English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i recently read somewhere in the paper that since the usa intervened in iraq, citizens have a 60% greater chance of dieing a violent death. if we are supposed to be there to stop violence, then this seems quite contradictory. this money we are using and that is killing innocent people could be used for so many things better than war. i think that we've created a huge mess in iraq, i mess we are trying to clean up but that we in esance started. just puting it out there. what do you think?

2007-01-24 12:47:06 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

first they said the iraqis got nuke and biological weapons, then when the didn’t find any, they said Saddam was friends the Osama……when they didn’t find Osama and em al-Qadi’s ……..they said they wanted to make Iraqi a democratic country……..and when they cant fully achieve that ……they said they want to stabilize Iraqi and stop the violence which they started ..........now iam really confussed ...are u?

2007-01-24 12:59:00 · answer #1 · answered by victorbusta5 2 · 3 1

One question, many answers...
1/ WMDs : there were none left.
2/ Regime change : although this administration didn't like Saddam Hussein, they are plenty of leaders throughout the world that they don't like either but did not topple.
3/ Oil : Saudis are already providing cheap oil without so much trouble. Besides, if that was for oil then it didn't work : pipelines there are cut on a daily basis.
4/ Spread democracy : don't make me laugh ! The US spread dictatorship throughout South America when it was in their best interests.
5/ War on terror : it was quite the opposite. There was a dictator in Iraq but no sign of Al Qaida. They came later because Jay Garner and Paul Bremer didn't win the peace.
6/ My personal guess : after 9/11 this administration searched frantically in Afghanistan an enemy they could smoke out of its hole. But they just fled in less than a month. It wasn't enough to calm down. So the Bush administration turned on its weakest enemy, Iraq, instead, thinking they would have an easy military victory to forget 9/11, even if they weren't the culprits. Well, they won the war, but just lost the peace (they had no plan for that).

2007-01-24 13:29:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

US and UK troops and other countries which supported Bush invasion are in Iraq because Bush ambition to be a world police and economic interest especially Iraq oil.Bush accused that Iraq had WMD but infact Iraq did not have it.Bush also accused that Iraq financed the world terrorism headed by Osama Bin Laden but Bush had no strong evidence..Bush accused Sadam as a dictator who killed his opposant people.But in fact Bush killed innocent people of Iraq more than that had been killed by Sadam.
Bush founded a puppet government of Iraq which is far from democracy.So now in Iraq broke a civil war between Sunni and Siite or Syiah.During Sadam goverbment era the economic of Iraq was stable and no civil war.This civil war killed everyday innocent people too.Bush should responsible for this civil war.More than 600 000 innocent people has been killed in Iraq and more than 3000 US soldiers has been killed at the cost of Bush ambition.And how many billion dollars of US tax payers has been used there ?Bush should stop the violence in Iraq,because the civil war has been made by Bush assisted by Israel said a rumour.Bush should also redevelopd all historical buildings and people houses that had been destroyed by US soldiers.I agree with you that Bush have created a huger mess in Irag.

2007-01-24 13:30:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 3 0

we are in iraq because, the bush administration is composed of greedy, scociopaths. Bush and other rich/conservative people will benefit from the war in iraq....
-war is good for the economy (creates jobs)
- there is oil in iraq, and before we stepped in, the iraq govt. was not our freind to do buisness with

but hey guess what, the U.S. has a military budget of 470 BILLION dollars. not only that, but they are taking money out of social security(you know the national retirement fund....for all the flipping baby boomers) and spending that on this fruitless war as well.

o and what about those WMD's??? we didn't find any in iraq but we the U.S. has tons of them, and we're the only country thats used them......so i would definently say in this situation, our government seems to be the terrorists and they have hijacked our country.

2007-01-24 13:05:39 · answer #4 · answered by thisisabsurd 2 · 3 0

I think we got sucked into something we thought would be quick and easy and now we do not know how to get out! It should have been a clear sign when no one was siding with us. In typical fashion we went in thinking the Iraqis would welcome our freedom and that they would thank us for getting rid of this horrible leader they had. The problem is that they different tribes all hate each other so much it takes someone like him to keep peace so we will probably end up with someone similar to what we had. Someday our government will realize not everyone in the world wants to be Americans! I will die to keep our freedom and way of life, but we need to quit imposing it on everyone else because it might not be right for them!

2007-01-24 12:57:50 · answer #5 · answered by leachnissan 3 · 3 1

Keep in mind that there were naysayers right from the beginning, and things have unfolded much as they said things would. Ronald Reagan used to say, "Trust - but Verify". In other words, do not go in there unless and until you have established an immanent threat (WMD and the will and propensity to use them). I assume it is acceptable to order 'french fries' now - 'freedom fries' never did seem to fit - especially to the people of Iraq, who have not the freedom to even visit the market.

2007-01-24 12:58:18 · answer #6 · answered by oatie 6 · 2 1

I actually don't have an idea, either. It's not for oil, and the whole "WMD" thing fell through...

The only thing I can think of is that we were trying to set up an actual ally in the country that can help in case of war against our other allies, Kuwait and Israel. And it can also serve as a platform into Iran.

So I guess I lied, I do have an idea. Just don't know if it's a very good one.

2007-01-24 12:53:24 · answer #7 · answered by Ultima vyse 6 · 2 2

I totally agree. The premise was liberation, instead we have brought instability and destruction. I think most people realize that. I think it is deplorable that Bush has put us in this position. After all he was warned of the possibility of sectarian violence and a possible civil war, he chose to be unprepared and rushed into the worst military decision since Vietnam.

2007-01-24 12:58:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

The cultural left has routinely affirmed the most vicious prejudices about American foreign policy held by radical factions in the Muslim world - and then emboldened those factions to attack us with the firm conviction that "America deserves it"

2007-01-24 13:04:42 · answer #9 · answered by Free Speech 1 · 1 2

The people of Iraq are not dieing from our presence, they are being killed by their own citizens...It has been going on for centuries, now that we are their, the liberal media has someone to blame....The innocent people are not being killed with our money they are being killed by mone the Terror groups raise from Drugs, Donations, black market....notice, all the Bad Guys have Soviet weapons....
We did not start this mess...we interceded to stop it...and we will

2007-01-24 12:54:41 · answer #10 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 3 4

fedest.com, questions and answers