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

No WMD, no plans or ability to attack the US, no operational connection between Saddamn and Al-Qaeda, open-ended US military commitment costing over a trillion dollars, resulting in a failed state?

2007-06-18 04:36:16 · 12 answers · asked by oimwoomwio 7 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Sorry Jacob, but that's not true. Dick Cheney had at least a clue of what was in store in 1991, when he had this to say:

"Well, just as it’s important, I think, for a president to know when to commit U.S. forces to combat, it’s also important to know when not to commit U.S. forces to combat. I think for us to get American military personnel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do? Who would we put in power? What kind of government would we have? Would it be a Sunni government, a Shi’a government, a Kurdish government? Would it be secular, along the lines of the Ba’ath Party? Would be fundamentalist Islamic? I do not think the United States wants to have U.S. military forces accept casualties and accept the responsibility of trying to govern Iraq. I think it makes no sense at all."

2007-06-18 05:01:54 · update #1

12 answers

I wouldn't have. I supported the war at the beginning because I really though Iraq was a threat. The President, Secretary of State, and reports said there were WMDs and Saddam posed a threat to our quest in the search of Bin Laden. How could any American have opposed the war when those "facts" were given? I regret that I ever supported the war.

2007-06-18 08:12:27 · answer #1 · answered by cynical 6 · 4 2

I have always read the newspaper and watched the news regularly, so when George Bush declared war on Iraq, I was dumbfounded. I know that bin Laden wasn't from Iraq and had nothing to do with Iraq. I also didn't fall for the WMD story. I was against the war from the beginning and I still am. We need to get out of Iraq now. We have nothing to gain by remaining there a moment longer. Every day we stay there equals the loss of lives of our American soldiers as well as innocent civilians. And I'm not even going into what it's costing us financially. The rest of the world knew that the war was wrong from the beginning, too. We have come to be seen as a nation of warmongers and bullies.

2007-06-18 11:53:30 · answer #2 · answered by KIZIAH 7 · 4 2

This is like asking Japan if they would have surrendered if they had known about Hiroshima. Decisions are always easy to make when made AFTER the need for a decision has passed. The real question is, now that we are here, whether you agree with how we got here or not, what is the best decision now? Pull out and leave Iraq to the terrorists, or to Iran? Or find a way to stabalize Iraq before we leave it?

2007-06-19 04:07:42 · answer #3 · answered by kitty_cat_claws_99 5 · 1 0

I personally never supported the invasion of Iraq even before the invasion. The problem is, the US public was lied to, and the a significant portion of the public believed the lie, and the portion that was against the war was considered 'unpatriotic'. Had the government been honest, and said - we are going to occupy Iraq to control the oil fields, the public would not have supported the war.

2007-06-18 11:50:00 · answer #4 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 4 2

As I remember, there were around 16 reasons to finish the war with Iraq. WMD was something like number 12.

I would have preferred a better plan on what to do after defeating the Iraqi army but I also understand that no one, I repeat, no one had any idea that we would be facing an insurgency so willing to deliberately kill it's own civilians.

That is something totally new in the text books. So we are now writing new text books. I just wish we were a little quicker to realize what we are facing and responded better. Of course, it is easy to say with 20/20 hindsight. I will not pretend to have seen it any other way than the commanders in theater.

It, unfortunately, happens all the time. In WWI we were slow to adapt to the appearance of the machine gun and many lives on all sides were lost in frontal assaults. In WWII we were slow to respond to the threat from Japan and had most of our eggs in one basket in Pearl Harbor.

In Korea we were slow to recognize the threat from Red China. In Vietnam we were slow to resond to the Viet-Cong who used unconventional tactics.

But this deliberate killing of women and children, of schools and hospitals and police and people in line waiting for work, this is a level of evil no one has ever seen before.

So, yes, I still would have supported it. I wish we could all agree to use all of our power as a nation to win it quickly and decisively.

.

.

2007-06-18 11:53:45 · answer #5 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2 4

Wow, the idiot who said that those troops are defending OUR way of life needs a reality check. Also the person who said that we attacked Iraq to show that we mean business needs to check into a mental institution.

I NEVER supported the war. Unlike most stupid Americans, I kept up to date on the events of the world around us and I am not clueless of anything that happens beyond our borders. But most Americans don't know anything about the cultures of foreign countries and worse, they don't know the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osam bin Laden. If Iraq was a Christian, Jewish, or any other non-muslim country, then it would have been harder for Americans to think that al-Qaeda = Iraq, which it doesn't. Before the war, Iraq had no terrorists. Now, anyone can go there and set up operations.

Whether you liked or hated Saddam Hussein, one thing is for sure: He was an asset in the war against terror. He wanted every bit of power in Iraq, without giving an ounce of it to terrorists. When Saddam was leader, no one would have even dreamed of setting up terror cells in Iraq or else Saddam would have killed them. Saddam Hussein saw al-Qaeda as a threat to his influence and power. Had Osama bin Laden and his troops entered Iraq before the war, they would have been murdered on the spot by Saddam Hussein since Osama would be a threat to Saddam Hussein's sole influence in Iraq. Unfortunately, the idiot American president has cleared the way terrorists and has provided "freedom" in Iraq for all the terrorists to set up all their operations there. And since Saddam's demise there have been a few people that have received power when they wouldn't have had before (such as al-Zarqawi).

Oh and did you know that OSAMA BIN LADEN offered al-Qaeda troops to the Saudi government to fight AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN in the first Gulf War??? It is a fact.

2007-06-18 12:15:11 · answer #6 · answered by RockiesFan 2 · 4 4

Oh the world found out a lot more about you than just knowing you meant business.

2007-06-18 11:42:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I still support the war. I support our troops that are there, defending our way of life and defending a people's right to freedom from a heartless dictator that starved his people.

The only negative about this war is it wasn't finished by the first George Bush.

Hmmm, what if we had only put a 6 month moratorium on our response to Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor? We'd be speaking Japanese and eating sushi. Hell, we're halfway there now.

2007-06-18 11:44:14 · answer #8 · answered by scott_v1963 5 · 0 5

I wouldn't have but most people will say this but that is only because now that they realize it is a mistake because people are dying and it seems to be never-ending.

2007-06-18 15:20:30 · answer #9 · answered by Beauty&Brains 4 · 2 1

Tom's response is typical Bush thinking. We'll sacrifice 3500 of our young men and women, but its worth it, they'll know we mean business. And it also appears our efforts have worked against comets, cause none have struck U.S. soil as well.

2007-06-18 11:47:39 · answer #10 · answered by webned 6 · 4 2

fedest.com, questions and answers