English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-03-20 02:28:43 · 22 answers · asked by ENGLAND! 1 in Politics & Government Military

22 answers

yes, but I do think it could have been handled better.

2007-03-20 02:31:44 · answer #1 · answered by Chrissy 7 · 0 3

Some say that someone had to do something about the middle east at some point.
It is the way it was done that is bothersome-it is not the crime, but someone lied to go to war.
Now we face an ever large problem-Iran. The northern half of Iraq are gaining sympathy by Iran, while the southern part of Iraq is gaining sympathy with Saudi Arabia.
The reason we can't leave now is because Iran could take part of the country over...And in order to have all the oil we want-this can't happen.
The world is going through a war of resources. So conserve fuel, buy those new light bulbs, and turn off any thing not sucking power.

2007-03-20 02:50:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

No. I thought there was some justification for it initially when Saddam threw out the U.N. weapons inspectors, but I thought we achieved victory when we deposed Saddam and destroyed his biological and chemical weapons. I did think he was a threat to the region and the world, but everyone talks about victory in Iraq. What's victory? If it's stopping the Sunnis and Shiites from fighting each other, forget it. That dispute is over the legitimate heir to Mohammad and that is a 1300 year old argument. We can't fix that disagreement. People say Iraq will descend into further chaos when we leave and I'm sure that's right. But unless the Sunnis and Shiites form separate governments, there will be chaos whether we leave today or in 10 years. If we kill every terrorist in the world, we still cannot solve the Iraqi religious dispute.

2007-03-20 02:37:15 · answer #3 · answered by David M 7 · 0 0

No I do not agree with the Iraq war. I would like to say That I support the troops but really that doesn't mean anything,its just a slogan. I don't support our president either,but even though I voted for Kerry I think he sucks too and I'm kind of glad he didn't win.

2007-03-20 03:08:55 · answer #4 · answered by lalalalaconnectthedots 5 · 0 0

No. I did while i assumed the intel comments that suggested Saddam Hussein replace into preparing WMDs. Now i think of that this replace into in elementary terms a ploy for the present Bush to end his fathers legacy in Iraq - and make a income for those agencies that the Bush's and Cheney's are or have been promptly tied to. merely like President Eisenhower suggested till now he left workplace - pay attention the militia business complicated. once you're pumping such distinctive money right into a conflict gadget - you desire a conflict each and every now and then to justify it. I additionally think of that the oil industry has pushed this as much as absolutely everyone has. the quicker we ruin free of our oil addiction -the quicker we are in a position to flow out of the middle East thoroughly.

2016-10-19 03:57:06 · answer #5 · answered by balick 4 · 0 0

I fundamentally disagree with the Iraq war. I feel this conflict was completely politically motivated for no good reason other than potential profit for the US. 9/11 was the excuse Bush needed to barge in and meddle in a foreign nation's affairs. When it was clear the UN security council wasn't going to vote in favour of invading Iraq, Bush "threw his toys out of the pram" and basically said "screw you - we'll go in ourselves!" If you ask me, if the US isn't going to abide by the UN's descisions, they should be THROWN OUT of the UN!!
The main emphasis in the beginning of the conflict was the imminent launch of "weapons of mass destruction" on neighbouring countries, and when no weapons were found and it became clear that no weapons were going to be found, the emphasis quickly shifted to "liberating the Iraqi people who are suffering under the yoke of a cruel and evil dictator" - Nice political spin! Now I'm not saying that the Iraqi people weren't suffering, because clearly they were, but how many other nations throughout the world are in the same situation, yet the US ignores them...why? I'll tell you why: because there is no obvious political/economic advantage - that's why! Why dip into your own oil reserves when you can have someone else's? Forget alternative, more environmentally-friendly fuel/power sources, we're not signing up to the Kyoto accord, it's not in our "economic" interest to do so....well, it's pretty hard to make a good profit when the earth's dead, isn't it?...I dunno - I know I sound anti-American, but it's not the people, it's the moronic government(s) making dumb descision after dumb descision that really angers me.
So in conclusion, I am against the war on Iraq because it was ill-conceived, politically motivated and a "dirty" war. Also let me be clear: I have nothing but the utmost respect for all the men and women who have served and who have lost their lives during this conflict - they're doing their jobs: serving their country and their political leaders - it's those in charge who are to blame!

2007-03-20 03:27:09 · answer #6 · answered by Allibezuin 1 · 1 2

Yes

2007-03-20 02:40:46 · answer #7 · answered by ? 6 · 1 1

Yes.

2007-03-20 02:31:33 · answer #8 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0 2

yes

2007-03-20 02:51:27 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yes.

And I'm actually a veteran of this war, for all you folks out there waving the chickenhawk flag.

2007-03-20 02:37:44 · answer #10 · answered by A Balrog of Morgoth 4 · 1 2

Nope

2007-03-20 02:31:03 · answer #11 · answered by The Xav identity 6 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers