Is this war really wrong?

Question

Can anyone prove it’s just for oil? Is it really wrong to go battle the kind of evil that prevails amongst the Islamo-Facists? Was taking out Saddam really such a horrible thing?
Any woman that answer – think you’d be able to read this question if they ruled the world? This is a part of what we are fighting for.

Answer 1

You are correct. This is a war unlike any other we have ever fought. These are not a people out to claim land or resources. The Islamic terrorist want to eliminate us and our way of life. They are not interested in the resources of the US. All they are interested in is the deaths of American citizens. This is why our military is fighting. To keep the American public safe.

Answer 2

The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are A LOT OF CLAIMS ON THAT MONEY, but … We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” - Paul Wolfowitz. So who has claims on that oil money if the US doesn't ? Is it a US interest ? Are we having trouble because of the insurgents ? Why even mention oil at that point if it wasn't an issue ?

We're fighting Islamo-Facists now but weren't they just "insurgents" just a couple years ago ? "I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." -Dick Cheney.
So they were this rag-tag group a while ago, now they morphed to Al Qaeda.

I'm all for fighting evil but stop changing the scenario just because you don't have an exit plan.

Answer 3

No one can prove it was just for oil, and in fact the US Congress in late 2002 approved the Saddam Hussein regime change for two dozen important reasons.

UN Security Council resolutions condemning Saddam Hussein atrocities had no mention of oil.

Did women fair better under Saddam? Certainly not the 100,000s of all ages that were murdered and hidden in mass graves.

Answer 4

Only in that sense that Desert Shield/Storm was not ours to fight. It should have been up to the U.N. But they have proven themselves time and again to be worthless. The current war was only a continuation of that first war (violations of the cease fire agreement). It has since morphed into a struggle for security. And yes, it IS all about oil. Reagan was clear on this back when he re flagged all of those foreign oil tankers passing through the region AND giving them U.S. naval escort. The world's economy runs on oil. Iran would REALLY love seeing the U.S. lead coalition forces depart Iraq and has said as much. "Iran is ready and capable of filling the vacuum of leadership when the U.S. leaves." Please remember that Iran is not friendly towards the west and exports terrorism. If they cannot attack us militarily, given the power to control the oil, they'll kill us economically. People who deny this should read chapter nine of the Qu'ran and remember that theirs is a theocracy based on islam.

Answer 5

Women did quite well under Saddamn's regime. He was not what you call "islamofascist", he was a secular dictator who placed no restrictions on women's dress or choice of profession. This business of women being forced into hijab and out of schools and jobs is new; it has all come about since our invasion.

If we took out Saddamn just to bring about the current situation in Iraq, then yes, it was a bad thing. Terrorism is up, the Kurds and the Turks are getting into it, with us in the middle and incapable of taking either side for fear, to quote the State Dept, that the "situation will become further destabilized" (which is an interesting tacit admission that we have already destabilized Iraq).

Yeah, the war was a bad mistake, if not an outright evil plot.

Answer 6

It isn't about oil because if we went over there, went behind the Saudis' back to steal oil from another country in this fashion. Saudi Arabia could sink us economically by either pulling out 1/3 of the stock they have in our stock market, demand a debt payback or become our enemy and kick us out of the country losing a ally and country to use for during war. So to all those people who find it easier to say the war is over oil goes to show they know nothing of country relations and ramifications.

As for Saddam. It has been shown clearly he had and was training al-Qaeda and had camps. There is proof he had WMDs as well. He used them in Iraq/Iran war and even against his own Iraqi people. And thanks to NY Times (a liberal paper by the way) always giving out the strategies for our entry in Iraq before we invaded. Saddam had enough time to ship out any WMDs he had to a number of countries, if people remember as well, a list of world leaders, Presidents, Kings etc. etc. was found and there were a lot of names on a payroll to look the other way or friends of his. Most likely I say he sent them to either Syria, Lebanon or Palestine.

But the problem now is that we are fighting a politically correct war instead of a fighting war.

Answer 7

1) war was over long ago. You are talking of the military Occupation of Iraq. Different situations
2) Yes it was wrong. Iraq had not attacked us, we took a country that may have been led by a wackadoo but now it is a chaotic quagmire where the people had less than they did previously. If Saddam was that bad then the people of IRAQ should have gotten rid of him..it was for THEM to do..not US...because Freedom is not free, it comes with the price of blood and Freedom can never be given by another, it has to be earned by the person enjoying it

Answer 8

You're starting from an incorrect assumption. Saddam was not one of the "Islamofascists" we're fighting. Rather, he was a secular ruler of a Muslim nation. He was not only not involved with Al Quaeda, but he was a strong enemy of Al Quaeda. They wanted nothing more than to have Saddam removed from power, but they were not strong enough to accomplish that. We did it for them, and now Iraq has what it never had before: Terrorists.

No, having Saddam out of power wouldn't have been a bad thing (Although the average Iraqi is now somehow worse off than when he was in power), but using the US military to remove a ruler sets a horrible precedent. It gives permission to other countries to remove leaders they declare as deserving it, and, if we don't go ahead and remove other leaders who we say shouldn't be in power, we show ourselves to be ether hypocrites or liars.

So yes, the war, even though I don't think it was about oil, is clearly wrong.

Answer 9

No war is worth the death of a single innocent child.

Evil amoung the conservative Islamic terrorists is simply that, evil.

Answer 10

lol, u funny. If not, how would you explain conflicts in oil-deprived regions such as Sudan, Chechnya, Thailand to name a few??? US will never get involved in something that's going to cost them money without reimbursment - it's just not the way it works in capitalist society. Even during WWII, if US never got attacked, they'd let the entire world kill each other. I don't need a proof that Iraq is all about oil - it's just common sense

Answer 11

I'm not truly certain that its truly wrong. Sadaam Hussein was a terrible tyrant. What I am certain about is that its far too costly in terms of American lives, both killed and wounder, Iraqi lives lost, and the cost to the American taxpayer and their childten. (closing in on $1 trillion). Foolish and uneccessary would be better words than wrong.