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

33 answers

ha ha ha HA HA HA HA!
You must be joking.

2007-11-04 13:49:12 · answer #1 · answered by Esther D 4 · 5 3

I believe we did. Since the 1st Iraq war under the Senior President Bush's administration they were under US sanctions to inspected during certain time periods and had different criteria they had to meet. During these times they would have inspections they would escort the inspectors to different areas on their personal time line not the UN time line. Along with this they also gassed 1000's of Kurds in Northern Iraw as a early attempt at genocide. The 80% to 90% US funded UN was not moving fast enough under Kofi Annan to stop these crimes against humanity so the US went to give the Iraqi and Kurdish people piece. While I do not know and cannot prove that Iraq had WMD's and am unsure that there will ever be proof I think we still had a good purpose in going in to suppress Saddam's government for its crimes.

2007-11-04 13:55:08 · answer #2 · answered by Jason M 3 · 2 1

Technically, we were at peace with Iraq. The problems started when Saadam started playing cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors- remember the weapons of mass-destruction that were never found?

2007-11-04 13:50:33 · answer #3 · answered by cattbarf 7 · 4 0

The intent of going into Iraq (you notice I didn't say "invade") was essentially to remove an evil man from power. It wasn't to "control oil" as someone previously stated.

A reasonable person could say that there were enough actions taken prior to entering that country, and enough rebukes / blatant disregard for the international community, human rights, etc., to justify it -- plain and simple.

2007-11-04 13:52:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

2007-11-04 14:04:35 · answer #5 · answered by fraz 4 · 3 1

Suddan Husseim (sp?)was not interested in makeing "Peace". He and his followers only wanted to dominate and torture others. Women were nothing to him and neither were children. Suddan was similar to Hitler . He got what was best for his country in the end. Hideing like a Rat but we found him.

2007-11-04 13:54:27 · answer #6 · answered by Ava 5 · 3 1

The company-line is that we 'invaded Iraq' to GIVE it peace ... I don't get it either.

2007-11-05 09:40:59 · answer #7 · answered by Uncle MythMan 3 · 0 1

Peace with Iraq was never the question. We went after Hussien because we thought it would be easier than going after Osama ben Ladin, real enemy. Iraq was merely a diversion .

2007-11-04 13:57:37 · answer #8 · answered by Just Hazel 6 · 2 2

The war in Iraq isn't about making peace with their country. It was about a dictator who killed thousands of his own country's citizens... just because. He gladly worked with terrorists. The war in Iraq is about freeing a people, a people that were oppressed, tortured and killed at a rate of hundreds & thousands. GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS WHO ARE SERVING OUR COUNTRY THERE AND EVERYWHERE!!!!!!

2007-11-04 13:51:18 · answer #9 · answered by ScoobyDoo2006 2 · 5 2

No. America used all kinds of false information, lies, false satellite photos, fear mongering in order to invade Iraq.

America claimed Iraq was connected with 9/11 when the men on those planes were not from Iraq and no Iraqi citizen ever did harm to a single bit of dust of American soil.

America was using 9/11 was a bloody excuse to invade Iraq, overthrow their leader (who the CIA helped put into power in 1963), and get to their oil.

2007-11-04 13:50:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 6

They violated 17 U.N. resolutions. He wouldn't let our weapons inspectors go everywhere. What else do we need to do?
Now all we have to do is change the "Q's" to "N's" on the bombs and we can turn Iran into a glass parking lot.

2007-11-04 13:50:54 · answer #11 · answered by stratmagic 2 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers