For those who oppose the war in Iraq....?

Question

Why do you oppose it? Do you have an alternative? Where do you get your news and information?

Answer 1

Good morning. This ought to be good. Mind if I tag along?
I support our Commander In Chief he knows more than me.
I read foreign newspapers, Persian Journals, Tehran Times for their side. BBC World , Sunday's all the guys chats, I even like Charles Gibson ABC news. He gets closest to what I read elsewhere. I also read and debate here on Y!answers when they actually have intelligent comments not a fishin pole to troll. I got alot of links and good info, just have to sift thru the trash! Thank you very much.

Answer 2

A. The "War in Iraq" is not actually a declared war. We are not engaged in a conflict with another nation, but are really involved in what has often been termed a "police actio". We are attempting to keep peace in a very volitile area.
B. This particular "war" is being waged incompetently. The formerly secure borders of Iraq have become quite insecure, with virtually anyone able to cross from anywhere. There is no real targeted enemy, just a vague refernce to "insurgents".
A proper war, if such a thing can ever be called proper, involves identifying the enemy, targeting the enemy and either eliminating that enemy or bringing them to a surrender. Then, treaties are signed and concessions are made and everybody left alive goes home. U.S. soldiers are currently caught between warring factions, trying to keep an uneasy peace by buffering tye disputing groups from each other. This is policing, not warfare.
The alternative is to identify the enemy and eliminate them. Then Iraq can be left to work out its problems like any other nation.

Answer 3

I oppose the war in Iraq primarily because it was based on lies. There were no WMD's in Iraq. They didn't hide/destroy them, or ship them out of the country (knowing damn well the US was headed their way).

It also took attention away from a war already being waged in Afghanistan, and took the focus off of finding Bin Laden.

If you do a little research into a group called 'The Project for a New American Century' or 'PNAC' you will find that a lot of the people that ended up in Dubya's administration had been itching to start a war for a long time. They claimed that 'unless there were some kind of catalyzing event, like another pearl harbor' that it would be hard to implement their agenda. They got their 'pearl harbor' on 9/11.

I get a lot of my news from progressive websites - but I always make sure to read both right & left wing sites, to find out what everyone is saying, and then I make my own decisions as to what I believe. I am a registered independent and I will vote for whichever candidate I feel is more qualified, regardless of party.

No matter what your political leanings are, there are a few facts - this administration has shown repeated incompetence, cronyism, and has failed miserably in Iraq.

Answer 4

It was an act of mass murder by the Bush administration. There is no other way to charachterize it.

The justifications given for the invasion have long been proven false. (no link to 9/11, no WMD's, no connection to Al-quieda). Bush and his administration took a stable nation and turned it into a war zone for no reason, at all.

The alternative would of been to listen to the international community, who were begging us not to invade. Today there is no easy solution to the problems we created, we can't just pull out and let the Iraqis slaughter each other, but we can't just stay there forever either. The war is costing us billions every month, money that could be used to help Americans here at home. When our elected officials even suggest a timetable for withdraw, even a non-binding timetable, it is met with resistance from an administration that is unable to provide justification for our presence there.

Iraq was not a threat to us, the whole concept of a pre-emptive war is to get them before they get you, but Iraq never had that capability. By the time this war is over it will have cost us between one and two TRILLION dollars, for what? A pile of dead Iraqi civilians? It was and is simply not worth it.

I get my news from local and national newspapers and the internet, I don't watch any cable news networks regularly. That includes MSNBC, CNN, CNNHN, Fox News, ect. ect. Cable news, no matter what viewpoints it espouses, is mostly propaganda. Newsprint isn't much better, but at least with a newspaper I can skip the stupid articles that don't interest me.

Only an idiot would believe the occupation of Iraq is making us safer, or that it is benefitting our nation in anyway.

Answer 5

The cost of sustaining the war in Iraq coupled with the loss of lives of american troops, the indifference of the Iraqi's in our effort plus the discovery that they never had weapons of mass destruction, & they never attacked the US seem to be valid reasons to bring our people home. Imagine how much war money could have been used for, say, the rehabilitation of Louisiana and all other states devastated by natural calamities.

Do I have an alternative to war? Vote for a change of politicians?

I just read between the lines.**

Answer 6

People oppose the war in Iraq if their a democrat!

Answer 7

These people thought the war was the right thing to do.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/joint_resolution_10-11-02.html

And Clinton as President thought the same way:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

And here is a good opinion piece:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008415

Answer 8

Because I want peace, who gave you the right to interfere and invade another country, by diplomatic means all conflicts could have been solved instead of the blood shedding of the Iraqi's and Americans.

Answer 9

on the news cable channel 12or14or17.regular tv 2or4or7