2007-03-19 02:33:43 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is not a question that can be summed up in that manner. Most Democrats, such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, ect. said that Saddam Hussein was a threat that we had to take seriously, and military force was probably the only way to do it. Post-9/11 we have to take such threats seriously, as we did not address the Al-Qaeda threat, and it turned out to be disastrous.
Lets suppose that we had never gone to Iraq, and those training there came and performed an even worse act than 9/11 upon the US...would that have been acceptable? Would people have said, "Well we didn't know Iraq was a threat"? No, they would have done just as they did after 9/11. They would have wondered why we didn't act sooner.
You cannot have it both ways, you cannot be prepared against threats if you never act preemptively, and the cost of innocent American lives cannot be the price to act. Liberals both wish to blame Bush for 9/11, saying he should have gone to war against OBL (They have no problem with Clinton not acting, curiously, because he was too busy getting oral satisfaction) but do not want to act against the NEXT OBL.
As usual, they talk a lot, but do little. Such is the lesson we should all learn. Liberalism is weakness.
2007-03-19 02:45:52 · answer #1 · answered by Eric K 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
True, to a certain degree. Unless the enemy is at your doorstep it is a war of choice. That war of choice is to prevent the war of necessity.
Technically you could categorize just about every war in the past century as such, save for WWII on the Pacific front.
2007-03-19 02:44:21 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends whether you consider control of the oil a necessity for America or not. The Iraqi government had nothing to do with September the 11th, that's already been proven, but this was used in propaganda as a justification of the invasion nonetheless.
I guess you're doing some sort of survey, are you not? Anyway, from the tone of my response, I'm sure you can guess my opinion.
2007-03-19 02:39:04 · answer #3 · answered by Ash 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
True. In this case we are the aggressors. We started it. The logical targets after 9-11 were Afghanistan and SAUDI ARABIA.
2007-03-19 06:47:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
False.
2007-03-19 02:40:08 · answer #5 · answered by Sane 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All wars are a war of choice.
We could have sat back and let the Germans take control of Europe. Remember it was not the Germans that attacked us it was the Japanese.
2007-03-19 02:43:35 · answer #6 · answered by Snap 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
True. Unless they attacked us on US soil, or attacked US citizens on foriegn soil, the excuses to go to war were contrived and manipulated.
2007-03-19 02:46:00 · answer #7 · answered by james B 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ever they start another war in Iran they are still searching the wrong place for Osama and deputy
2007-03-19 02:46:28 · answer #8 · answered by kimht 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, 100% true.
2007-03-19 02:36:33 · answer #9 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i think true
2007-03-19 02:36:23 · answer #10 · answered by yo yo yo 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋