Does US presence in Iraq "make me safer?" Did Iraq do anything to me, this country before 'shock and awe"? ...

Question

...wasn't bin Laden responsible for 911? Isn't he Saudi Arabian? Wasn't he in Afghanistan?

By now we should all be aware that the Iraq effort was all a ruse. Things didn't realy go the way the administration planned. Still, I am being told that our men and women are fighting for "me" and the rest of the country. Well, perhaps they are...but I suggest it is because we needed something that we could not obtain UNLESS we made up some flimsy excuse -- which has now backfired.

Thank you dstr....God I love these answers coming from people with BRAINS.

For the hundredth time I am not a 'liberal'- never have been and never will be. Not a Republican either and never will be. I am UNdefined. But more importantly - for the hundredth time also -and very succinctly, I think for myself. And thank you answerer - but my government has lied so much - about even unimportant issues - that I find it difficult to believe ANYthing they say. so "Iraq Watch"? ( answerer quote: "this is a written report by the Iraq Study Group that details all of the US's findings in Iraq with no bias. (McCain was part of these "investigations i might add) are nothing more than someone's "opinion" coupled with perhaps a few truths or many truths - or
a few lies or many lies. We can never tell. And so, we search many sources..and we make up our own minds. It's called thinking for oneself and coming to our OWN conclusions.
(I will read your offering but I doubt it will convince me..Any writing controlled by the "U.S. regarding this war remains questionable)

Answer 1

The so-called "war on terror" fought as the war on Iraq is taking place in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11. Iraq posed no threat to the United States except in the minds of those requiring and/or fabricating the reasons for war. Yes, , let us talk of the sickness then. A first strike, preventive war of choice is sick. Bombing a country through "Shock and Awe" because it was expedient to have access to our desperately needing its oil is sick. Adopting and using a policy of extreme rendition where the U.S. government sanctions and fosters the disappearance of people to nations where gross torture is allowed so that surrogates can do the dirty work for it is sick. Lying to Congress, the US people and the world in order to justify going to war is sick. Murdering complete Iraqi families by dropping 1,000 pound bombs on them is sick. Breaking the standard by which human decency is maintained, at least in part, during war, i.e., the Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and the Nuremberg Conventions adopted by the United Nations December 11, 1945, is sick. Unloading hundreds of tons of depleted uranium is sick. Dropping cluster bombs is sick. Unexploded cluster bomb bomblets becoming land mines taking off children's limbs is sick. Killing as you would call them precious unborn fetuses by poisoning them with radioactive dust is sick. Our youth dying for the ruling elite and rich man's war for profit is sick. Let us reiterate once again, that going to war with Iraq had nothing to do with any threat from Iraq and it had nothing to do with 9-11. It had everything to do with lying about weapons of mass destruction, lying about aluminum tubes, lying about yellow-cake uranium, lying about mobile biological and chemical weapons labs, lying to the United Nations, lying to the world. That, , is sick. And, it is this sickness that you would project onto those who criticize you and the sickness of this regime. The fact that anyone else, or faction, or nation, may be sicker is not justification for excusing this regime's sickness.

Answer 2

Had it been sanctioned via UN(must be the sanction became obtained 'under duress', it would not have been an profession although that's been there defying the international opinion and non-cooperation of even the closest allies. And besides not one of the justifications whey it became released have grew to become out to be nicely based.The mere plea of the voters to not go away is by using the actuality that via occupying and inflicting all varieties of demages u . s . a . has not left the Iraquees in an extremely unenviable difficulty the place jointly as they hate the profession they re afraid that the positioned up-holiday era would be the deluge.the suited way out could be for stationing a Peace Keepig stress,ideally of Arabic forces in the intervening time.

Answer 3

It looks like the war with Iraq was nothing more than an attempt to boost America's position in the world by spreading democracy. They thought Iraq would roll over and start a chain reaction.

Looks like the WMD's weren't the only bad intelligence they got on the subject...

Answer 4

"By now we should all be aware that the Iraq effort was all a ruse."

Besides that statement being very narrow-minded and unwelcoming of opposing intelligence... its also WRONG!

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/ISG-Iraqs_WMD_Vol1small.pdf

Please have the decency to read through some of the chapters, especially those dealing with supplies trading and oil smuggling... this is a written report by the Iraq Study Group that details all of the US's findings in Iraq with no bias. (McCain was part of these investigations i might add)

Saddam was a great threat to America. It was proven he had chemical + biological weapons, that was undeniable by both sides after America found a mustard bomb in West Baghdad and later found 500 shells of Saline + Mustard solutions, still in their "pure" state..

If you take a look at the report, you can see Saddam had missiles that could reach both Tehran and Israel. You can also see in the report, and several recordings, Saddam was in progress of building up missile defenses, armorments, artillery, and 600++km missiles (far enough to reach Europe and the US)

We could either A) Wait for Saddam to finish building these, making it harder for America to stop Saddam later on, directly resulting in more american forces deaths.. or B) Take him out now, while they have the evidence, and before Saddam could use these developments against us in our attack...


Why do (you) liberals perfer option A?

Answer 5

No, I don't believe it has made us safer, it is just rapidly wasting billions of dollars each day we stay over there. My spouse is military, and recently returned from Iraq, so I feel a sense of pride that he is willing to leave us to do what he is told is "defending his country" but it doesn't make me feel any safer. So far all that we've accomplished in this war is captured Sadam, wasted money, and made our lives more difficult at the airports around the world. I think the real issue is that someone in some great white building doesn't want to admit defeat, and is now trying to cover up what has become one of the biggest failures of their career, and the American public is going to pay for it for quite some time to come.

Answer 6

No. I'd feel safer if we handled terrorism as an intelligence/spy matter, not as a military matter. Instead of sending armies and tanks and bombs everywhere, we should be making better use of the CIA and our other spy agencies.

Don't use a sledgehammer to do a job that calls for tweezers.

Answer 7

911 has nothing to do with the mission in Iraq. Shock and awe is what we did to the Taliban in Afghanistan. I can't understand why we didn't do it to Fallujah, and wonder if we'll do it to Iran.

Answer 8

It is obvious that education and research are your weak point, but that's OK, we like you anyway.

Terrorism has been directed against us for much longer than you realize. President Bush is just the first President in a LONG time that was willing to be proactive in fighting this threat instead of just reactive.

*damn asprine factory, who put that there?*

Answer 9

So you'd rather wait until we are attacked again? Isn't the war on terror intended to prevent future attacks? What do you think we should do to prevent attacks if you don't want to root out the terrorists? Do you think the only terrorists that want America destroy America are terrorist are associated with Al Queda?

Let's get a real argument here. I'd like to hear a new argument since this one hasn't worked in years.

Answer 10

Hey, If you found a suspicious package in an airport would you open it or get the bomb squad? Equate that to Iraq (if you can).