It was done by a leader who profeses to be a Christian leader and with majority support from the Churches in America.
No need to use examples of the Crusades hundreds of years ago..........
These examples are unfolding everyday.
.
2007-10-10 18:54:28 · 20 answers · asked by wwhy 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
International law depends less on what the treaties say and more on what you can get away with.
Whether it was unjust is very much debated, whilst I don't like Christianity and would like to see it disappear (along with Islam and all the other religions on the planet) and it is clear that the WMD threat was at the very least massively overstated one must remember that Iraq was ruled by a murderous dictator who definitely needed toppling (although Saddam should have been removed back in the early '90's).
Although as for how the invasion was run, whilst the war was over and done with very quickly the peace has proved much harder to win, largely due to incompetence.
It wasn't entirely a religious war though there are certainly a lot of idiots who hope to bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ (predicted to occur within the life time of his disciples) and who think a war with Iraq would be a good way to do it.
2007-10-10 19:10:26 · answer #1 · answered by bestonnet_00 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not sure about the illegal and unjust part but yes sadly despite claims it was to help the Iraqi people one of the major motives seems to have seem access to oil !
Thousands of people American European and Iraqi, soldiers, civil workers, civilians, etc, are being hurt or killed by the foolish obsessions of megacorporations and on the other side religious fundamentalists... oh wait we have those on both sides!
Judging by results unjust is probably a valid description!
However something should have been done about Saddam sooner!
2007-10-11 02:48:03 · answer #2 · answered by JeeVee 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If anyone recalls, Saddam Husein started the wheels in motion over 15 years ago when he invaded Kuwait and then set hundreds of oil fires as he retreated back to his hole in the ground. He lived in opulent splendor and luxuries beyond the imagination in many palaces throughout Iraq while his people starved and still rode around on donkeys along dirt roads.
He butchered the Kurds and made anyone who didn't agree with him "disappear." He was a bad, bad, bad, bad man. The world is better for the loss of him.
.
2007-10-11 02:13:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Speaking as someone whos been there (Iraq) and having been thrown in the midst of many many oil for money arguements, I feel I have to say....
It wasnt Illegal at all. Justification for it had been a long time coming and we finally got someone in Oval Office with a SPINE!!! Not an INTERN....
We did NOT invade Iraq for money.... I saw with my own eyes. Not with some hyped up junk some spew forth on the news or in the streets, at work over morning coffee.
Matter of fact The only real oil companies in Iraq were INVITED by the interm Iraqi government to help bolster, not ours mind you but, THIER own economy ! So the Iraqi people could better sustain themselves. Not so we could go and be the big bad policeman of the world.
Investigate your own way, find the truth about it. Its out there for ya to see. And I would invite you if your unable to find what your looking for then YOU go and see with your own eyes. Talk to the local Iraqi people and see for yourself.
Oh and for the post with the link to the conspiracy thing about 9/11 .... Grow up and get out of your little paper bag and look at the facts for yourself too man. Those guys have been proven wrong on several occasions and then gone back and changed thier own veiws and put them out on tape ONCE again for you to buy so they can profit from the dead. Dont care who you are but thats just not right. Imagine for a minute that it was you family member that died that day? Ever thought about that? You dont see them buying into the conspiritorial mumbo jumbo do you..
Enjoy Life People ! Its too short......
2007-10-11 02:22:53 · answer #4 · answered by Groucho 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
For oil? If we wanted oil from Saddam, it would have been far less expensive to simply 'cut a deal' with him like France, Russia, and China did!
If the war was 'for oil,' then where in the Constitution of Iraq, is the claus that says America gets 50% of Iraq's oil? Or 10%, or 1%, or.0000000000001%? Do you not find it strange that if the war was 'for oil,' that such a claus does NOT EXIST AT ALL?
THINK.
2007-10-11 06:50:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
there was no al qaeda or terrorist presence in Iraq before the invasion, british intelligence knew of it. a guy i knew got briefed about it , he was a brit commando, they told him everythin.
Theres some sort of hidden agenda. Why would you say "Because they have WMD's" and after weapons inspections, you find none, so you change excuse to "overthrow a dictator". So why don't they go into Cuba, Belarus etc. etc. to overthrow their dictators? Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA at all...
I'm not saying I know what's going on over there and why 100%, but I'm smart enough to know things aren't what they seem. Theres a hidden agenda, and it is definitely fueled by peoples hatred, greed and ignorance. War is outdated.
2007-10-11 02:07:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hail Eris!
Well, *duh*. It was never about anything but oil and power-mongering and sheer, unmitigated greed. Most-if-not-all of his supporters among corporate CEO's are Dominionists like him, too.
No, Father Onesimus, it wasn't so America could *steal* it in a "legal" fashion, but so Big Oil could control it. It never got into explicitly American hands, but the profits from it will. And the profits are all they care about. Besides, it certainly wasn't for the freedom of the Iraqi people, or getting rid of tyranny (One tyrant is only a beginning -- meanwhile, who made the US the world's police?), or because of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or because of Iraqi connections to al-Qaeda. It was because George W. Bush wanted to invade before 9/11 ever happened. Oil was only part of the reason -- the rest was to begin a century of perpetual warfare, specifically for the benefit of the USA, and the USA only.
Snarky
2007-10-11 03:10:53 · answer #7 · answered by popesnarky 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Crusader have nothing to do with Christian but the pope. When do Christian follow pope instead of Jesus Christ?
God bless us as a Christian nation and He mentions in the Bible that we are to protect ourselves against evildoers.
It didn't say we must kill but protect ourselve. Jesus Christ said to love your enemy. This mean all enemy including Osma Bin Ladin.
Do we should love the evil act? God forbid.
However, if we really love these people. Then we should at least set evil people's soul free so that they don't cause any more harm to a just and innocent people. This is why we are on the hunt for Osma Bin Ladin not because he is evil at heart but need to be put out from this world that he doesn't cause another lost souls.
2007-10-11 02:06:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Leaving Iraq in 1991 was unjust to the thousands killed by Saddam after we left him with his power and oil.
2007-10-11 02:04:00 · answer #9 · answered by angrygramma 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Iraq war had nothing to do with religion. Trying to bash religion and christians by using it as an example is just such poorly thought out logic.
The president of the US has the responsibility of running the country regardless of his religion. Is everything the president going to do from now a reflection on religion? So if a president steps away from religion to focus on the good of the country, as he sees it to be, then you are going to throw that in his face too? You want seperation of church and state and yet you wont acknowledge if a president does an act that might have had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the state. Doesnt that seem a bit hyppocritical?
2007-10-11 02:00:55 · answer #10 · answered by cadisneygirl 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋