2007-07-18 22:17:18 · 8 answers · asked by Nur Afra_Nur Afza J 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I do not agree with it. However, I realize that it would have happened sooner or later, but I do not believe we are going about it in the right way. It seems to me that America technically started the war, but it was started out of fear of the future. I think of the war in Iraq like a vaccination. There may not be an outbreak, but it's better to stop it before it comes anyway.
2007-07-18 22:21:28 · answer #1 · answered by Sam W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I only may be talking to the first guy to respond because at least he don't have to bash Bush every chance they get. There are other reasons why we went to Iraq. So you young minded, take notes because you all seem to follow celebrity train of thought. First of all, those who remember the first war with Iraq. Why did we go to fight then? There was this little country called Kuwait that was getting attacked. Oil had nothing to do with at that time. They had no defenses and was a weak country. They had a right to exist Saddams constint. Okay!
Next Iraq while we were getting harrassed by the United Nations on the issues on WMD, it took us 2 years to get an okay to search from them. And as a former nuclear,biological, chemical specialist in the Army, we found the stuff to make the bombs but not the bombs themselves. Which are not to hard to hide if you got enough time to find a way to hide them.
And finally, yes we started it. You must look at the strategic way of looking at it. You have a lot more than just Iraqs future at stake. You have Isreals, Afganistans, and Lebanons future at stake here. If you think any country benifiting from what we are doing it's the Isrealies. By seeing what freedom can do for Iraq, it might change the people who think the same way in Lebanon and Palastine and Afganastan who think well maybe freedom not terrorism is the answer and peace might be able in the middle east.
2007-07-19 05:47:53 · answer #2 · answered by hawkeyejames1000 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam started it every time he snubbed his nose at the UN and every time he tried to give the appearance of having WMDs - whether or not that appearance was accurate is non-relevant.
The war was right based upon the facts we had at the time and if there were lies concerning WMDs, certainly those lies originated with Saddam himself.
It is right now because of the infusion of foreign sponsored terrorism that has overtaken the country and can never be tolerated in any context.
To walk away now would be akin to condoning those acts of terrorism at the cost of more Iraqi lives than are currently being lost.
I, as an American, could never be a party to the terrorism wherever it strikes, whether it be in Iraq or, here at home - makes no difference to me,
Terrorism can never be allowed to dictate a nation's survival, to achieve its goals of destroying democracy or, to thwart personal freedom and the right to live in peace.
Personally, I consider the blood being shed in Iraq to be no different than my neighbor's down the street and I will stand by my nation's involvement in averting that bloodshed no matter the cost.
If we could all learn to view the world as a global community, there would be no doubt as to whether our actions there are right or, wrong. Of course, they are right. Just as right as if it were NYC currently under seige of terrorists.
2007-07-19 05:42:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The invasion of Iraq was a choice of the US and was totally unwarranted. It has become very clear that the purpose of the invasion was for the control of the Iraqi oil fields.
2007-07-19 08:12:07 · answer #4 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
it should be common knowledge that the united states fabricated a ridiculous reason to invade, occupy, and TERRORIZE that foreign country. why? who knows. there are all sorts of speculation. but there was no credible threat. and anyone who says otherwise probably lives in the midwest and has a faded bush sticker on their beat pickup truck. and the rabbit ears on their tv work just well enough to tune into fox news.
2007-07-19 05:21:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
no, considering weapons inspectors were allowed back into iraq, then bush kicked them out, i'd say the US started it
2007-07-19 05:21:30 · answer #6 · answered by PD 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
tha USA mann weve been pickin a fight with them ever since bushs dad didnt finish off saddam now we went over there on a lame exuse of weapons of mass destruction THAT WAS NEVER FOUND n tha reel reason was so bush can finish his daddys job n oil they want tha oil there!
2007-07-19 05:22:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
i can only say that without american the world will be so much different.
2007-07-19 09:35:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋