No, it was not necessary. People call it the war on terrorism, but Iraq was not linked to 9/11, did not attack us, and did not have WMD. (Bush of course declines any responsibility for that turning out to be false.) There's no end in sight (despite the "end of major combat" announcement that hasn't exactly lived up to its billing), and countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia would be more logical and productive places on which to focus if we were serious about going after terrorists.
2007-08-22 12:53:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by David 7
·
3⤊
5⤋
Imanie, once upon a time I bought into the "liberation" of the Iraqi people, and while I am sure Hussein’s removal from power was a victory for human rights the subsequent slaughter of Iraq civilians and the living conditions of many Iraqis is shameful.
You can't force Democracy on people. They don't appreciate it, and no-one truly in support of it appreciates *Democracy* being used as a cover for selfish gain by the west.
My eyes are open now; The U.S is despised more than ever and not without good cause, and it's thanks to the U.S Government and its lies.
I think a lot of people really believed they were saving Iraqi people when the U.S went in but you would be hard pushed to find anyone who still believes this now.
2007-08-23 14:01:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Have any of you answering this ever been there?
If not, how are you even qualified to answer this.
I was there when we took Kuwait back in 1991.
I was there when we captured Saddam. I got to tell you, it felt good to finish the job the UN didn't have the sack to let us finish then. Now we just need to get the press off our backs so we can finish this one.
Has Iraq benefited from the liberation? You'll never see the true answer to that in the main-stream media. They won't ask the Iraqis the question. I did. And time and time again the answer was yes.
Did I enjoy being away from my wife and 3 daughters for 14 months? What do you think?
Am I sorry I went? Not one bit. It is a just cause and a sacrifice I make without regrets.
What do you do when you believe in something? Talk on the Internet or put your life on the line so that others can benefit from freedom.
You're damn right we were justified in going in. It wasn't all about WMD, oil, or profit. Give me a break.
You are entitled to think it was the biggest mistake in US History. It sure wasn't the biggest mistake in Iraqi History. Or does that matter?
2007-08-22 20:05:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rick 5
·
1⤊
4⤋
Iraq has benefited. Was it necessary. I dont know. We should be at war with someone and there are better targets than Iraq. Why Iraq? Maybe to secure the oil to make sure it doesnt fall into the hands of China. Maybe because Iraq is right smack dab in the middle of the Mid East.
2007-08-22 19:54:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Daniel 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
It will never cease to amaze me, the number of people that express their opinion on issues that they know nothing about, except what the liberal news media prints or says. How can we as a nation allow another country to murder and torture its own people and invade other countries without doing anything about it? If the United States didn't do anything about it, where would the murder and aggression stop? Would you want to live in iraq as a free person without the presence of the United States military and all the other countries that have sent their military to try to establish a peaceful government so that the people of Iraq can live as free people.
2007-08-22 20:42:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Johnny Reb 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
The only time you go to war is when a country attacks you. No country has attacked us since Pearl Harbor.
9-11 was a criminal act, to be dealt with by the FBI and CIA. The CIA assassinated many leaders in it's time, they could have assassinated OBL as well.
Bush/Cheney/The Dems wanted both wars for reasons people do not want to accept, M O N E Y.
2007-08-22 20:03:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by The law is a form of tyranny. 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think Hussein needed to go, absolutely, and his psycho kids too, but the total lack of any realistic, logical, real world plan to
win the war, and more to the point the post war has left us in the situation we're in but now we need to stick it out because not to
would be equally if not more insane, we need to do what's needed, not these half a-s measures we're doing now. If that means not having democracy, at least in the short term than that's what needs to happen.
2007-08-22 20:38:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by booboo 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I don't believe it was a necessity, no, the status quo of Sadam pretending not to have weapons programs for the UN on the one hand, while pretending to still have weapons to intimidate Iran, othe other, could have continued for years without any worse repercusions than had been tollerated for the preceding decade. I'm afraid that once we committed to the war, though, it became necessary to stay until we'd either clearly lost or established a stable enough puppet-government that we could leave our allies there alone in relative safety.
It certainly wasn't the /biggest/ mistake in American history, though.
2007-08-22 19:54:43
·
answer #8
·
answered by B.Kevorkian 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
You are absolutely correct. It was just something that Bush and his cronies just 'had' to do. Everybody is the loser here except those building arms. This war, sure as heck, didn't do anything for the thousands of grieving Americans whose friends and relatives died in the World Trade Center collapse.
2007-08-22 19:56:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
I think its too late to ask these questions. Should have been done when we were eating "American" fries and calling the UN a bunch of pansies.
The real question is will Iraq become a sustainable democracy in our lifetime. Will the US colonize indefinitely? Will it be split up into sectarian nations?
Like Colin Powell told GWB, "you break Iraq, you own it". Man did we ever break it.
2007-08-22 19:51:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Lotus Phoenix 6
·
3⤊
3⤋