Should we be in Iraq? Why or why not?

Answer 1

No. We should have never gone there in the 1st place, but 9/11 gave Bush the perfect excuse even though they weren't the perpetrators. Now all we've accomplished is an increase in terrorism, an mindless & vulgar loss of life, an insane national debt and increased hatred towards the US from all parts of the world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17315490/site/newsweek/

Answer 2

The entire Middle East is just a bunch of countries living in the dark ages, oppressing women and children, not educating their people, at times wiping out entire populations of non-Muslims and financing terror worldwide.

The best way to rid the world of these conditions is to put an American ally and permenant American bases smack dab in the middle of the whole mess as a launching point for more invasions.

American service members win battles. In Iraq, they haven't lost a single one.

Why not let them do their jobs?

Answer 3

Good question. On one hand, it's better to fight terrorism on the terrorist's turf than on U.S. soil (and everyone PLEASE spare me the canned liberal diatribe -- over 300 al-Qaeda operatives have been captured or killed in Iraq), but on the other hand we're talking about a country without a stable government that is embroiled in factional fighting, and all the troops in the U.S. Armed Forces wouldn't be able to stop that. We want to try and help them establish a democratic form of government, but in reality what will probably happen is one of the factional sects will overthrow the government and turn it into another regime very much like the one they had under Saddam Hussein. If it were up to me, I'd pull the troops out for now, but if we end up having to go back in there because they're harboring more terrorists or they're stockpiling illegal weapons I'd march the troops back in there next time and lay the entire region to waste.

Answer 4

That doesn't matter now. What matters is that we find the best plan to complete the mission and get our soldiers out as quick as possible. Now before the war started, the correct question would have been "Should we go to Iraq?"

Answer 5

No because the terrorists who responsible for 9/11 is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan.

Answer 6

Let's start by making the distinction between going over there in the first place and staying as long as we have.

We went over to depose Saddam and topple his govt. We did that. Mission Accomplished. Then we chose to stay there for several more years.

The issue of whether we should have gone over in the first place is moot. We went. That's past.

The only question is, how long should we have stayed afterwards, or as you put it, should be still be there.

The answer is no. We're not accomplishing anything, and we have no clearly defined goals. All we are doing is babysitting and acting as police during an internal civil war.

And that's not our job. It's also not what Congress authorized when they passed the law authorizing the use of miltary force.

Answer 7

I think that we should be in Iraq because we are trying to protect our country and other countries, also we are helping Iraq get back on its feet, and we want to slow the role of terrorist.

Answer 8

The truth is, we have no place in the Middle East because the culture is so different and we cannot govern tribes with democracy. However, troops are their and we must support THEM because they are dying for the cause of the nation.

Answer 9

No answer. Our involvement is totally superfluous to the course of history for Sunnis and Shia.

Answer 10

Like the War or not
we should support the troops