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

Forget about WMD and 9/11. Forget about Oil and George Bush's ulterior motives with the assistance of Blair.

If the above factors are taken out of the equation and only the "Gas Attacks" on Halabja were the reason for invasion, then it surely must be a justified invasion.

http://libcom.org/history/1988-the-halabja-massacre

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/18714.htm

http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=138863

http://www.terrorismcentral.com/Library/Teasers/ChemIraq.html

Having read the above link, if you still see the invasion as unnecesarry, then I am afraid there is no hope for the future of the world.

Is your stance against the invasion because it (the invasion) has incited terrorists to infringe on the peaceful life you used to lead.?

Do terrorist attrocities now make you worry more than before the invasion?

If so, would it have been better not to invade and thus feel safer at home, leaving the Kurds and millions of others to whatever fate saddam had in mind for them?

2007-07-29 21:36:31 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

The first 5 answers came in within 1 minute.
You did not read the links or my question.
Oil may have been Bush and Blairs reason for going in, I said that myself, I also said, forgetting those reasons, was the invasion not justified to help the Kurds.!

2007-07-29 21:42:08 · update #1

sorry sleepybuckets

I realise that at least you have some compassion!

2007-07-29 21:43:13 · update #2

Ligeia

I take your point, but surely some interference is better than none at all?

2007-07-29 21:49:40 · update #3

Hi David M

Thanks for the reply
Yes I did admit that the evidence may have been twisted. The majority of deaths in Iraq at the moment are being caused by Insurgents and terrorists killing Iraq citizens.
Yes there are deaths caused by collateral damage (the insurgents kniow this and purposefully hide within the general population).
An "Intellectual and Political debate", with Saddam?, this wasn't really going to happen was it.
The sunni and the Shea's would have been fighting even if the allies had left Iraq on the day Saddam was toppled.
The tribal make up of Iraq will always lead to internal conflict unless under a dictatorship or a very very strong Iraqi government.
This very strong Iraq government can only come from one that is assisted and aided by the western powers (whatever their reason for invasion)

2007-07-29 22:06:10 · update #4

saturnfive

You really do need to take a tablet and calm down!

2007-07-29 22:15:47 · update #5

Ah!

A conspiracy of answers from one of the many "back me up gangs"

Quick send an email to other kindered members and lets swamp this question!

You call yourselves democratic!

Hypocritical, democracy to suit your own ideals is not democracy.

2007-07-30 01:01:45 · update #6

17 answers

In my opinion the invasion was justified because of what Saddam was doing to his own people. The problem was that the US/UK coallition invaded on the wrong pretext ie weapons of mass destruction.

2007-07-29 21:43:16 · answer #1 · answered by AnswersGalore 3 · 2 6

If your justifications were accepted the world would be at war. So many countries are killing their own people, far higher numbers than in Iraq.

We should be striving to prevent wars not justifying them!

It is painfully apparent with lots of evidence to support it that both America and the UK invented and twisted evidence in order to go to war in Iraq. A war which has killed thousands of times more innocent Iraqis and resulted in a war between the Sunni and Shea that sees ever growing carnage.

It has done huge damage to the standing of America and Britain in the world and not just made countries like Russia and China look much better but given them a huge boost in their standing and growth potential.

If your argument stands then the rest of the world must have the right to go to war with America over secret rendition, illegal kidnappings in foreign countries, Denial of prisoners human rights and rights under the Geneva convention. America now routinely kills ten or more innocent people in the hope of hitting one terrorist. That my friend has now killed far more Iraqis than gas!

War should always be the last resort. The reason for the Iraq war was that the politicians lacked the intelligence to hold an intellectual and political debate for peace and sought war in revenge because a dictator would not be dictated to by them!

By the way those that say it was about oil should consider -

Before the war America bought the vast majority of Iraq's oil. Because of the war Americas sources of oil dimminished and caused supply problems and pushed the price of oil up which was very bad for the economy. (The Dollar is still at it's weakest and almost half it's value). Since the war America gets significantly less oil than it did before the war. So are these people suggesting that America went to war to stop deliberately reduce their supply of oil?

2007-07-30 04:51:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

The US went to Iraq to address a situation it thought it could be addressed within a relatively short time and with a conclusive ending.

Knowing it would not be possible sometime back, it has been, still scratching its head to find a way to pullout; or a reason to stay.

Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was definitely a bridge too far.

Coalition of allies turned Iraq's clock back 50 years after Saddam's adventure into Kuwait. Well done!

Why the renewed compassion for the Kurds and his opposition? If this is the reason for Iraq-II, then the US & coalition should intervene militarily in Dafur, Zimbabwe. Are Africans lesser people then?

What is the objective of your question?
Justification for the Iraq misadventure might be more credible if the US actually wanted a ME presence to protect sea routes; to counter Iranian extremism; and to try to create a new ME region. After all, US troops there would be a comforting security blanket for its main protege, Israel.

Yes, Iraq is a 'nescessary' war... but the US FAILED to IMPLEMENT its strategic objectives - that alone makes "justification" irrelevant. So's your posting.

2007-07-30 07:04:57 · answer #3 · answered by AQUALUNG 5 · 0 2

This is very difficult question. Why interfere some places, but not others? Why not Darfur?

Globalisation is like the new Imperialism. Westphalian sovereignty is being dismissed for who knows what reasons?

What is the point of individual countries if we do not respect Westphalian sovereignty?

The questions we should be asking are why did our governments lie to start the war. By justifying them we are justifying a lie.

2007-07-30 04:46:40 · answer #4 · answered by Barbara Doll to you 7 · 5 1

Yeah it's justified, the saving of one life makes it justified otherwise what is the point in life!

Some innocent people have died as a result of the act of invasion and that is unfortunate, but to never have tried to help the Kurds would have been criminal in itself.

2007-07-30 13:29:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

no war is justified.

So many innocent people died in Iraq.

You can say "Forget about WMD and 9/11. Forget about Oil and George Bush's ulterior motives with the assistance of Blair." but I cant do that as they were the primary factors for invading the country. That'slike saying "forget about hitler gassing the Jews..."

If you say we had to invade due to what Sadam Hussain was doing to his own people, does that mean he';d have had the right to invade America cos of the treatment the people of New Orleans had by Bush? That was horrific and someone needed to step in, as Bush couldn't give a monkeys!

More people have died it the years since the war began, than died in the last 4 years of Hussains rule. He,. at least, kept the country in order. It is chaos there now, the average life expectancy is something like 38!

2007-07-30 04:39:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

Wars are never justifiable! It is poor and deprived who become the fodder of cannons in any war. It is Time for US and UK to call it quits. They have already unleashed a sinister mayhem and genocide of the ordinary folks in Iraq.

2007-07-30 05:03:21 · answer #7 · answered by khalid.qazi 3 · 2 2

No.
And with regard to your comments directed at me on your question about the moron Bush.

1. My wife is not coloured, you ignorant moron, she is Black.

2. Why would I have a problem with being married to her ? I suspect the only one with the problem is you, that's because I believe you to be a racist, a nasty vile bigot who makes racist innuendo at every opportunity.

3. As for my failure to impress you, why would I wont to, gaining your admiration would just leave me feeling sickened.

So come on Stevie boy, tell us all why you have a problem with inter racial marriages, dazzle us all with your finely toned intellectual answer............

2007-07-30 05:00:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

its to small to be real and to big not to .
the atrocities must not have meant that much to them.
i have criticized too.
still, the help any of us get in return "would be assumption"on our part.lets not assume!
are they miss led ?
send them into the mountains?
maybe jesus should return?

2007-07-30 04:58:18 · answer #9 · answered by martinmm 7 · 0 1

As they say, Drunks like Bush make bad choices.

2007-07-30 05:06:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers