English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Before he was executed, would you have supported putting Saddam back in power, rebuilding his military, and letting him go on doing what he was doing?
Then please let me know what business we had in Europe in the 1940’s. Japan attacked us, not Germany. Hitler had not yet done anything to us directly, and we had declared a neutral stance. Whats the difference?

2007-10-10 05:00:16 · 6 answers · asked by rayb1214 7 in News & Events Current Events

6 answers

I totally agree.I think the war was justified though.

2007-10-10 05:25:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Question is not well-stated. We should not have been there calling the shots in Iraq nor would it have been necessary to rebuild the Iraqi military. Iraq was not a direct threat to the US. Continued inspections and rational analysis of intelligence data by intelligence experts without intervention of neo-cons champing at the bit to go to war (Dick Cheney) would have saved our country from engaging in this fiasco.

Accumulating war debt at $8.4 billion per month has no benefit whatsoever. It won't achieve the stated and changing goals -- from building a friendly democracy in the mid-east to now-hoped-for semi-stable country with "lessened" violence. The Iraqis themselves don't want nor hope for reconciliation. There has been no gain from all the expenditures. It might as well have been flushed -- with the exception of a selected group of war profiteers. (Who have become the new rich -- but fodder for another question.)

Had $8.4 billion per month been invested in the "homeland", crumbling infrastructure would be addressed, disastrous health care problems would be corrected and jobs created as ports were made more secure, newer homes would all be energy efficient and a campaign underway to retrofit existing homes with solar power. And, and, and -- so many worthwhile challenges!

To drag Adolf Hitler into a question about Bush's war in Iraq is a childish non sequitur. This war can't be supported on its on merits so change the subject. Don't address the human toll of lives and limbs lost and families broken. Change the subject. 9-11, 9-11, 9-11 -- Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.

2007-10-10 13:16:56 · answer #2 · answered by murphy 5 · 2 1

I won't speak to the Iraq thing, since you have apparently already made up your mind.

But you left out a cogent point in your question, either deliberately or in error. You are absolutely correct that Japan attacked us in 1941. What you failed to mention is that Japan was a treatied ally with Germany and Italy; it was called the Axis. When we declared war on Japan the day after Pearl Harbor, that forced Japan's allies, Germany and Italy, to declare war on the United States, not the other way around. You really need to get your facts straight before putting them out there.

Oh, and before war was declared on the U.S. by the Axis Powers (as they were called), they had already sunk quite a few ships that were American flagged, right off the American coast, and well within the 12 mile zone, including in the Gulf of Mexico. People could stand on shore and watch them burn! So, Hitler had in fact committed war-like acts on the United States long before Japan and the U.S. declared war on each other.

Oh, one other thing. We may have actually captured Saddam, but he was turned over to Iraqi authorities, tried by Iraqi authrorities, and executed by Iraqi authorities. Oh yeah, those Iraqi authorities were the duly elected government of Iraq, elected by the Iraqi people. Remember the whole ink stains on the fingers that the media was reporting?

Oh, by the way Nutsters, the "sub" that you waved in our faces was a midget sub and well within the territorial boundries of Canada and the U.S. We were well within our rights to sink it when it failed to surface and identify itself. The same is true today, and it is an international law. I know it is a little hard for you to understand, but we were well within the law.

You have a wonderful day, now.

2007-10-10 12:35:36 · answer #3 · answered by hov1free 4 · 4 2

saddam had no WMDs,
had nothing what-so-ever to do with 9/11 & this war was ONLY over OIL.
saddam attempted to assassinate G Bush Sr in the first gulf war, this war, along with being all about OIL,
was also PAYBACK.

& as for WW2
Japan bombed the US in retaliation for the sinking of a japanese U-boat, off the coast of canada days before the " supposedly " out-of-the-blue attack on pearl harbour, Roosevelt & the US war office knew full well japan would strike,
it was allowed to happen to get the great US public on side to join in the race to Berlin, for the Nazi scientists that enabled the US to stay in the Space-Race.

The Iraq is an illegal war.
& NO-ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CAN DEFEND AN ILLEGAL WAR!
anyway for more proof see links below.

& for the delightful misinformed american below.
The US retaliated with the Horror of H-Bombs.
hiroshima & nagasaki.
which were BOTH, NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF!
so tell you what you believe what you want to believe
& i'll stick with the FACTS.
You have a lovely day, too.
thanx

2007-10-10 12:28:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

This is the internet - please do not assume 'we' are all Americans or in America. 'We' the British are in Iraq because of 'your' dumb president.

2007-10-10 12:30:12 · answer #5 · answered by Skidoo 7 · 4 1

you bet ye.

2007-10-10 21:26:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers