War in iraq?

Question

For or against it ? why

Answer 1

For. Because I believe in war. I don't wanna go into it.

Answer 2

Against...
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/et_iraq.html

Answer 3

Against it. First off there's no reason to be there. The only people profiting from this is the oil companies and the weapons dept. We were lead to believe that they have WMD's(and for the 2nd time, nope) and that they are connected to Al-CIAeda(also proven wrong, since Saddam and Osama are bitter enemies), as well as that the troops would've been home by Christmas of '03(we're in '07 now, with perminant bases being built). We were told to believe that Iranians were transporting weapons to Iraq to help the insurgents(first off, they were mortors written in English).

The offical plan for this was to divide up Iraq into 3-4 sections and to have constant cival wars there, so that we have our troops there for at least a decade. It's just another false-flag operation for control and oil. That's it nothing more. We're sending our men/women over to kill arabs for oil!! Learn the truth, WAKE UP!!!!

Answer 4

FOR..and "me" is a clown...Saddam had to go he knew too much about Cheney, we need the oil, Iraq was planning on changing their monetary system from the dollar to the Euro which would have crushed our economy, and money is the greatest reason to go to war....now, go win it.

Answer 5

I am for the war. Saddam Hussein was one of the most evil dictators of our age. In 1986 he gassed the Kurdish villages in the North with Mustard and Serine gas which killed 20,000 of his own people. Then Throughout his whole dictatorship he killed over 165,000 of his own people for an assortment of reasons. Then in 1981 he invaded Iran although not wrong in itself gassed many thousands of civilians and military, which is against the Geneva conventions since the Iranian army was actually using a national uniform the Iraqis were mandated to go by the Geneva conventions. Further in 1991 Saddam invaded Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, addmittadly for oil and land, massacring tens of thousands of civilians during his weeks long occupation of Kuwait. In 1981 Israel was forced to bomb and destroy Saddams nuclear reactor which was almost fully operational. Saddam also supported terrorism regardless of what many say. Saddam gave to the families of suicide bombers who blew themselves up and killed Israelis or "Kuffars" (unbelievers) 25,000 dollars per child. In the end the intelligence was not wrong and President Bush is falling to media pressure to admit it was wrong. The weapons of mass destruction do exist. Last year 2 U.S. soldiers were blowing up some old weapons of the Saddam regime, as is commonly done when a gas was released into the air burning their skin, it was Chlorine gas. The U.S. army did not release that it was from the old regime because they were not exactly 100% certain they were from Saddam and not terrorists. I hope this helps with why Saddam was evil and needed to be removed.
Now to the current people who are in the insurgency in Iraq, they are not most of the time Iraqi's. In the battle that occured a couple of weeks ago in northern Iraq where 400 terrorists were killed, 80 of them were members of the Iranian army, and another 200 of them were from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other Muslim countries. Close to 60% of the people fighting in the insurgency are not from Iraq, and against what most people in the U.S. think 85% of the Iraqis want us there. Only 5% say they are against the U.S. Violently which is about the same percent that in the U.S. population hate the U.S. government the same way. In the Revolutionary war we lost 15,000 soldiers, in the Civil war the Union lost 350,000 soldiers, in WWI we lost 350,000 soldiers in 8 months, in WWII we lost 425,000 in the same amount of time we have been in Iraq. In the Korean war we lost 50,000 soldiers (including weather casualties) in 3 years, In Vietnam we lost 65,000 soldiers in 10 years. In other words you can not even call this a war. We have lost if I am correct 3,200 soldiers in 6 years! That is no where close to any other "war" we have ever been in. Is it sad that we have had to lose many American Republican Christians in trying to establish a Republic, (not Democracy) yes, but in order to preserve freedom and not have the Islamic Caliphate in the U.S. we have to take to the Offensive. You have to remember that it is not people who want the U.S. out of Iraq fighting in Iraq, but people who want a Islamic Caliphate throughout the whole world brought about by the Sword which is instructed by the Quran in chapter 9. Iraq is not mostly Muslim, they view it as a tradition and fear not being Muslim, as they have known no other option.

Answer 6

As the Iraq war continues into its fifth year, the Bush Administration's reasons for being there are more indefensible than ever. Prewar claims regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have all proved to be wrong; the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased rather than decreased; more American troops were killed in April than were lost during the entire invasion phase of the war; the systemic and barbarous abuse of Iraqi detainees contradicts the most basic values the Administration claimed it would bring to Iraq; and the uprisings in Falluja and at least half a dozen other cities portend a nationwide insurgency by both Sunnis and Shiites against the US presence. Yet the latest polls--including one conducted after the revelations about the torture of Iraqi prisoners--show that about half of Americans remain convinced that the war was morally justified. President Bush, in a speech on March 19 marking the first anniversary of the conflict, articulated a moral defense of the war that has been repeated many times: "No one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off" with Saddam Hussein's regime "back in the palaces." Even those who opposed the war have, up to now, found the President's moral argument difficult to answer. The Indian novelist Arundhati Roy, in a speech to this year's session of the World Social Forum in Bombay, lamented how "plenty of antiwar activists have retreated in confusion since the capture of Saddam Hussein. Isn't the world better off without Saddam Hussein? they ask timidly" [see Roy, "The New American Century," February 9].

The problem opponents of the war have had in responding to President Bush's claim of moral legitimacy, as University of California linguistics professor George Lakoff suggests, is that they have addressed the moral issue in the terms the President has framed it rather than reframing the issue in their own moral terms. Talking about the world, or at least Iraq, being "better off" avoids confronting the civilian carnage caused by the war. As the late Robert Nozick cautioned in his classic work on the moral basis of freedom, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, we should be wary of talking about the overall good of society or of a particular country. There is no social entity called Iraq that benefited from some self-sacrifice it suffered for its own greater good, like a patient who voluntarily endures some pain to be better off than before. There were only individual human beings living in Iraq before the war, with their individual lives. Sacrificing the lives of some of them for the benefit of others killed them and benefited the others. Nothing more. Each of those Iraqis killed in the war was a separate person, and the unfinished life each of them lost was the only life he or she had, or would ever have. They clearly are not better off now that Saddam is gone from power.

There is only one truly serious question about the morality of the war, and that is the question posed more than fifty years ago by French Nobel laureate Albert Camus, looking back on two world wars that had slaughtered more than 70 million people: When do we have the right to kill our fellow human beings or let them be killed? What is needed is a national debate in the presidential election campaign that addresses the most important moral issue of our time. It is an issue we are required to face not only as a matter of moral obligation to all those Iraqis killed in the war, but to the 772 American servicemen and -women who, as of May 10, had lost their lives and the more than 4,000 US soldiers injured in Iraq. The debate should begin by moving beyond the narrow factual focus on WMD intelligence to an examination of the broad moral principles and values governing the use of deadly force against other human beings. Those principles are to be found in the basic precepts of our more than 200-year-old constitutional tradition and criminal jurisprudence, and in widely accepted standards of international humanitarian law

Answer 7

Not for war, but I believe in what we are doing there, which is to provide freedom for the Iraqi people from a tyrant and provide them with the opportunity for a democracy. What they do with this opportunity will be left up to them! ANd Brite Tiger isn't very brite is he?

Answer 8

nobody who thinks straight can be for any war, let alone the current war in Iraq bent on oil purposes

Answer 9

Does it matter? We are in Iraq, we have defeated the old Iraqi army, lets defeat the terrorists and leave a stable country behind.

Answer 10

For it. If it weren't for war, we'd be speaking German or Japanese or something other than english and we would have no rights. It takes a brave person to fight for their rights.