2007-03-08 07:14:05 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Obviously not. Think of the decades it will take for our country to pay all that this war has cost. On the human lives front, unknown numbers of people have lost their lives.
For all of you who will argue that we ousted a horrible dictator, this is no excuse or rationale for war. If it is, explain why we don't start ousting every dictator who we deem is evil?
This is undoubtedly the worst blunder of the 20th and 21st centuries.
2007-03-08 07:19:36 · answer #1 · answered by Rick 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
No, Because Iraq has too many religious differences to acheive a democracy and as a result they need some binding force to keep them together. First it was Saddam and now it is us. Granted, if the Iraqis didn't mind the fact that we are American's invading their country and there weren't so many insurgencies, then we would probably be killing less people than Saddam, but at what cost? And should we risk throwing them into a civil war. We don't have the understanding of Muslim society like Saddam did.
Understand, I am not saying Saddam was by any means a good man, but I am saying he kept the country from civil war, even if it was by murder.
2007-03-08 07:20:27 · answer #2 · answered by Ice 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No. A smarter, better strategy would have been to bide our time, exercise a little restraint and diplomacy, and allow the political and cultural situations in Iraq to naturally take its course.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical ruler, and that Iraq was a troubled region in the world. However, it would have been smarter and better to exercise a strategy of containment rather than invasion.
Anyway, hindsight is 20-20. We're stuck in this bloody mess now and for many years to come.
2007-03-08 07:25:41 · answer #3 · answered by Roland 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. What good has come of it? Saddam (though he was evil) had nothing to do with 9/11. Now more people are dying in Iraq than were dying when Hussein was in power. America has lost over 3000 troops and more almost every day. Terrorism has increased. America has become one of the most hated countries in the world, we have a HUGE deficit and gas prices are soaring. It was a REALLY BAD IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2007-03-08 07:24:37 · answer #4 · answered by alessa_sunderland 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess that depends on who you are.
If you are an american taxpayer then no.
If you have children who will grow up to have children who will grow up to have children who will still be paying for this fiasco then no.
If you are an american soldier, or have family or friends who are soldiers, then no.
If you are an iraqi, then no - Saddam was a brutal dictator (installed by the US in the first place) but he was also the only guy who could actually maintain a secular Iraq government (though he had to do it by killing thousands of innocent people). Thats the only thing that fanatic muslims understand is brute force.
If you are one of Dubya or ***** buddies picking up a bunch of no-bid contracts, huge piles of cash, and are given zero oversight, then yes - it was the greatest idea of all time.
2007-03-08 07:22:06 · answer #5 · answered by joemammysbigguns 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes! if Saddam were alive now, he would want nuke! He supports terrorism - it is for sure! If we ignore him, do you think he will leave us alone? No Iraqi directly involve in 9/11, so it is the reason to leave the supporters of terrorism alone? People knows Saddam was evil and still leave him alone? Iraq now is safe, only Baghdad is a mess! We need to strengthens the government there so Iraqi's future will be clear rather than they will live under this dictator then his sons...
2007-03-08 08:04:18 · answer #6 · answered by holyfire 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No...very very bad idea.
The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. It says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, “Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure it out from there.” The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter. Making the war in Iraq an “illegal” war.
It's time to bring Bush to justice....they are having protest march next week....get involved.
2007-03-08 07:18:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, we have to learn to mind our own business. We are trying to be the world police. The United States was formed because of the way we were treated, we left the old countries and came to be free if other people want let them do it too. We shouldn't be in anybody else's business, trying to change cultures and beliefs is not what we do best...
2007-03-08 07:21:23 · answer #8 · answered by Toxic 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, we are now seeing why Hussein had to rule the way he did. He was dealing with a bunch of nutjobs. The people that he killed after the attempt at taking power from him are the same people we are killing now.
2007-03-08 07:19:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
it seems like it was a bad idea. or it was a good idea just very bad planning.
2007-03-08 08:18:53 · answer #10 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋