Was it all worth it for what has been gained to date in Iraq?
2007-04-11 02:29:07 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I guess we showed em' right!! No, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it is a death toll of its own. Sad isn't it. .
2007-04-11 02:32:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Why do people keep putting Iraq and 9/11 together?The Pentagon has released it's findings along with others such as the 9/11 Commission and both agree Iraq never had Al qaida in it until we invaded.So what does one have to do with the other?Not only that it's not just our dead in Iraq I'm concerned with.We have over 50,000 who are seriously injured and will never live life the way they should.The military themselves said just because the death rate isn't as high as other wars due to better medical attention in theatre doesn't mean we aren't getting hurt.In other wars many of the seriiosly injured we have would've died.We have a major problem and people need to wake up.would you or anyone posting here want to live as many of our Vets are now living?Has anyone visited our BURN Centers?Does anyone care we have 18 and 19+ year olds who are quadraplegic or missing multiple limbs.Shame on us.
2007-04-11 03:00:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I find in funny that a war that was supposed to cost $3billion and be paid for with Iraqi oil revenues has now cost $3 trillion and most Iraqi oil is either stolen or smuggled out of the country. What have we gained for our 4000+ deaths? A terrorist breeding ground with a government sympathetic to our avowed enemy, Iran. I love the "the terrorists will follow us home" argument. The main reason they hate us is exactly because we do stupid things like invading sovereign nations and supporting repressive regimes (like Iraq and Saddam, among others). Iraq has increased their animosity as well as their numbers. And we have still not secured our borders. Yes, they will follow us home (whether we leave Iraq or not) and, thanks to the Bushco fiasco, they have larger numbers, more funding, and are more pissed off.
2016-05-17 08:53:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's sad so many innocent men and women who never had a chance to live a decent life. Bush went after the wrong guy Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and osama is a free man. Bush thought Saddam was an easier target just because bush couldn't locate osama he had to change his course to an easier target. Bush wanted to please and out show his father it's true no doubt. Our focus should be finding osama and the taliban. Yes we want a stable government in Iraq but to tell you sorry it not going to happen anytime soon thats gonna take centuries. Our we willing to stay in Iraq for centuries and watch our soldiers become chess pawns. Do you think we will reach 10,000 us soldiers dead if we stay in Iraq on course??? I am sorry but bush needs to go he has caused too much grief and has ousted the american people by not listening to the people who voted for him.
2007-04-11 02:41:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
AIDS victims death toll exceeds the military death toll in Iraq, what are we going to do?
2007-04-11 02:34:01 · answer #5 · answered by Jahpson 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The events of 9/11 and what is currently going on in Iraq are unrelated. What is your point?
2007-04-11 02:37:51 · answer #6 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
That's why so many nations were against invading Iraq. You can't just arbitrarily wage war without expecting a few causalities. To think otherwise is simply naive.
The folks in Iraq are suffering too. Nothing has been gained.
2007-04-11 02:34:13 · answer #7 · answered by Jack 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Not even somewhat close. But I guess it is who you really ask. Ask someone tied in with Haliburton, Saudi's or the Bush family and your answer would be, HELL YEAH ... YEEE HAAWW WE RICH.
I shouldn't go without mention that the Clintons are very good friends with the same people and I am sure they are not hurting from this endeavor either. Vote for the people, lets for once pick a smart canidate that actually cares about US.
2007-04-11 02:36:53 · answer #8 · answered by bs b 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
A similar point could have been made when the military death toll in North Afica exceeded the number of deaths at Pearl Harbor.
2007-04-11 02:34:43 · answer #9 · answered by A Balrog of Morgoth 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
GWB's goal is 10,000 dead so he's got a little under 4,000 to go in less than 2 years. The surge should push those numbers up more quickly.
Of course it was worth it, our president will be remembered as a war president because of this. You seem to forget what's important here, not the tragedy, not the soldiers, not the sacrifice but that GWB will carve his name in history the way he wants to be remembered.
2007-04-11 02:42:59 · answer #10 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋