Justify the role of the US in the situation in Iraq.?

Question

do you think it's corect or not?? help me answer this question.. thanks a lot

Answer 1

We invaded a country while lying to the entire world. That's something N. Korea would do. That's something Saddam Hussein would have done (kuwait?). That's something Hitler would have done.

Saudi's attacked us, then we invaded Iraq to get back at them? Makes absolutely no sense.

And whether he violated a treaty is not justification for war. That's what the UN is designed to deal with. Diplomacy or sanctions or even a combination should aways be the first choice or sanctions.

Young, poor American kids die every day because of an administration that makes the entire world nervous.

There's no justification for this war.

Rich, old men start the war, then poor kids pay the price for it.

*hydrogen* is the next big fuel. Once the oil baron steps down, we'll see implementation of this. So far scientists have had a real problem finding money to fund the projects. That's what happens when Bush's are in power for 12 of the last 16 years. They make sure we stay dependent on oil.

Answer 2

We have no justification. All those that say we needed to remove a tyrant in power are wrong. USA is ***NOT*** the police of the world. USA is ***NOT*** the mother of every nation and their actions. If we can remove Saddam then why not remove Iran's president or N. Korea's persident or Pakistan's president?

Removing a tyrant has NOTHING to do with the Iraq war. Its was -and always will be- about the oil.

BTW, the previous person said: "...We had bad intelligence about WMDs and made a poor decision with poor preparation..." - we had NO bad intel on this...it was quite clear, Sadaam had NO WMDs plain and simple. We were misled into thinking Sadaam had. First they tried to attach Iraq ti 9/11 when no one believed it they came up with WMDs, when we found non they said 'we never said Sadaam had WMDs only that he had the intent to develop them and use them" -- all lies.

It's about the oil.

Answer 3

I agree with the war in Iraq. The results of war are always terrible and hard to handle. Saddam should have been removed a long time ago. What so much of the media won't tell you is that the WMD were moved into Syria prior to the war. Now, I can't help but feel that countries like Syria, Iran, etc. are supplying the men and armor to fight the American troops that are there. I also believe that congress has abandoned our men in Iraq because they refuse to send additional troops. Shame on the USA for turning their heads to the problems in Iraq. Our men deserve more from us than the idiocy shown by our newly elected congress. It's a pathetic group of human beings and it scares me to know that they have as much power as they do.

Answer 4

We must help control the flow of oil out of the Middle East to the United States. China will be bidding for that oil before to long and there may not be enough to go around. If just half the oil there quit coming here we would fall as a country or go into a depression.

Answer 5

The initial idea of toppling Saddam was good. But once he was, nobody knew how to proceed.
At the moment US troops are being asked to prevent a civil war, and that is IMPOSSIBLE.
This civil war is going to continue, with or without the presence of US troops, so the best thing is to get them out of the line of fire.
Some people call this 'surrender', but I call it 'common sense'.

Answer 6

We had every right to remove Saddam due to his repeated violation of the Gulf War ceasefire treaty. We had bad intelligence about WMDs and made a poor decision with poor preparation. But I think the intent was noble.

Answer 7

The President has Top Secret information that justifies what he does. I trust the Commander and Chief.

Answer 8

Invade based on a lie. Occupy such country. Steal their oil.

Ummmm.....not correct.