I'd appreciate it if you could help me on this one. It's for a book I'm writing. Thanks.
2007-08-03 12:09:23 · 7 answers · asked by Chicoaa20 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Okay, I'm not writing my book ABOUT the Iraq war, it's about something else, the time of this invasion is just a minor factor.
2007-08-03 12:21:13 · update #1
March of 2003. And no, there weren't any large scale protests at the time to speak of. There may have been some as there is always someone that will protest any war. Why were there not many protests? Because even the greatest democrats and republicans believed the intelligence reports that existed at that time. Remember that those intelligence reports were reviewed by many different people. Based on what we knew then, the data pointed to several areas that would have a very negative impact on the US if they came true. Therefore, the conclusions that were drawn gave additional momentum to the prospects of following through with the UN resolutions to take military action against Saddam Hussein for his actions. I wonder how far under the Washington Monument we would have buried Bush if just 1 instance of WMD's occurred. It's easy to poo-poo that statement now that we know Saddam didn't have WMD's at the start of the invasion, but we sure didn't know that until after we got there. We know that he had them before, we just don't know when or how he got rid of them. It's a shame that Saddam allowed this situation to get to that point because he was too hard-headed to listen to the UN and follow the resolutions as they had agreed. And, for that, many blame this war on Bush? Hope that helps.
2007-08-03 12:27:47 · answer #1 · answered by bkc99xx 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 1st band of soldiers were sent in 2002 some time in Nov or Dec....because the deadline for Hussein to let the inspectors search for Weapons of Mass Destruction was Dec 17th..I'm not too sure about the date, but the month is correct, because I'll never forget when they interviewed some soldiers after being there for a while before the war started in March 2003 saying that morale was low and soldiers just wanted to do the job and be done with it.......
2007-08-03 19:39:47 · answer #2 · answered by a_t4evr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, considering the war started in 2003, yes there were troops there in 2003 for the first time.
And with any war, of course there were protests. Everywhere. D.C.......Crawford Ranch in Texas......everywhere.
If you're going to be writing a book on this, you better wise up and get the facts you should already know if you're going to write a book on it.
2007-08-03 19:18:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
March 19, 2003. Of course there was a protest. Still lots of folks around who are stuck in a time warp between 1964 and 1972.
2007-08-03 21:40:48 · answer #4 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was march 2003, and yes there were protests, but not the same as we have today, back then, everyone thought we should go to iraq. thats when the presidents approval rating was through the roof, people thought we would bring world peace by fixing iraq. now, well i have no comment.
2007-08-03 19:23:29 · answer #5 · answered by Jopa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm pretty sure it was March 2003. You should be able to find an iraq timeline on line though. I wouldn't use Yahoo Answers for your source in your book! :-)
2007-08-03 19:17:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
you can read all about bush administration lies right here
http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline
2007-08-03 20:33:06 · answer #7 · answered by LB67 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋