Why did the US invaded Iraq?
Some people will say: Because they had WMD`s! Well they did not….
Well, at least they are free from a cruel dictator! Well, like so many others…
Now, what if a “coalition of the willing”, decided to free all Americans from this lunatic named George W Bush, which many call a dictator?
-He is not a dictator! We live in a democracy! True, but Chavez who republicans call a dictator was elected while our (ouch) friend Bush was selected.
So in theory he could be consider a dictator and therefore persona non grata for mankind.
How would Americans react if such coalition decided to invade the US to free its people from Bush?
The Iraq invasion is no laughing matter. It was an immoral, illegal state sponsored terror act against a sovereign nation, yet governed by someone as crappy leader as Bush is.
Saddam received his punishment from its people. Bush will be punished by history.
2007-10-08 16:56:48 · 12 answers · asked by marcelsilvae 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
As a homage complement to my intelligent conservative friends below one more paradoxical question: Being the definition (look it up, it`s on the dictionary) of terrorism is –noun . the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes, please amswer me: What was the biggest ever terrorist act carried out against innocent civilians? Wrong! not 9/11! A AK-47 bullet to the ones who answered the Nuke dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Can you imagine all those little tiny semi-opened jap eyes closed forever and the skin peeling off babies??!!!
2007-10-08 17:23:43 · update #1
Things are looking great in Iraq! The Iraqi people have a better future!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/08/wanbar308.xml
2007-10-08 16:59:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
Where to begin on this one.
WMD's ... yes they had at least chemical weapons. The amount is open to dispute, won't argue that.
On the Bush vs Chavez point ... difference is we still have some control over Bush while Chavez does what he wants irregardless of what anyone in his country think. And don't even bring up the Electoral College issue. He's the 4th president in history to be elected without winning the popular vote.
Coalition invading the U.S. to remove Bush ... invade the U.S. for basically any reason and you will have most of the population up in arms fighting against the invasion. Any foreign troops attacking the continental U.S. would be met with the utmost aggression. I'm not in the military anymore, but I would gladly take up arms again to fight any foreign troops invading the U.S.
Saddam did receive his punishment by his people. Bush has made a lot of mistakes and will be remembered by many for the immoral or dumb things he did.
Edit: Nice try on the biggest terrorist act comitted. Try the Holocaust. 2 bombs dropped does not constitute 1 act of terrorism, though I will agree that it definitely was had a terrible effect that is still being felt today.
Let me show you something that should scare you about liberalism and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Emeninent Domain ... refer to the link below. Think your land is safe? Nice try, thank the liberals on the Supreme Court and they swing vote moderate Mr. Kennedy. Just think, with 2 Strict Constructionist judges on the Supreme Court possibly retiring or 1 them not living a lot longer due to illness about having 2 more Loose Constructionist judges being added to the court for a 6-3 majority. Emenint Domain was just the first travesty and they court was split 4-4-1 at that time. First, our right to the government seizing our property to give to a corporation so that they can get more taxes out of the business than individual home owners ... nice swing vote Mr. Kennedy, appreciate my rights to land ownership being thrown into the toilet. What's next if a Democrat becomes president for the next 4-8 years and gets to appoint both of the possibly soon to be vacant seats on the Supreme Court? Keep waving those flags liberals, fly them high ... then when the Supreme Court tramples a few more of our constitutional rights, you can say yep ... I voted for the person that put them on the Supreme Court.
2/3 of what the government regulates and spends money on is unconstitutional. Both Democrats and Replubicans are guilty of approving these plans. And people wonder why there are 5-10 states that are seriously considering and working on the possibility of seceding from the U.S. FEMA, Department of Education, and hundreds of other things where never provided for in the Constitution ... Federal Government has no business being involved with them without many Constistutional amendments. These are State powers, not Federal government powers ... the States make the union ... not the reverse.
Can't wait to see all the thumbs down I get and rants thrown at me for this edit ... woohoo!
2007-10-09 00:16:46 · answer #2 · answered by Rob 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I can only view this as a liberal screaming for somebody to help cure their ignorance and lack of education..
1) Saddam had a history of WMD use, including against his own people.
2) The existence of multiple problems ( in this case dictators ) does not mean dealing with one of them isn't the right thing to do.
3) Bush WAS elected by the American voters.
4) Chavez is actively stripping away every vestige of democracy in Venezuela, it doesn't matter how he came to power. And remember Hitler took power through a legit democratic system..
5) No, in "theory" a dictator has to wield total power. Bush doesn't. I'd suggest looking up the definition of dictator if you're this confused about it.
6) There was nothing immoral about removing a man like Saddam from power.
7) No body with any jurisdiction has ruled US action in Iraq was illegal, in fact there isn't even a strong enough argument to even get such a court to hear the case.
No need to thank me, always happy to help cure liberal stupidity.
2007-10-09 00:07:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Are you a Hugo Chavez lackey? You wonder why people question the libs patriotism. What country in your opinion has the moral high ground to "free" the US? Also by no definition is bush a dictator. Has Bush consolidated all power to himself like Hugo? Has Bush taken over the oil, broadcasting, and telecommunication industries like Hugo? Has Bush outlawed free speech like Hugo? The answer to all these questions is no. Get an education.
2007-10-09 00:17:17 · answer #4 · answered by - 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
To the idiot redlegman64, I have to inform you that the guy was asking a rhetorical question. Like I've said before, only Bush and Cheney loving fanatics are quick to embrace the literal interpretion every time the idea of a struggle is brought up.
And as for the guy above me, Chavez is an elected leader who won by a margin much stronger than that enjoyed by Bush. Your practice of insulting democratically elected leaders that disagree with the strong-armed polices of the U.S, by wrongly labeling them ''dictators'', does not impress me.
2007-10-09 00:05:07 · answer #5 · answered by maggot_boy2004 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
People simply refuse to compare the two concepts even though it is a valid comparison.
Who can deny that the United States has itself carried out terrorism against other nations throughout its history...that and FUNDED terrorist groups so as to destabilize it...they do it every time....yet people refuse to see that the ones they call terrorists are ideologically no different than our own government.
So many people refuse to honestly answer the question: If China decided to "liberate" the world from the scourge that is the United States Government, and had to invade us and bomb our cities and shoot all of us who would stand up as "insurgents", how many of you would go along with this invasion? Not very many. Because you don't consider your government to be filled with terrorists...yet they are by their very definition.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...one man is a terrorist martyr, another is a patriotic hero...all depends on what country he is from as to what label he gets...
from america, its ok to die or even blow yourself up if it means defeating the enemy....even if innocents die in the process....let a muslim do it, and he's a terrorist.
Hypocrites.
(ah the thumbs down starts) *sits back and enjoys*
-
again, without addressing anything i've said, bravo.
to answer you, any country who doesnt seek to remake the world in its flawed image has the moral high ground to put a stop to our corrupt government who seems to be bent on this very thing.....it isnt about moral high ground anyway...the iraq was was started based on a bunch of b.s. anyone who denies that is a complete psycho.
let me spell it out for you who cannot seem to understand the logic. (and im not going to argue that saddam didnt have chem weapons, he did because we sold them to him, there...but by teh time we invaded they would have been useless against anyone..their shelf life is very small..read up)
9/11 happened, we claim it was osama bin laden behind the attacks (about 20 minutes into the attacks no less, more b.s.), and so we invade afghanistan.....months pass...more and more time passes, still no osama (dead?), public becoming forgetful and not paying much attention anymore....I know, let's associate Iraq (who we want to invade anyway) with 9/11 in some vague B.S. way, let's make Saddam the new Osama and play down any future importance on Osama....suggest that attacks are imminent if we dont "do something right now"...and the public will (and did) jump right on the bandwagon of war....
and now years later people are starting to see it for what it is....pure bunk....was then, is now, sad so many have had to die for a pointless cause....does disagreeing and ok, hating, my government make me unpatriotic? No, not in the least...I love my country...i just hate the ignorant douchebags that "run" it.
2007-10-09 00:07:04 · answer #6 · answered by fortwynt 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
ok bush bush bush iraq iraq iraq get over it people.
2007-10-09 00:08:51 · answer #7 · answered by Richie for da ben dan 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Cleanin' my squirrel gun and waitin for the "coalition".
There's another coalition of the loyal waitin' fer ya.
Should be good huntin'!
2007-10-09 00:06:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
The US invaded Iraq not for WMDs but for oil.
2007-10-08 23:59:31 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
Bush will undoubtedly go down as the worst president since U.S. Grant.
And, no, things really aren't better in the long run:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I4GDUFFX0Z4OVQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/10/08/wanbar208.xml
BTW, artillery guys are pogues. Old women and 12-year olds could do their jobs. I am the INFANTRY, follow me. =)
2007-10-08 23:59:31 · answer #10 · answered by Chris D 2 · 3⤊ 6⤋