those that support Bush are to far gone to argue any political topics with the Bush failures. The American people don't believe Bush nor his support team they are cashed.
2007-01-24 03:17:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 12⤊ 0⤋
I suggest that you do at least a little research before stating your premise. Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the world and was considered well equipped. However, it was not match for the forces of the USA (as is the case with any country). War occurs when one nation fights another (and lessor fights) and this definitely fits the definition in any dictionary. Is it right to be there? Is it right to have ever gone? These are the issues. But the parity of forces nor even the outcome bears on whether it is called a war or not.
BTW, wars may also be economic, political or even more ephemeral types than military conflicts.
2007-01-24 03:24:30 · answer #2 · answered by Nightstalker1967 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you completely forget 9/11, then it could easily be viewed as bullying (and for the close-minded theorists living in there moma's basement: we did not construct 9/11).
--
The terrorist cells have something you're not mentioning: Money. They have plenty of money and plenty of allies in that area. The entire Iranian government is considered their ally. Should I say more?
2007-01-24 03:27:33 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Trying to disassociate from Vietnam and Korea.
2007-01-24 03:24:14 · answer #4 · answered by edubya 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush calling it a war makes his powers much more potent and difficult to question under the constitution.
2007-01-24 03:11:39 · answer #5 · answered by ArgleBargleWoogleBoo 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
two armies fighting on a similar ground are stupid armies
as long as you have armies of two flags fighting is a war
2007-01-24 03:13:04 · answer #6 · answered by kimht 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
War is merely an all "encompassing" word that makes everything sound all neat, justified and proper. Maybe we should called it "Debacle in Iraqle"........
2007-01-24 03:12:49 · answer #7 · answered by Sun Spot 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Very few wars are equally matched, so your definition of war is in err.
2007-01-24 03:11:01 · answer #8 · answered by JSpielfogel 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
because we are at war-YOUR definition of war is incorrect. AND U.S. military has destroyed hundreds of biological warheads in Iraq,but I guess that doesn't meet YOUR definition of WMD either?
2007-01-24 03:15:02 · answer #9 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Tell that to the over 3000 mothers of dead GI's and the over 20'000 parents of critically wounded service men.
I bet they would beg to differ with ya. ;-)
2007-01-24 03:10:43 · answer #10 · answered by huckleberry 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋