When the US fought the North Vietnamese, no one believes that we went to war for any reason other than to halt the spread of communism. Whether or not you agree with the reason for our involvement in Vietman, I don't think that anyone believes that we went to war in Vietman to steal that nation's natural resources. If we had, at the very least, legitimate national security concerns that were consistent with a morally grounded foreign policy (I'm refering to our motives, not the consequences of that war), why is it so hard to believe that the Bush administration also has, at the very least, legitimate reasons for invading Iraq?
2007-04-10 16:28:46 · 11 answers · asked by marc 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
So, the democrats think he is a dishonest liar, and you're saying he's just stupid?
2007-04-10 16:39:06 · answer #1 · answered by mark 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
197% of the folk here on Yahoo and in united statesa. supported this conflict. you are able to now only detect some who will admit to that. i'm proud to assert I anticipated the two wars might become clusterphukes and that the justifications we've been going to conflict became out to be incorrect, even lies. the issue now, maximum of those 197% shield, on account that we began it, we would desire to end it. Which proves, maximum do not understand nor learn from the previous. Vietnam proved we are able to not win a conflict that's morally incorrect and that we've not have been given any company being in. collectively as we are triumphing each conflict, we've not won the hearts and minds of those human beings and we've lost the hearts and minds of our very own human beings. this is only a count of time earlier we are compelled to go away Iraq, via our human beings and residences of government, and the insurgents that are triumphing. it's time to get out and enable them to type it out. We only have ourselves responsible for what has surpassed off from the 1st soldier crossing the border, to what lays of their destiny. We screwed the goose. i in my opinion want human beings might get off this severe horse that our $hit does not stink. Peace Jim .
2016-10-28 09:52:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the reasons they gave us turned out to be false. They said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a direct threat to our national security.
He didn't have WMDs and he didn't have ties to Al Qaeda. Iraq today is more of a threat to us than it was under Saddam, because currently Iraq is more open to have terrorists occupy because of it's instability. Thats why the Iraqi people have to take bold steps to protect themselves so our troops can come home.
2007-04-10 16:36:48 · answer #3 · answered by mmatthews000 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
first,let me say,the Bush administration,at the time of voting,was comprised of both parties.Democrats and Republicans(i know you know this,but the way you phrase it has political incantations to one party).
Second,he did have very legitimate reasons for going into Iraq.The UN was not holding its own to the sanctions placed upon Iraq,by the UN.They were weak.Since the UN basically was using our muscle to keep the no fly zones safe,We stepped in...Again.The funny part about everybody screaming oil,and Halliburton,is the US doesnt buy very much oil from Iraq,or Iran.Mostly China and Russia and Europe gets there oil from them
2007-04-10 16:47:34 · answer #4 · answered by stygianwolfe 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the Extreme Left Wing Liberals who have taken over the Democrat Party can only gain control of Our Country by Lying and attacking the President and the Conservative Republicans.
2007-04-10 16:33:31 · answer #5 · answered by Sentinel 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Because instead of articulating those reasons and building international support (ie Afghanistan), they obfuscated and deceived and entered with Great Britain and token support from nations looking to gain favor.
2007-04-10 16:34:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
For the intelligent in our population it is not difficult to realize the US invaded to protect the country ffrom further terrorism. For the dimwits on the left they need to expand on their conspiracy theories they developed after the election of 2000.
2007-04-10 16:55:24 · answer #7 · answered by STEVE S 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was morally wrong to go into Viet Nam
It was morally wrong to go into Iraq
I think Bush's intention to go into Iraq was because his father looked bad when he dealt with Saddam.
I don't think Bush has a good reason for anything he does.
2007-04-10 16:36:47 · answer #8 · answered by Nort 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Bush's love for Oil and Gas is irreversible. Call it well intention or not.
2007-04-10 16:34:06 · answer #9 · answered by Brave 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the legitimate reason was oil.
2007-04-10 16:50:45 · answer #10 · answered by Nanook~Maybe I need a longer Name?~ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋