is the war in iraq Necessary?

Answer 1

By asking this, you question what I do for a living.

For the last three years, I've trained soldiers to fight wars.

If we don't fight them on ground of OUR choosing, we will be forced to fight them at their discretion, which means in the cities and towns of our own nation. Iraq serves as a lightning rod to attract the electrified enemies of America and draw them to a cause, thereby keeping you safe to pen your asinine scribblings on websites such as this.

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen and ask, What shall be the reward of such sacrifice? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plow and sow and reap to glut the avarice of men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude more than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may history forget ye were our countrymen."
--Samuel Adams, 1775

Answer 2

War is never necessary, but that doesn't mean it's always a bad idea, either. Our strategic goals are very much in line with those of previous wars, though the means of achievement will necessarily be different. Our justification seems at least as strong as that of the oil embargo that led to our war with Japan, and the only real problems seem to be that we don't have the armed forces best suited for this type of conflict, especially on this scale, plus the all-important problem of war-weariness and the generally unmilitary thinking of the public at large.

Answer 3

The war in Iraq could have been avoided had the UN and the world body not ignored Sadam Hussein since 1992. The time that Saddam Huessin should have been overthrown was in 1991. Had he been disposed then, Iraq would have had a real chance at being a peaceful nation.

Answer 4

I remember seeing a picture [I think it was in Time magazine] of a lady cradling a baby in her arms. The lady and child were in the middle of the street. They were both dead. The lady and child had been murdered with a gas attack by Sadaam's government on the Kurdish people of northern Iraq.
So, think about this scenario:
Imagine you are walking down the street and you see a person beating on another person and then throwing them out of the building they are fighting in. When you inquire what is going on, the person doing the beating says that there was something inside the building that is supposed to be available for everyone, but that they really like it and don't want anyone else to have it. If they ever do decide to let others have it, they're gonna sell it to someone else instead of letting it be reasonably available. Would you consider it "necessary" for someone with ability to intervene with the person and fix the situation or just say to yourself that it is okay and let the person live on as if nothing wrong had occurred?
Yes, this is what Sadaam's government was doing to its people. Sadaam was the latest version of Hitler or Stalin.
You may ask, well if Sadaam is now gone why are we still there? The answer to that is, there are still too many Sadaam-wannabees left who want to step into his place. Too many left who feel things like women being, not just second-class, but non-existent citizens is normal. People who feel if someone disagrees with their political or religious views, then it is perfectly normal to just go kill them.
No, I am NOT overstating the problem. It is all too true and really is that extreme.
So, my answer to your question is an emphatic, "Yes!" It IS necessary for someone to intervene and tell the big guy to quit beating on and killing the little guy. "Picking on" just wouldn't be an adequate enough choice of words. If that "someone" who intervenes has to be US, then so be it.

Answer 5

Oh hell no........lets just pull our troops out, let Iraq become the new place for terrorists to train and get ready for the next attack on the US. OR...maybe Iran can take over the country, put a strangle hold on most of the world's oil supply......strangle our economy, while they use the money to build their nukes and blow up Israel and a few major cities in the US. Ignorant people!!!!!

Answer 6

it wasn't then and it especally isn't now. in war the quick adapter and he who lacks pride will see the day through....

Well al-quieda in waziristan attacked us on 9-11 and the government of america (Both democrats and Republicans) failed to adapt by going to afghanistan and waziristan(and please don't wavie that pitful "token" force in my face, only thing weve acommplished in afghanistan is killing the Arizona Cardinals defense)instead we went back to the dust covered issue of Iraq.

Not much adaptation there,huh?

oh, and now we have to win why? no when we get through all the lame excuses really ,Why? to save face period.

Hmmmm we seem overly pridefull.

wonder why things are going so bad????

Answer 7

there were many roads around the mud hole of the Iraqi war but GWB chose to drive us into the middle of it and now we're mired in muck. Getting us out and back on track is what's necessary now.

Answer 8

we can't stop war in Iraq

its out of our hands

all we can do is set non-violent example to the people of Iraq, and we blew that

if you mean our (USAs) involvement, it was absolutely not neccessary, but war between Iraqis would have come eventually as Saddam died or gradually lost his power

Answer 9

yes it is very necessary, if we pulled out now it would be the biggest mistake we could make. these people are attacking each other. the us troops are there to try and bring peace, i dont see that happening though

Answer 10

It was a war of choice.