Let's forget for a minute that the rationale for this war seems to change weekly and just focus on Saddam. Many people think deposing his rule was itself a good reason to invade. Usually you will hear "he gassed his own people" or "he was a tyrant". Both are true. What is also true is that he the gas he used was supplied to him by US, yes the US government, and after he used it we did nothing as we did nothing when he attacked the Kurds again after the Gulf War. So isn't that kind of an outdated, if not self incriminating, argument?
And do you think sending 150,000 soldiers to capture one man is really the reason we are still there?
2007-09-12 09:36:14 · 5 answers · asked by douglas l 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It absolutely wasn't worth it! The reason I have opposed the Iraq War from the outset is because after the 9/11 attacks the President promised to bring Osama and Al Qaeda to justice. Instead he chose to waste resources on a war in Iraq chasing an adversary who was NOT as big a threat to the USA as Osama was. Not only has GWB failed to live up to his promise, but Al Qaeda has grown stronger as a result of the Iraq War.
Add to that, Mexican gangs/terrorists, notably Los Zetas, are crossing our border at will and attacking and killing American civilians and cops. Troops that could be protecting our borders from such attacks are instead stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.
The country is now less safe than it was when GWB took office and only the most stubborn and foolish Americans still say otherwise.
2007-09-12 09:42:04 · answer #1 · answered by BOOM 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
You are asking this to Americans. You need to ask the people of Iraq. To me it was worth it. Sure we supplied him gas as a form of protection. I could give you a gun in the same manner. Now if you turn around and shoot your family it's not my fault. Saddam used the gas on the people of his country...not our fault. You are failing to mention that Iraq had the fourth largest military in the world. We brought that to it's knees with only 150,000. You act as if Saddam was by himself and had no help. ( the part where you exploit the fact that he is only one man) No the reason we are still there is because of both Iran and Syria. Israel bombed Syrian nuke site a day ago. Iran is pushing for nukes. Even the Dems will tell you that's why we are there, but you will have to wait until after the next Presidential Election to hear it from any of them.
Politics and control is a priority for them, not the blood shed of our military.
2007-09-12 16:52:35 · answer #2 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, it sure wasn't. Not to mention the many old wounds between countries we have now opened. The Kurds are practically daring Turkey(who has been our NATO ally) to attack. Turkish forces shot a few were in Turkey. Saddam was a bad guy that kept many, many bad guys from a major war.
I love this photo from the National security Archives-I believe it's called "Shaking hands with Saddam":
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
2007-09-12 16:53:30 · answer #3 · answered by Middleclassandnotquiet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course... sending 3500 us soldiers, sailors and marines to their deaths and killing 100, 000 (by the most conservative estimates) was worth Saddam.
2007-09-12 16:43:19 · answer #4 · answered by Fretless 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No
2007-09-12 16:45:21 · answer #5 · answered by gone 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋