For all those people who say we shouldnt have gone to war with Iraq....?

Question

Did you see that we intercepted two convoys of insurgents shipping weapons to Afghanistan? they saw the weopons with fake U.S. Army labels same as the ones they have found in Iraq, just goes to show you that Iran is funding terrorism same ways Iraq was doing to the Taliban. But now our goverment is so scared over the Iraq war that they dont want to do nothing to spark another war so they are not adressing it. Hopefully this doesnt back fire and Iran decides to smuggle nuclear weapons or chemical weapons to Iraq.

i hate the false pretence argument cause we found the material for wmd's just because they werent assembeled doesnt mean they didnt have them. hell we could have gone to war with them just on the human rights violations.

Answer 1

We went to 'war' under false pretenses only after the President of the United States lied to the American people and the U.S. Congress. His administration had every intent on going to 'war' with Iraq from the very day it took over the Oval Office, and it had nothing to do with 'terrorist' attacks, bringing democracy to Iraq, or any other noble cause. We went to 'war' for three insane, immoral, illegal and unconstitutional reasons:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed, and humiliated for 'not finishing the job' and ousting Hussein during Desert Storm;
2) Dick Cheney and all his Exxon-Mobil buddies wanted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so they could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL;
3) Ever since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex recognized how profitable 'war' can be (Dwight Eisenhower warned us about this). So it bought up all the politicians, hired pricey lobbyists and formed special interest groups to encourage and promote more 'war'. A new 'war' was necessary to boost the sagging profits of government contractors like Lockheed-Martin, McDonnell-Douglass, Sikorsky, and two 'newcomers' - the Carlyle Group and Halliburton - both companies of which have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House.
Whether we intercepted 'convoys of insurgents' four years after the 'war' started is immaterial. Our troops were conned into believing Iraq had 'weapons of mass destruction' when - in fact - there was never any intention of achieving any military, political, economic, or social objectives in Iraq. From Day One, this insane, insipid 'war' was all about OIL and WAR PROFITEERING.
The Bush administration will make sure that there is a U.S. military presence in Iraq (and Iran) until we have sucked every drop of OIL from those countries' sands. That's why we're killing 675,000 Iraqis and 3,500 U.S. soldiers: so that the richest people in this country can get richer.
Bring our courageous troops home and take them out of harm's way so they can be ready to fight a real 'war' when this nation's shores and borders are legitimately attacked, threatened or provoked. Our troops need to be ready and able to fight for justifiable and moral reasons, not trumped-up fabrications, lies and distortions all for the sake of war-mongers and war profiteers. -RKO- 06/08/07

Answer 2

Intellectually there is certainly a difference. How you feel about the troops is very different than how you feel about a war. There is a problem, though, when the people that you support are in a war that you don't support. The problem is that at that time, by opposing the war in a public way, provides strength and improves the morale of the enemy. During the Civil War, the Copperheads were in exactly the same position. They loved the troops and thought the best thing was to bring them home. As a result, the Confederacy thought that they should fight on through 1864, causing hundreds of thousands of additional casualties. Yet, intellectually the Copperheads supported every single one of those dead boys. They were still dead. We can see the same effect (although thankfully in a much smaller way) in this war. Every statement that "the war is lost" or "we can't win this war" or "let's support the troops by bringing them home" gives the enemy the heart to attack once more, to risk their lives and homes once more and maybe to kill one of our boys. During the Second World War very few people were happy that we were in the war (it had been going on for more than two years, or longer if you include the Italian and Japanese aggressions before we could even enter) but once we were in we were in as an entire country Disunity in the face of an enemy is the best way to continue a fight. Oh, and by the way, remember that, to the enemy it is just as useful to kill an American civilian as it is to kill an American soldier. Just because we bring the troops home doesn't mean that we will be safe. Thinking that they will stop attacking just because we leave Iraq is just not thinking.

Answer 3

The goverment is not scared over the war in Iraq that they wont spark another war with someone else like Iran, they are not scared they are broke and they dont have the troops to do so, plus we cant afford to loose another war right now, the only way to win a war is to have other countrys backing you, not many would back this up seeing the mess we have right now. Truth, the US will never bring peace to the middle east, doesnt matter how many wars happen over there, peace is not possible and we will never see it in our lifetime

Answer 4

The funny thing is that the same people that are b****ing about going to war with Iraq, would have been the same people that would be saying "Why didn't we do anything to stop Saddam?" if we hadn't gone in to Iraq, and he had launched WoMD on some one. They think they are so smart because they can look back and can see how things could have been handled better, how ever many years in the past. But to look at the information you have and the make a good decision before you can look back and see what goes wrong is a lot harder.

Answer 5

Iraqi Insurgents, or Iranians shipping weapons to Afghanistan? And the government is too scared/busy to spark another war? So do you agree with me that the government shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq partly because it gave Iran an opportunity to progress on it's nuclear program while we were too busy in Iraq? Or do you think the government is now scared of political opposition, which it ignored before the Iraq war?

Answer 6

To the people that think like RKO .My only comment is that I thank God that someone like you was not running the country when 9/11 happened. If you don't recognize an act of war, then you should not be mouthing so much

Answer 7

RKO-----Summed this up very well and I agree with him. Would like to add we will never bring peace and stability to the mid east they have been fighting for thousands of years. We have brought civil war and great instability there. Don't think America needs to be the worlds police and don't find America so free. For one thing name me two things that are not Taxed, Regulated or Controlled in the US? Do we really want all the world to lose their freedoms like we have?

Answer 8

RKO's answer is the best summary/outline I've ever seen of the war in Iraq. You should chose his answer.
Our government used scare tactics to cover their hidden agenda. Believe me Bush isn't scared of Iran. He's oblivious to the actual cost of war......human lives.

Answer 9

your question is confusing at best, what heve the taliban and Iran to do with the war on terror.

Answer 10

You know this is a heated subject, but the bottom line is we are the only SUPER POWER in the world and everyone deserves the same freedom we have