its ok to invade, murder and destableize a counrty for bush lies and oil right? we did them a favor right?

Question

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4509174237858639446&q=murdered+iraqi%27s&total=417&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

maxx p below, agreed. those people did nothing to us. we treat them like they are dogs, no one speaks up for them though. they dont even want us there. its terrible what our gonernment has done

orange evil, who gave saddam the mustard gas? we did. and who cares what he did, if we kill over 600,000 people for nothing its ok? what the hell makes us any better? get a clue

orange evil, one more thing, lets not tell lies, the invasion of iraq was not justified either, what planet are you from

diddy, bush is a *****

so is rape and murder, are you ok with it being done to you? only criminalize american civilians, king bush can slaughter whoever he wants?

michael, thanks for speaking up, your a true american patriot, thanks for the link

sam w, thse babies were shooting back? i didnt notice. and for you information, they were much better of before. they did nothing to us. how dare they shoot back when their country is being invaded for no reason, i would never do such a thing , would you? THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE, ITS THEIR COUNTRY, GET IT?

PLUTO, OH, WELL AS LONG AS HE ISNT DOING IT ON HIS OWN ACCORD........ SHORT BUS FOR YOU

me too, I LOVE YOU GIRL!!!!! SERIOUSLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING THE PATRIOT YOU ARE AND TELLING IT HOW IT IS

Answer 1

War sucks. It sucks all around the board. Everyone can argue the semantics, but people die in war. Iraq was stabilized, just not in the way we would have liked it to be.
The quality of life before we were there was bad. We took it to horrible.

We tore apart their land, took away everything they knew, and expected them to smile and say thank you. Would you say thank you? I wouldn't.

We started this war, and need to finish it. Unfortunately, there's no quick answer. If we leave now, Iraq would only come under the command of another country (I think Iran).

Iran would then be in a great position to cut off our oil, and possibly attack us or unite the whole Middle East against us. Then we'd be in a bigger war, with more deaths, and more destruction.

So, what's the right answer? Fight there, or fight here?

Answer 2

One cannot justify the War in Iraq with the fact that Saddam Hussein was brutal to his enemies, because there are so many dictators who are worse than he was. We can't invade them all. We can't kill millions of innocent citizens because we dislike and do not approve of their leaders. So far, some 70,000 Iraqi have been killed, with more dead every day. And that's not counting the wounded, who have trouble finding medical care, because the doctors have left the country or have been killed.

It is utter chaos there and most Iraqi citizens want us to leave and say they were far better off with Saddam. They wait in line about 20 hours for gas. They have electricity for about two hours a day, and there is no potable water. They have a civil war going on, something that didn't happen when Saddam ruled them, because he kept his thumb on the Shia, who are fundamental Islamics. Saddam was a Sunni. The Shia are the ones we put in office, this sect that treats women badly, is aligned with Iran, and are not really friends of ours.

Because we befriended the Shia and gave them governmental power, the Sunni tribe rebelled. Their insurgents are the ones fighting American occupiers, with only about 3% Al Queda. The Shia and Sunni have a differences in religious beliefs, just as though the Catholics and Protestants here in the States were killing each other.

George W. Bush and his friends were definitely after the oil. He certainly isn't a philanthropist, nor is his top advisor, Dick Cheney, a corporate man and an oil millionaire. The Downing Street Memos even openly discuss the need for putting this oil on the market....and these conversations took place before the war.

It is NOT okay to start a preemptive war, especially one based on lies. These guys, all oil barons, knew what they were doing, but they failed to take into account the fragility of the Iraqi political and religious system, nor did they crack a history book to find out how difficult it would be to conquer Iraq. From the Romans to the British, it has always failed, just as we are failing right now.

To try to hook a humanitarian reason to the invasion of Iraq is just a rationalization, an escape from reality, an excuse. We invaded this country for its oil, which is now in the hands of International corporations, but even that did not live up to their expectations, for the insurgents are bombing the pipelines constantly. It's sheer chaos, this war, brought about by corporate greed, presidential chicanery, and utter disregard for human life.

Answer 3

Saddam Hussein - what was he know for.
As president,
Saddam maintained power through systematic STATE TERROR. Upwards of 200,000 people were estimated to have been killed or "disappeared" during his rule, and at least a million more were killed during the Iran-Iraq War and the first Persian Gulf War; he was dubbed the "Butcher of Baghdad" for the scale of bloodshed that HE ORDERED and reportedly embraced the nickname. During and after these conflicts, Saddam used large-scale repression to crush rebellions he deemed threatening to the stability of Iraq, particularly Shi'a and Kurdish movements seeking to overthrow the government or gain independence, respectively.

Is his form of genocide acceptable to you?

While he attracted support from the Arab public outside Iraq for opposing the United States and Israel.

Some famous dates to remember him by:

On March 16, 1988 Iraqi troops, on orders from Saddam to stop a Kurdish uprising, attacked the Kurdish town of Halabjah with a mix of poison gas and nerve agents killing 5,000 people, mostly women and children..

Nice guy, eh?

On August 2, 1990, Saddam invaded and annexed Kuwait, and gave Iraq, with its own substantial oil fields, control of 20 percent of the Persian Gulf reserves. August 1990 the United States led a United Nations coalition that drove Iraq's troops from Kuwait in February 1991.

U.S. officials continued to accuse Saddam of violating the terms of the Gulf War's cease fire, by developing weapons of mass destruction and other banned weaponry, and violating the UN-imposed sanctions and "no-fly zones."

OK, I'll give you the fact that we found to WMD but what about the rest. The UN established the "no-fly zones" because Hussein was bombing his own people because they were Kurds.

On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by hanging. Saddam's half brother, Barzan Ibrahim, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court in 1982, were convicted of similar charges as well.

OK. Hussein is gone and the U.S. may have made mistake in understanding the deep seeded hatred between the different factions of Iraq. Shi'ite, Sunnis, Kurds only seemed to have lived in harmony because of the oppressive thumb of Saddam. But does that mean we should not have taken the man out of power that blatantly defied the U.N. and was clearly committing crimes against humanities.

Yes, something must be dome to fix this situation, but you can't blame all of this on Bush Saddam Hussein has done his fair share in this fight.

Don't the people of Iraq deserve to live in a society where they can choose who their leaders are like you do? Shouldn't the U.S. be defending a new country that is trying to establish democracy? If we pulled out today would the Iraqi people be better off than if we stayed to help establish a more stable society?

Answer 4

It was not oil or the fact that Saddam was evil and killed 100s of thousands of people. It was the 17 failed resolutions. It was his refusal to cooperate. It was the fact that he had a minister of WMD. It was because he continually threatened mass violence. You can't destablize a country that had not stabilization.

Answer 5

I agree with you about the oil. I think it was the axis of this invasion. Remember the secret meeting of the oil barons with cheney at he beginning of the bush administration?
The argument of Saddam killing his people is a just reason for us to invade Iraq is lame. there are dictators the world over killing their subjects. You don't see our "righteous' leaders leading the good fight in those countries. OIL OIL OIL OIL. that is what this is all about. The sad, very sad, thing is we are using our youth to do this.

Answer 6

And here's a picture of some people killed during Saddam Hussein's Anfal Campaign in 1988.

http://www.gendercide.org/images/pics/halabji.jpg

The difference here is that Saddam's genocidal attack on the Kurds wasn't at all justified.

It's really easy to show horrifying pictures and say that they speak for themselves. They don't.

Answer 7

1. It's not murder if they're shooting right back at you in a cowardly way.

2. That country was far beyond the point of destabilized way before we got there.

3. I agree that it's not a smart war, but it is neither murderous or anymore destabilizing than the hardship the former dictator pressed upon the people.

Answer 8

It is an old family tradition dating back to grandpappy Bush financing and profitting from the Third Reich until FDR forced him to stop with the Trading With The Enemies Act. This family means us harm and needs to be stopped. They subscribe to The Big Lie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie and have been meddling in countries all along. When Saddam was useful for Pappy Bush he provided him with weapons and training. When no longer useful he is hanged by W. They subscribe to the motto "If God did not want them sheared, He would not have made them sheep."

Answer 9

Seems we freed Iraq

Answer 10

Look up 'war.' Go back through history. It's pretty prevalent there.