Why do you support the war in Iraq?

Question

Even in the face of lies, evidence supporting the foundation of rich contractors being awarded cost plus contracts, and having a military presence in the Middle East, why do people continue to support the war? Please give detailed reasons, not defamatory responses. Thanks!

Funny thing some of the responses. How do I not support the troops? (Just FYI, I come from a very, very extensive army family, and navy family... probably far more so than yours.) Being against conflict and supporting the troops do not conflict. You can be against the war, and still support the troops... obviously if you disagree you may want to have your brain checked out for ignorance. Check the BBC and other worldwide news agencies, or the NY Times. There are plenty of other news sources that have extensively covered these large pork projects in Iraq. And is it our job to tell these people how to live? Is it our job to go to every country and "liberate" them? As far as I am concerned, I care about America. Putting troops in another country for occupation is wrong... listen to our founding fathers..."self - defense" not for propagating an agenda. Thank you everyone for your responses.

Also, last response: in response to the "crazy muslims argument or the islamo-fascist ideas." I don't disagree... they are insane. On the other hand, there are Christians and Jews just as insane. And yes they have killed. Prime examples: Spanish inquisition, crusades, palestine, Gaza (more in self defense in some aspects), christians killing muslims in Bosnia, the IRA in Ireland killing and targeting civilians....There are terrorists.. but my belief is that they use terrorists as a tool for the military industrial complex which Eisenhower warned us against. See, if you fight "terrorists" and not a single group, the list goes on and on. I'm not here to change minds, but to at least make people think beyond what pundits, news talk radio hosts, and politicians tell them. There's always a flip side to the coin!

Answer 1

I support it because I know more about it than you, the New York Times and the BBC put together. Just because your family has served does not mean anything about you. I have soldiers who are first generation military. That says a lot more for them than family members who have served says for you.

Answer 2

I believe that these terrorists are on a mission to impose their will on the world. It won't just stop with America, Great Britain, Isreal, or Micronesia. It will go until they have coerced every country in the world that their way is the true way.
I support anyone that brings war to the doorstep of militants, terrorists, or radicals that have no regard for human life. That will willfully kill innocent men, women and children to further their cause. Cut off the heads of non-combatants and show it on the internet in all its bloody detail? Killing over 3 thousand civilians by crashing planes into buildings? These people aren't human. They are animals. You don't murder mad, rabid animals. You kill them. They are mad, rabid animals with such an intense hate for anyone not believing their way, they are willing to kill themselves for it. The closest thing we have come to something like this is the Japanese during World War II. At least their suicides were directed at military targets.
Forget about the lies. There are lies in every war. Did you ever hear the quote: "The first casualty of war is the truth"? And of course the big corporations are going to get richer. And regardless of war or peace, contracts are often given as repayment for favors.

Answer 3

I support the killing of terrorist and Iraq and Afghanistan appear to be good places to do that.

The only others places that might be even better would be in Syria and Iran. If we decide to go there I'd support that as well.

If I was really worried about the Rich getting Richer. I'd concentrate on getting our troops out of Germany and Japan. I don't think we need to be pouring our tax dollars into those economies.

As for contractors like Haliburton, I'd rather see them get the military contracts than their French (terrorist allies) competitor Slumberger.

Answer 4

The reasons for war have shifted over time as the lies were revealed. Originally we went to war because Saddam Hussein supposedly funded and housed terrorists, including strong ties to Al-Qaeda. We went because he had active weapons programs and already had developed WMDs that he was ready to use on American targets; possibly through these terrorist groups. We went because he repeatedly violated cease fire agreements and denied access to UN inspectors. As all of these things were revealed as complete lies, new reasons were needed.

Now the thought is that if we "cut and run", then instead of a chance at democracy, Iraq could become a terrorist state. Then instead of liberating the Iraqi people, we will have spawned an entirely new threat to the American way of life. They will "follow us home" and cause a greater loss of American life than war combat ever could have.

Don't believe a word of it.

Answer 5

When the U.S. went into Iraq a few years ago, I'd been hearing for years about Saddam Hussein and the danger he posed... from both Republicans and Democrats. Among other things, he was not considered to be abiding by the terms of the cease fire and he had attempted to have a former U.S. head of state assassinated.

Fast forward to now. We're there. Yeah, we messed up in the immediate aftermath of the Iraqi government's downfall. I think we have a moral obligation to help them reestablish security until and unless it is COMPLETELY certain that this is not a feasible goal.


PS - I think it's a bit disingenuous of you to ask for no "defamatory responses", considering the inflammatory rhetoric in your question.

Answer 6

Because under the new politically correct world we live in, we can not sit by and watch human rights violations of such gross nature (the killing of Iraqis in the 80s and 90s by there leader) go undealt with. And, as a world superpower, most people and countries look to the US to be the world police. I don't always agree with getting involved in other countries problems but terrorism is a problem that can not be ignored.Yes, Saddam was a terrorist. he may not have terrorized us but he did terrorize his own people and other countries.
I wish this war would end soon myself, but that is because i am a single parent serving in the military, but i will continue to support my fellow soldiers as long as we are told to be there.

Answer 7

A drawback would just be extremely complicated. It would mean a complete fall of their democratic system and terrorism will strive and flourish there, only to come back to the US again, but more powerful this time.

Answer 8

Because radical Islam hangs gay people, they sentence victims of rape to 200 lashes and crowds of them chant for the death sentence of a teacher who named a teddy bear muhammad. Now I realize these are not incidents in Iraq, but the people fighting us in Iraq are followers of these and similar types of rules or followings. We do not want them to take over control of Iraq. It is important to us here in the Uniteed States this kind of "shari" law not be propogated to other nations (like Iraq).

Answer 9

I doubt it. But they lived in yet another time. Overall, they had been towards going to battle with different nations in any respect. All in their setups for presidency had been beautiful set towards us going to battle besides as an excessively final motel. Most in their writings and ideas all lead again to at least one important suggestion--permit others manage their possess trade and we manage ours. But that was once earlier than we grew to be a main worldpower, and relatively the one superpower left. Being best of the sport continuously brings with it a giant goal for your again and a greater one for your brow . Others desire your spot, and to get it they have got to push you out. So different nations desire America's spot, and to get it they will have got to push us out. To be sincere, I consider the Founding Fathers might be alternatively unsatisfied that we ever made it to the highest spot. We did so through coming into into World War II. We acquired caught in WW2 given that Japan attacked us. But Japan attacked us given that we had been threatening their exchange through interfering of their markets. They knew we might assault them in the event that they interfered with our percentage in that marketplace, in order that they attacked first. The Founding Fathers more often than not might no longer have favored us messing with their exchange. Then we might by no means had been attacked in WW2; we might haven't any justification for coming into into the battle--and the general public was once towards it till Pearl Harbor; and we might by no means have made it to the quantity a million nation on the planet. So we might no longer be one of these first-rate goal for the terrorists now. They might by no means have attacked us on nine/eleven, and Bush might haven't any justification (or alternatively fabricated justifications) for going into Iraq. If the Founding Fathers had been alive in these days, our global might be so much specific to begin with.

Answer 10

Domination.