Should we have invaded? should we still be in there?
2007-08-17 07:34:51 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Never have so many died and so many tax dollars been spent for so few to make money.
That war (to me it is an act of terrorism supported by lies and fabrications) should have never happened in Iraq. The idea of still being there becomes irrelevant.
Just remember, there were no Iraquis nor Afghanis in the attack on the WTC. Just Saudis, good buddies to Bush and co. Nothing like homegrown terror to galvanize the masses, ask the Germans prior to WWII.
2007-08-17 07:43:31 · answer #1 · answered by P.A.M. 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
We shouldn't have invaded. This war was a war of choice. They didn't go in because they had to, it was because they wanted to. They wanted to get that oil in Iraq, and distribute it to us for $3/gallon and make all George's campaign contributors even more rich. There are very similar problems in other countries that possibly are worse than Iraq, but the difference is that there isn't any oil in grounds of those countries.
2007-08-17 14:47:00 · answer #2 · answered by jimbo11403 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Answer #1 It could have been handled better. Saddam needed to go. I would have preferred that an Arab had set off a road side bomb and taken him out.
Answer #2 Yes. To leave him there was a ticking bomb.
Answer #3 Not now. The Iraqi leadership said we could leave any time we want. I've always been of the opinion we should stay until asked or told to leave. They have by telling us we can leave any time they can handle it. Let'um.
2007-08-17 14:46:54 · answer #3 · answered by namsaev 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So sick of this. We will be in Iraq for a very long time. The democrats know this. The military knows this. All the rest is just political BS. Trust me. Twenty years from now we will be in Iraq.
2007-08-17 14:42:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
At first I didn't like the idea.
Then when I heard about all the savage things that Saddam and his sons did I was in support of it.
Now I'm thinking that the Iraqi people need a dictator to rule them because they can't do it themselves and we should probably leave and let them fight it out to see who that dictator will be.
The only reason I can think of for staying is that we don't want Iran invading or ruling Iraq too.
2007-08-17 14:41:44 · answer #5 · answered by Sean 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No we should not have invaded, but now that we are there, we can't leave. Leaving a country that is in major unrest with Anti-American countries surrounding it is not a good idea.
2007-08-17 15:19:53 · answer #6 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hate it.
No we shouldn't have.
No we shouldn't.
Phillip_1959: absurd comparison. Our troops aren't in the middle of civil war in Germany or Japan. Germany and Japan are not the scenes of daily mass slayings.
Come up with a new excuse line; that one needs to be retired.
2007-08-17 14:41:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Bush administration fabricated evidence and mislead us into an unwinnable quagmire.
Cheney said it would be a quagmire, in1994, but changed his tune in 2002 and said the troops would be "greeted as liberators."
We should be doing everything we can to extricate our troops from this mess ASAP.
2007-08-17 14:43:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We should kill every last one of those bastards! then leave.
or If you can't stomach that we could nuke them untill the desert sand turns to glass , afterward we could sell the rights to reclaim and recycle the glass to repay us for our nukes.Gee hope I didn't offend any of you liberal fags
2007-08-17 14:58:47 · answer #9 · answered by joe 6 pack 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with Dick Cheney who said it is a quagmire and should not happen.
2007-08-17 14:51:10 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋