It is my opinion that America should not have invaded Iraq in the first place on the wrong premise that it has weapons of mass destruction.
2007-10-14 00:25:11 · 10 answers · asked by Lei Al 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I am in agreement with you Saddam was not the one who ran the planes in the trade centers it was osama it seems we just gave up on looking for him and focused on Saddam which he wasn't doing anything to us he was doing it to his own people and . And about the weapons of mass destruction Where are they???? we never found any. Korea was doing the same thing and Bush wanted to try and shut them down off the bat but Korea had told him Get the hell out you tend to your country and I'll tend to mine and what happened tucked the tail in behind and left. But Korea now has agreed to disarm only because the UN went in with a different approach not the kind "I'm taking in the World" AND "Get out of my way.
2007-10-14 00:52:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WOW. This honestly is a tough question anymore. We want to feel safe in our country because of 9/11, but I don't think staying in Iraq will necessarily be the best way to proceed with our best interests at heart. I think we should have never went, or after we invaded only stayed until the end of W's first term and at that point had a regime change and different tactics employed. Now it seems perhaps there is an actual learning curve going on inside our military on how to effectively deal with the tactics of the insurgents. The method of war has changed and it has taken us time to recognize this as well as begin to know how to fight against these tactics. Whether we have a moral obligation to let these people decide their destiny for themselves if that's what they want and require, or we should stay to now sharpen our newly acquired skills to the point our military can be first rate in dealing with these kind of tactical challenges in the future, is the question as I see it. My main concern is the money we spend on the war. Imperial Russia was overthrown by the Bolsheviks because they went bankrupt fighting ww1 to protect the serbs against the tyranny of the Germans. My point is the country was weakened to the point of collapse. That is not something we anticipate here at all, but shouldn't we still consider that even if you win the war, you may pay a higher price than if you actually lost it.
2007-10-14 07:37:20 · answer #2 · answered by Steve C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the worse thing they can do! All the military that have been killed there, would have died in vain! Wouldn't they? We have got to see this problem out to the end, we are so close to ridding Iraq of the Sunni- Arab insurgents that we can almost smell it! If you want to pull out of Iraq and leave a terrorist state in power then you are making a rod for your own backs! With Iranian atomic know how, it wouldn't be long before those maniacs started targeting U.S. Cities and we all know what that would mean, don't we? Is that what you want? I certainly don't! Keep the conflict contained in there country where we can handle it!
2007-10-14 00:50:09 · answer #3 · answered by wheeliebin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Think so, with the tribal mentality of the Iraqis I think we're wasting our time. The enemy in Iraq is not the insurgents it's a 1,000 years of culture.
2007-10-14 00:47:41 · answer #4 · answered by doobie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Erlich C, your "opinion" needs military service, and/or a four year degree before it can be credible. Do you have at least one?
I feel like banging my head against the wall when some sheltered female gives her expert opinion on war, yet has zero military experience. Would you ladies listen to a four year old boy who gave tips on how to apply makeup? It's the same thing.
2007-10-14 00:35:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, the US should not withdraw. You are not a student of recent history. There were dozens of reasons why the coaltion removed the government and army of Iraq.
The three worst WMD's were Saddam and his two sons. They were removed.
2007-10-14 00:31:06 · answer #6 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
they never even had evidence of weapons of mass destruction!!!
they shouldn't have invaded and since they did, they should have pulled out ages ago!
2007-10-14 00:31:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is my opinion that we waited to long did too little and now have to pay for mis management.
If they had let us look in Syria we would have found Saddam's WMD.
Grow up.
2007-10-14 00:31:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No , otherwise we have to go back in 5 years .
2007-10-14 03:43:18 · answer #9 · answered by Peiper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, and they should get the hell out the sooner the better.
2007-10-14 00:29:06 · answer #10 · answered by bgee2001ca 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋