or.....do you agree or disagree. why or why not? I am hoping for some sincere honnest debating here and hoping to avoid name calling and kindergarden like debate tactics.
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/BushIraqWar.htm
2007-11-01 15:49:36 · 12 answers · asked by ez f 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I totally agree with the article. It stats the facts with a slight adjustment.
I do not believe, there had been any relation between 9/11 and Iraq, as your article says.
Thus, calling Iraqis who are fighting against the invasion, "terrorists" is improper.
Freedom fighter is more like it.
However, bush and his administration embrace the idea and advertise as, US is fighting terrorism!
2007-11-01 16:16:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
If anyone bothers to look at my post they will see I don't support the invasion of Iraq. But this article is deceptive and biased. It is presenting only those facts that support the authors conclusion and disregarding any facts that do not. To avoid a huge post I'll give only one example. Hussein defied UN resolutions that were put in place to give him a second chance after the first Iraq war. This is documented numerous times in numerous places. When we told him to comply or else he called us and we were not bluffing. This was not the reason sold to the US people at the time and I won't forgive my government for that. I also will not forgive the preemptive strike before our deadline. But upholding the sanctions was a valid reason to attack. The author left out that very huge reason for attacking because it didn't support his point. If one is writing a factual paper then that is poor writing on the authors part.
2007-11-01 23:58:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
For the most part, it is true. People allows the government to think for us, and we never think about what the government is telling us. For instance, Iraq and al-queda. Doesn't anyone remember that Saddam and bin laden hated each other? Bin laden is/was from Saudi, and Iraq and the Saudi's hated each other. Now why would all of a sudden they would start working with each other?
The war was based on lies, and now we have lost a ton of money we could have used for OUR OWN COUNTRY.
2007-11-01 23:24:45 · answer #3 · answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The proposed reasons for the war were a falsehood.
Whether or not the war was the correct path of action (regardless of the fake reasons Bush gave) really hasn't been determined as of yet.
2007-11-02 00:12:39 · answer #4 · answered by CK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree 100%-all the article's points are right on target.
Also the U.S. is heavily in debt and the dollar value is falling.
A new recession is on the way.After Clinton left office the economy was strong-not any more.
All the people who will lose their jobs should all get together and write thank you notes to the Bush family.
Nice work,Dubya.
2007-11-01 22:59:44 · answer #5 · answered by Alion 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I don't agree with the war. We have not been given a coherent answer about why we are there. Nor an honest one. It has kept us from redressing 9/11 and been a waste of lives and resources. The article seems to be correct.
2007-11-01 22:59:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
I agree that Bush made mistakes. I disagree with the label that he is a immoral, unjust, or idiotic person. In truth, I feel he was a misused figurehead made to take the blame for his parties mistakes. Logically, we cannot toss it all on the stuffed pig. I believe that he never personally made anyone accept one action or another. Though he can personally repent for his actions and try to gain the forgiveness of the people, it was the people that got us there.
This was congresses war. Yes, it has been Bush's war for a while now, but its roots were in congress. Congress allowed us to go to war. A president cannot get us there single-handedly which is what some people forget.
I agree that Bush has destroyed our currency's integrity, put a heavy burden on the economy, etc. but I cannot say that our recession is his fault. It is never one person who does everything as nothing is omnipresent. It seems though that Bush is turning the recovery effort around as to bolster support for his party in 2008.
2007-11-01 22:59:47 · answer #7 · answered by Professor Sheed 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
It was limited to Iraq, and only used conventional weapons?
2007-11-01 22:53:40 · answer #8 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was built on lies, which is effecting its support and the crucial early military objectives were either under analyzed or over analyzed, causing the insurgency to grow in strength.
2007-11-01 22:58:31 · answer #9 · answered by huckleberryjoe 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
If you want an honest debate, perhaps you shouldn't have started with an article with such bias?
There are some valid arguments against going into Iraq, and this article hits on some of them.. however it surrounds these with far more lies than truths, far more idiocy than common sense, and far more partisan BS than reality.
2007-11-01 23:17:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 9⤋