Is this war worth it?

Question

There is so much more going on behind the scenes and neither party talks about that.

Like the fact our Government has been policing the World and bombing Middle Eastern cities for almost two decades.

Selling weapons to this side then that side. Hoping they will kill off each other!

If a foreign Government was always forcing their hand in America and landed on our soil to force us into thinking a certain way and then started bombing us what would you do?

And for those deep in religion you can times that by 50%

Then when they (Middle Eastern) finally retaliate that foreign force tells their own country (America) to be scared 24/7 but go on about your regular life.

I am not sympothizing with terrorist's, I am arguing what Lobbyists and those corrrupt with this Government have done in our names!

And I have to say - it looks like people are dying over natural resources!

I don't think you can kill half a million of their population and then say your safe

Am I right

Answer 1

You are right. This war is a big lie. It is not on terrorism. They are only over there pretending to protect us from terrorists. That's why they leave our borders wide open and unprotected here. I saw a website the other day with thousands of photos of our military who have been killed in the "war on terror" and it literally made me sick. This evil war that is based on oil reserves and global domination is not worth their lives in any sort of way. The government has continuously used fear of terror and the old WMD spiel to rally the American people for support. It's a an old Hitler strategy - tell huge lies and and stand firmly behind them. Never admit any wrongdoing. Keep repeating the same big lies over and over again even if you look ridiculous, and no matter how outrageous the lies are -- and over time people will believe them.

Answer 2

it's certainly not worth it. We opened a huge can of worms by going there in the first place, not to mention when we stayed there after capturing Saddam Hussein... not to mention we stayed there after he was executed.

Invading another country halfway around the world, holding out and letting people continue to be killed while forcing democracy on these people (and come on, we're not even a democracy anymore... if we ever truly were one to begin with), and terrifying our own people through half-truthful news stories and a leader who says that no matter what this is going to continue until someone else is in office...

I call that terrorism. And I've made this comparison many times before- Bush is the new Nero, sitting in his palace fiddling, while everything outside is being destroyed.

Answer 3

I am all for doing whatever it takes to bring Bin Laden to justice, but he is not in Iraq, that is all on little Georgie. The republicans keep saying we're helping Iraq attain democracy and we are helping them attain peace.How by killing them?The latest polls are 68% of Iraqi's want us out and think things will be better after we're gone, yet we remain, 3612+ dead fine young Americans for a Bush/Chaney ego trip. There is a program running on the Sundance channel it shows the total lack of treatment and assistance that our fine government is giving our wounded warriors. It also shows Marine's doing a house search after it's over a young Marine says "I can understand why they hate us, if someone came to my house in Chicago in the middle of the night and searched through all of our belongings and the took my Dad in for questioning, I would be fighting mad too!" Its just like all of the ranters here questioning my patroitism for questioning this stupid war, as long as its someone else's child or some foreigner dying so what keep the killing going.

Answer 4

It used to be a simply warfare while Bush forty one did Desert Storm. It wasn't valued at the price of Bush forty three stepping into following nine/eleven. Concentration on Afghanistan fallowing nine/eleven might were understood, going after Saddam Hussein used to be ludicrous.

Answer 5

Only if you are in the side that is cashing in. like the Carlyle group former World Leaders and Washington Insiders Making Billions in the War on Terrorism.

Answer 6

To exxon with the 80+% of oil contracts I think it was worth it. For the rest of us its a bad deal. The workers pay taxes to support it and some have lost their families for this.

Answer 7

man they gotta be stopped somehow eeven it we have to nuke the whole middle east they been tring to take over the world for hundreds of years like happen to Afghanistan and malasia and some other countries in asia

and i think bush did the right thing going to war with iraq and afganistan coz if we didnt we gonna lok like a bunch of panzies just thinking of 911 makes my blood boil

Answer 8

War is the worst
take our troops home now

Everybody want peace, But take a look what politicians did yesterday :As you may know – unless you rely on the corporate media for your news, of course – yesterday the U.S. Senate unanimously declared that Iran was committing acts of war against the United States: a 97-0 vote to give George W. Bush a clear and unmistakable casus belli for attacking Iran whenever Dick Cheney tells him to.
The bipartisan Senate resolution – the brainchild (or rather the bilechild) of Fightin' Joe Lieberman – affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. The Senators appear to have relied heavily on the recent New York Times story by Michael Gordon that stovepiped unchallenged Pentagon spin directly onto the paper's front page. As Firedoglake points out, John McCain cited the heavily criticized story on the Senate floor as he cast his vote.
It goes without saying that all of this is a nightmarish replay of the run-up to the war of aggression against Iraq: The NYT funneling false flag stories from Bush insiders. Warmongers citing the NYT stories as "proof" justifying any and all action to "defend the Homeland." Credulous and craven Democratic politicians swallowing the Bush line hook and sinker.
To be sure, stout-hearted Dem tribunes like Dick Durbin insisted that their support for declaring that Iran is "committing acts of war" against the United States should not be taken as an "authorization of military action." This is shaky-knees mendacity at its finest. Having officially affirmed that Iran is waging war on American forces, how, pray tell, can you then deny the president when he asks (if he asks) for authorization to "defend our troops"? Answer: you can't. And you know it.
This vote is the clearest signal yet that there will be no real opposition to a Bush Administration attack on Iran. This is yet another blank check from these slavish, ignorant goons; Bush can cash it anytime. This is, in fact, the post-surge "Plan B" that's been mooted lately in the Beltway. As you recall, there was much throwing about of brains on the subject of reviving the "Iraq Study Group" plan when the "surge" (or to call it by its right name, the "punitive escalation") inevitably fails. Bush put the kibosh on that this week ("Him not gonna do nothin' that Daddy's friends tell him to do! Him a big boy, him the decider!"), but that doesn't mean there isn't a fall-back position – or rather, a spring-forward position: an attack on Iran, to rally the nation behind the "war leader" and reshuffle the deck in Iraq.
Of course, the United States is already at war with Iran. We are directing covert ops and terrorist attacks inside Iran, with the help of groups that our own government has declared terrorist renegades. We are kidnapping Iranian officials in Iraq and holding them hostage. We have a bristling naval armada on Iran's doorstep, put there for the express purpose of threatening Tehran with military action. The U.S. Congress has overwhelmingly passed measures calling for the overthrow of the Iranian government. And now the U.S. Senate has unanimously declared that Iran is waging war on America, and has given official notice that this will not be tolerated. It is only a very small step to move from this war in all but name to the full monty of an overt military assault.
Now draw these dangerous streams together, and you have a portrait of the blunt and brutal group-mind at work in the leadership of the world's most powerful nation. The folly, fantasy and death-fetish of the Bush Regime – long evident to anyone who cared to see – were finally "revealed" in the mainstream media recently by the quasi-official Establishment oracle, Bob Woodward. His latest insider portrait, Plan of Attack, offers – in the usual, easily-gummed pabulum form – a few tastes of the bitter truth behind the Regime's mad, ruinous war crime in Iraq.
The corrosive nihilism at the heart of the enterprise ate through the gaudily-painted surface most tellingly in a single anecdote. Woodward asks George W. Bush how he thinks history will regard his adventure in Iraq. Bush, gazing out the window, shrugs and waves the question away. "History, we don't know," he says. "We'll all be dead." No fine, faith-filled talk here about God and Jesus and the immortal soul responsible for its actions throughout all eternity – the kind of zealous patter Bush favors in public statements. This was just the cold, rotten, meaningless core of his grand vision: "We'll all be dead." So who cares? Après moi, le deluge.
Who would have thought the floodwaters of this death vision would have risen so high again so soon? Yet here they are again, beating against the gates.
UPDATE: Jonathan Schwarz points out that all of the Senate's Democratic candidates for president voted for Lieberman's Iran War amendment: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and Joe Biden. Just in case you were expecting a saner foreign policy after the 2008 election.
UPDATE II: Meanwhile, George Milhouse Bush wants to make one thing perfectly clear: even in the highly unlikely (if not totally impossible) event that the Senate grows a rudimentary spine and tries to place the slightest obstacle in the way of a military attack on Iran, the Commander Guy will peremptorily veto it and instigate the mass murder anyway.
Spencer Ackerman at TPM Cafe found this gem of arrogant defiance in "a little-noticed letter from the White House to Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee." The main subject of the letter was a similar vow to veto any restrictions on Bush's ability to continue his war crime in Iraq. The passage concerning Iran might seem redundant now, after the Senate's vote on Lieberman's "Persia delenda

Answer 9

i agree with you killing thousands of innocent people in the name of peace is unforgivable and is cruel and evil . it is against humanity

Answer 10

no war is ever worth it, all those fathers and mothers, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews died out there because of george w bushes greed.