To be quite honest, in the beginning i was in support of the war. As a person who is very familiar with the Middle East/Arab world, i believed that this war would be like some one unblocking the tub and letting some old, smelly and stagnant water out. I still believe that, but i no longer think that it is worth the price we are paying.
I knew that there would be violence and terrorism, but i had no idea that there would be groups so filled with hate, so filled with religious fanaticism that they would be willing to do anything, including the cold blooded killing of children and innocent civilians in their quest to make the USA fail, because at the end of the day, any failure for the USA is a victory to them. That is how they think, pure and simple. By "they" i mean the various extremist and terrorist groups, i DO NOT MEAN, the people of the regionm or the vast majority of peaceloving and tolerant Muslims.
At the moment, i think that we really need to move past the actual mistake of invading Iraq. Yes it was a strategic mistake, i acknowledge that now, but we cannot let our dislike of the decision prevent us from doing the right thing now.
So what is the right thing? Well, first of all, we need to continue to fight there. I really don't see an alternative. We are facing a dark and evil enemy. US forces are the only thing keeping the Iraqi government alive. If we pull out then any of the violence that we have seen so far will be nothing compared to what will happen. I am not sure that would be the right decision.
We should not let our dislike of the current administration, or of President Bush, blind us to what needs to be done.
2007-03-11 22:24:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mohamed K 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. It was a big mistake and our soldiers are dying unnecessarily. Now the country is in total chaos and the religious fanatics have taken over. I'm skeptical that Iraq will be a democracy anytime soon. It's a very sad situation.
2007-03-11 20:57:07
·
answer #2
·
answered by AL IS ON VACATION AND HAS NO PIC 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Never did. A critical person not blinded by fear or anger could easily see it was a pack of lies. Bush and Co. played on the fear of people, using absurd fear-mongering and horror stories about the atrocities Saddam committed to build a cheap case. Remember when they were saying "We can't afford to wait for the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?" This was ridiculous exaggeration. It was for the oil.
2007-03-11 20:44:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mackenzie G 2
·
4⤊
0⤋
i think she did no longer assume it to coach out the way it did. yet she did authorize it. the only candidate, even however i do no longer help him, who has been one hundred% anti-conflict is Ron Paul. Hillary attempting to make an excuse is only about almost as good as Obama's "I in no way voted for the conflict". properly yeah...cuz you weren't in the senate on the time. yet later authorized billions in conflict spending once you have been. yet in my opinion i think of if somebody is going to apply protection rigidity rigidity as retaliation and because there is so innovations hinting at WMDs - i do no longer think of it become a poor decision. yet i think of as quickly as you're in there and there is no WMDs and the conflict is starting to be to be a catastrophe you ought to be attentive to whilst to declare "this isn't any longer working". a minimum of with Hillary i be attentive to she'd have the experience to repair a undesirable decision.
2016-11-24 21:55:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by shawn 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's an embarrassment.
2007-03-11 20:39:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Kat 3
·
2⤊
0⤋