Please give me a list of reasons as to why it was a good idea to invade Iraq -I understand that it would be stupid to pull out when the job is still not done. But I am asking this because I tend to not watch the news; as I know it can be biased, I used to. I was very aware and in the know when it 1st started-current events-but with the fact that they (media) twist things around and what not, I'd rather find out from credible sources, like yourselves (who have been there and know etc). I am just doing this so when people ask me what I think about it (Doing AF ROTC) , I don't give them reasons why I think; but instead reasons of why I know-but not bad ones. People will argue it's for oil, I believe it is so we will not be defeated by our enemies-but in depth, it'd be great to know. No Bush bashing, I already made it clear -just for those who know or have been there, not those who think they know, but haven't even served! Thanks.
2007-07-14
19:47:39
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
wtg-ib-I said no noobs or negative reasons* can't you read?...You are asking to get reported!
2007-07-14
20:08:59 ·
update #1
Flygirl, my blog addresses more the reasons of why we must still be there but should help to understand. It is important to realize there are two different reasons for two different wars in Iraq 2003 and present:
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--;_ylt=AiNXZokI1G6zowgYXNnJS9msAOJ3?cq=1
The others here have given good reasons for the initial invasion but I found these quotes earlier that I find very interesting, particularly considering the speakers:
"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
September 13, 2001
"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
During an interview on "Meet The Press"
November 17, 2002
"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003
"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
2007-07-14 20:27:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by John T 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Well, some of the crazier pre-war theories were disproved after the invasion was complete and Iraq was combed over (such as chemical and biological weapons, and the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. And who's to say North Korea isn't a threat to the West and their allies?).
So I suppose you could say it was a good idea to invade Iraq because their leadership was corrupt, brutal and violent. Then again, so is North Korea too, and countless other nations, some of them US allies.
I wouldn't stress too much it. People doing military service or training aren't obliged to justify or critisize their government's decisions.
2007-07-15 00:02:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Let's take a trip back to the 1970's, The U.S. helped put Hussein in power. We trained his troops, supplied him with planes, tanks, Stinger Missiles, and so on to help him fight the Soviet backed Iranians'. Somewhere along the line we lost control of our "puppet". In the late 80's Hussein began talking to the Soviets about purchasing weapons and made peace with the Iranians. When he invaded Quwait it gave the U.S. the foothold with N.A.T.O. to use force to get our "toys" back and keep him from selling them to the Russians, inspect his chemical weapons plants, Seize Iraq's oil, and prove to all of the other third world dictators that we could and would kick their butts if they got out of line. Fast forward 10 years and Hussein has broken all of the treaties he signed with N.A.T.O., Killed tens of thousands of Kurds/political opposition, and has allowed the 9-11 terrorists to train in his country as well as helped to arm them. While I will admit the war of occupation is not going too smoothly, the invasion was a neccessary evil. I have no qualms about our troops being there but we need to finish the war then rebuild not the other way around. We bombed Germany into submission then rebuilt it. We didn't try to occupy it first. Bomb Iraq back to the stone age then we can rebuild it into something useful, and spare our troops from more losses!
2007-07-14 20:40:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by hemihead1 1
·
1⤊
2⤋
Saddam Hussien Killed hundreds of thousands of Kurds in the 80's with Chemical weapons (WMDs)
In the 90's he invaded Kuwait (Saudi Arabia) and killed their people. America Drove him out.
Saddam Hussien did support terrorism through finances speech and amenesty in his country.
Since then he has broken the UN resolution 17 times saying that he must allow weapons inspectors in his country and he finally kicked them out.
That combined with Sept 11th and Iran acting up, and North Korea starting nuclear testing. The US could not show any signs of weakness.
I know some people don't understand it, but their are poeple out there that are willing to kill themselves to kill the "Western World" The US , Europe, Israel. They are not a big group. per say but some estimates are 10 to 20 % of the Muslim population. (There are 1.6 billion muslims in the world)
Those people (The bad muslims) Do not understand talking they have lived under fear and opression for literally millenia.
Does anyone remember when the Taliban tore down the Buddist statues? They have no tolerance for any culture but their own.
Essentially we had no choice.
Also if you have a map of the middle east, Look where Iran Iraq and Afganistan are.
The most successful stragey to defeat your enemy is to surround them from all sides.
2007-07-14 20:01:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by WCSteel 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
Picture yourself being an Israeli, Saudi, or Kuwaiti citizen, attempting to live your life and go on with your day. But you're having to hole up because Saddam Hussein is raining missiles down on your city.
Picture being a Kurd, constantly having to hide from Saddams troops, and his helicopter gunships. And in one instance, he used nerve gas, killing over 5000 people.
Picture being an Iraqi citizen who lives terrified of Saddam Hussein. Of being arrested, imprisoned and tortured at Saddam's will. Or of his sons will.
Picture what it would be like if this madman had obtained nuclear weapons. Who would he target first?
Saddam Hussein made Iraq a safe haven for terrorists.
Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to the family of any suicide bomber who killed Jews in Israel.
Do you think we need this kind of person in the world? He was a thug and a terrorist. And the world is much safer without him in it. That's why we attacked, and that's why we belong over there.
2007-07-14 20:02:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by C J 6
·
4⤊
2⤋
there are no good reasons. Sorry, but i used to think that there were a few but i was wrong. you shouldn't try to argue it. Sometimes you just have to humble yourself and relize we all screwed up in this one. Some more then others. I am a vet of this war and im no grunt.
you should watch the news and familiarize yourself with the current events and recent ones. this is too important to be ignorant about. If you look you will find some insignificant arguements.
2007-07-14 20:04:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Eric 2
·
1⤊
4⤋
It was not a good idea and I see no way to logically argue that it was.
2007-07-15 01:41:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by gunplumber_462 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
well for one somebody decided to crash planes into the twin towers.
saddam hussein was becoming another hitler, sooner or later he was going to want to take over the whole world.
he was killing thousands of people just for the fun of it
2007-07-14 23:15:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
reasons as to why it was a good idea to invade Iraq
NONE
2007-07-14 19:56:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋