ppl are on both sides of this issue. some believe tht it is nesasarry because we need to fight for what we believe in.....but others believe that its unnecasary because we are invading their land with bigger and more powerful weapons. what do you think? necasary? not? tell me. =)
2007-11-09 09:52:08 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If you are not selfish...
If you do not think that only people in the US have the right to govern themselves...
If you really live in the 21st century where the world is a small place and realize that half way around the world is only a few hours travel
If you realize that in a world culture, no one person has the right to dictate... that no minority has the right to govern a people
If you would stop and help somebody in need of help... even if they didn't ask... or were incapable of asking
Then, Necessary.
Otherwise, of course, unnecessary.
The weapons are of no consequence.
We are not "invading" Iraq. We (1) Deposed an insanely violent dictator, (2) Attempted, in the face of terrorist opposition, secured a free election in which the Iraqi people were, for the first time in centuries, able to have a voice in their own government, (3) Are in the process of preparing the Iraqi people (Army and Police) to protect themselves and to fight their own battles, (4) Are attempting to rebuild the infrastructure faster than the insurgents can destroy it. When that's done, we want to get the heck out of there.
On the other hand, the insurgents, many of whom are not Iraqi, want (1) to become the next insane dictatorial government, (2) made every effort to prevent the Iraqi people from having a voice in their own self government, (3) are targeting, along with non-combatants, Iraqi Army and Police centers in an attempt to prevent their ever protecting themselves, (4) are destroying everything they can to prevent successful rebuilding of the infrastructure. Then, when we finally leave, if the Iraqi people cannot defend themselves, they will come crawling out of the woodwork and take over the government and effectively occupy Iraq.
2007-11-09 10:27:06 · answer #1 · answered by gugliamo00 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The fact that the overwhelming majority of people who are actually FIGHTING in this war are for it should tell you something.
Guess it comes down to whether you want to learn about the war from those who have fought in it... or from those who have sat safe at home this entire time and have neither lifted a finger to contribute, nor have been inconvenienced by it in any way.
EDIT: Erudite is a well-known troll in the Military forum, and has never had any positive input to give, much less offered any solutions. No one ever said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11, numbnuts. Iraq may not have been a direct threat to the U.S., but they have been before, and were a constant threat to all of their neighbors, some of which are our allies.
2007-11-09 09:55:50 · answer #2 · answered by ಠ__ಠ 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, the war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction nor did Iraq cause 9/11. This war has caused US deaths of our soldiers and innocent children and civilians. The endless spending on this war has caused a huge deficit that will take decades to replenish.
2007-11-09 15:42:29 · answer #3 · answered by yourmtgbanker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If for nothing else it was necessary to stop 100,000s of people currently in mass graves and who knows how many more if saddam were still in power. How can there be peace in the world when humans sit back and watch other humans being slaughtered? All this does is re-enforce violent behavior that leads to more violence. The world should use overwhelming force to protect base human rights. This would bring about peace because dictators know if they resort to force they will no longer be in power so they will operate more humanly or not at all. If your family and society were being slaughtered wouldn't you hope someone would help?
The same people calling for us to get out of Iraq are the same ones that want us in Darfur. To do what? Stop the mass killings similar to the ones that were occurring in Iraq?
2007-11-09 10:04:53 · answer #4 · answered by A Person 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Questions like this make me wonder what would have happened if the french government would have thought they should keep out of the war in North America. After all it wasn't their war, and those colonists who were fighting against England were no threat to them.
Would we be the United States today? Would the world ever have learned what true freedom was?
Yet today we have many who would snatch away the chance for 25 million Iraqis to be free.
And even with indicators that we are actually making progress in Iraq there are those who still insist that we surrender...
Sorry but freedom is always worth it.
2007-11-09 10:01:05 · answer #5 · answered by SFC_Ollie 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That part of the world is very unstable. We need more country in that area on our side. Beside that fact that we are also freed them from oppression and persecution from the tyrant. So the war is very necessary.
2007-11-09 10:06:49 · answer #6 · answered by Kenny 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, Iraq did not do 9-11 and was no threat to the USA. The Iraq war is wrong. The USA will go down in abject defeat like Vietnam.
2007-11-09 09:58:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
No,the war is depleting our resources and is killing our soldiers in large numbers.We must pull out and show that country the full power of our Super nation.We should end this worthless war once and for all.
2007-11-09 10:13:18 · answer #8 · answered by ASA 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I didnt know we were fighting in Iraqe. ANYHOW
Yes it was necessary.
2007-11-09 10:01:23 · answer #9 · answered by frederick t 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It was not necessary. Iraq was not a threat to us and Iraqis are capable of working their own problems out for themselves.
But, now that we did it there is no easy way out.
2007-11-09 09:56:34 · answer #10 · answered by anonacoup 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋