2007-02-07 04:40:42 · 15 answers · asked by holymonx 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It was a bad idea because, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama Bin Laden admitted to being behind those attacks, not Saddam Hussein. It's like your brother slapping you, and you go after your sister. Then Bush said Iraq has WMD's, which we all know didn't pan out. Bush was told repeatedly that there were no WMD's in Iraq, and yet he still wanted to attack. The U.N. did inspections continuously in Iraq, since Operation Desert Storm. Why didn't he listen to them? Isn't that why we put sanctions on Iraq, so we could keep our eyes on his daily activities? The force that was sent to Iraq on a bogus mission, should have been sent to Afghanistan. If that would have happened, maybe we would have Osama by now. Being a veteran myself, I hate to see the unnecessary carnage taking place daily. Also, if Bush Sr. would have let us complete our job the first time, we wouldn't have had to worry about Saddam Hussein!
2007-02-07 04:57:41 · answer #1 · answered by Dragonman 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Iraqi invasion was supposed to be a one drop operation where Americans intended to supposedly topple the regime and establish a government for Iraqis. But the process of instituting a government for Iraqis turned out to be a disaster. The general elections were too early. Americans first started by bringing all sorts of electoral laws that made some Iraqis feel disenfranchised. This created resistance to the transition process and the sunnis simply opposed any transition plan put on the table either good or bad.
The worst mistake was when elections were conducted and a vast majority of sunnis boycotted the elections. The emerging government was dominated by the minority shiite population in Iraq. There has never been anywhere in the world (except Iran) where the shiite muslims are made leaders by the majority of other Muslims. Except the only country where they have the dominant population.
Frustrations lead to anger, anarchy and subsequently destruction of lives and properties. What the Americans should have done would have been to try and explore every possible means of getting the sunnis bak to the emerging new government. This would have reversed the current situation in Iraq. No matter the level of resistance, if that distrust scenario was not created in the first instance and the emerging government wasn't shiite dominated, they would have been able to manage all their crises better.
2007-02-07 06:07:27 · answer #2 · answered by MAFOKOCHIZHI 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Way back when in the Army, I was asked a hypothetical question on a possibilty in war. One of the parameters was Air Force One was crashed or knocked out of the sky. The choices were save my father or the President. My answer then was the President.
My reasoning was simple. My father, is not known and would not be recognized as a leader to the rest of the country.
On that premise Saddam represented Iraq. Was known to the Iraqi's as their leader, irregardless of his deeds. They were not shooting him out of power as they evidently have towards this new government. It is anarchy over there, untill they align themselves into groups large enough to fight a civil war.
In a warped sense of humorous slant, It is kind of like several cross-eyed-guys in a brawl. Punching away at each other, while swinging on the guy trying to give them a focal point. At least this is how the both the White House and the media are portraying it.
2007-02-07 05:00:25 · answer #3 · answered by eks_spurt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes
I think it was a bad idea because I do not think it was well thought out. The war was entered under the wrong intellegnce, and lacking political support. It would have been better to simply have push Saddam up to the limit then when the UN failed to support the US we should have left the entire region and let them live next to Saddam's Iraq.
2007-02-07 04:47:37 · answer #4 · answered by DeSaxe 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I dont. Ok so there were no WMD's. So what? It is the 21st century and there is absolutly NO EXCUSE for the world to allow a regime to stand that, kills and rapes its own people. Saddam gassed hundreds of thousands of his own people during the years and everyone just sat on their *** about it. If the U.N would have done its job in the first place and not let little pansy countries like France and Germany bully them around then we would have already been done in Iraq.
2007-02-07 04:49:54 · answer #5 · answered by raminrobert 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's a war of false pretense. We're the most advanced military on earth, yet we're not winning the war. We could have put plenty of troops to do the job in the beginning, why not?Maybe it's more convienient to leave our troops in Iraq longer than we fought WW2?
Draw your own conclusions
2007-02-07 04:58:23 · answer #6 · answered by guy o 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Call me crazy, but my common sense tells me that it would've been a better idea to go after the person responsible for the 9/11 attacks instead of invading a country that was in no way involved in the attacks. By the way, where the hell is Osama bin Laden? It's already been 5 YEARS since the attacks took place, and he STILL hasn't been caught!
2007-02-07 04:44:23 · answer #7 · answered by tangerine 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, 3,103 Americans dead.....26,000 shot.....War based on lies....Iraq did not do 9-11....No threat to the USA....It will end up like Vietnam. The USA never learns.
2007-02-07 04:59:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's not...It's part of the War on Terrorism, and there are terrorist in Iraq. So...we are going to get rid of them.
2007-02-07 04:55:19 · answer #9 · answered by abacus314 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
It was one of the stupidest things that (Bush) we have ever done-clobber someone if they are trying to hurt us-but don't set up governments-people will emulate us if they want-you can't force democracy down there throat.
2007-02-07 05:06:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋