pre-invasion.
The only argument left is that iraq was in violation of UN resolution....but the UN refused to take military action against Iraq.
So why did we invade Iraq again? and why was it such an emergency that we do so?
Is it that Sadaam was an evil dictator? lol, and by what criteria and by what moral right do we get to decide which evil dictators rule and which dont? Holes have been shot in all the arguments as far as I know...but please give it your best shot. We are all ears ...lol
2007-09-12 05:25:42 · 11 answers · asked by bush l 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Why doesn't matter anymore what to do now does and if you voice an opinion against the War, you get called a traitor or if you are for it, a war-monger, may as well take out China, Russia, Iraq, as I am sure someone can find enough misinformation, UN resolutions broken, etc, to justify it. So ridiculous that Congress didn't do their homework before the initial vote and at least verify some of the claims. Yes, hindsight is always right but this isn't something minor, there are young Americans dying, civilians , women and children. Wish I had the answers but even if I did, I seriously doubt it would make a difference , both sides have dug their heels in and it almost seems that logic has flown out the window. Whatever this War was about, if the initial reasons were wrong then, it is still wrong now and if that means to pull troops out and leave Iraqi's to their fate, it still has to be better than when Saddam had a free rein. Not a pleasant thought but how about letting the UN do the fighting, which the US, in case you all forgot, is a part of.After all this time , this War still hasn't received UN approval and we all know what would happen if another Nation did what the US is doing. It has to stop.Pull the troops out, put the UN in as peacekeepers. That is what that body was created to do and when anyone can veto their resolutions or ignore them, then whoever it may be, is no better than those you are now fighting. Think about it before the next election, please. Two (or more) wrongs still don't make it right, even if you do have the biggest guns, only re-inforces those already against you to keep fighting. Just my take on things and thanks for all the thumbs down for those too blind to see.
2007-09-12 06:00:33 · answer #1 · answered by Bob D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Come on everyone knows that wmd and UN violations where little more than a smoke screen covering the real reason which was to oust sadamn hussain from power because he posed a real risk of becoming a regional superpower who would have spread his nasty dictatorship to neighbouring counties threatening the supply of oil to the world.
Iran poses the same risk and will also have to be dealt with in the very near future.
Bush and Blair should be congratulated for having the guts to commit men and military material to insure future essential oil supplies
2007-09-12 05:48:54 · answer #2 · answered by robert x 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm not going to argue that the pretenses for going to war turned out to be invalid, because I agree that they did. Furthermore, it was my opinion pre-invasion that they would be invalid, but that they were somewhat credible and not that far-fetched. Even Clinton's administration left documentation for Bush concerning Saddam and his activities. It was a gamble, and in the end the wrong decision was made. Regardless: we went, we're there, we're responsible for fixing it up. Any whining on the causes of the war is crying over spilled milk, it's been done and it's over. Debate on the matter is closed and irrelevant. Even if every American reached a consensus that the terms for going to war in Iraq had no bearing on our national security, it won't change the fact that it happened.
2007-09-12 05:35:33 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And that's not to mention the fact that Bush has all but ignored the actual culprit behind the attacks (Osama bin Laden) and failed to bring him to justice, but he has also exacerbated the global terrorist situation, because not only is there now a terrorist crisis in Iraq that didn't exist during Saddam's regime, but now a whole new generation of terrorists is being bred, because the war has become a cause celebre among the Islamic fundamentalists.
2016-05-17 22:10:35 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question and issue is already boring, the leftists won't let it go yet most of your left wing congress voted yes with the same info Mr. Bush had at his disposal....stop already!
We now must stabilize no matter the consequences.
2007-09-12 05:55:25 · answer #5 · answered by anthony p 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As for the issue of no WMD's the UN gave them a heads up that they were coming to search the country. Why would they keep any WMD's in their country?
Would you keep illeagl drugs in your house if the police gave you a 3 month notice of their search?
2007-09-12 05:31:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
It was wrong to go to war. If we leave to soon we would be responsible for another Bosnia or Rwanda. The whole thing is just a mess.
2007-09-12 05:30:02 · answer #7 · answered by Chris 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
"After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."
George W. Bush on Saddam Hussein, remarks in Houston, Texas, (September 26, 2002)
2007-09-12 05:34:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
your obsevations are all in hindsight. every intel service involved from around the world was convinced of the wmd and most tought there was a link. i am sure that there is a lot more but we are not privy to that info and i truly hate to guess.
2007-09-12 05:31:07 · answer #9 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Mustard gas (a WMD) was found. Does that fill a hole in any of your arguments?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1120720,00.html
2007-09-12 05:42:17 · answer #10 · answered by Splitters 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋