|
Let me put it this way- would we be as involved if they sold turnips there instead of oil? This
isn't to say that oil is the only reason, but protecting U.S business there was a major factor. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
They should never be there in the first place for so many reasons.
Primarily, it is none of our business.
Secondly it solves nothing in regard to terrorism (the false reason they gave for going in). We
have handed the Muslim fanatics the moral high ground, how can we now be so outraged by bombings on
our homeland when we have dropped bombs on Iraq. This war is the biggest recruitment drive an
Islamic headcase could wish for if he wants to find more young Muslims to blow themselves up for a
phoney cause.
The cost of our soldiers lives is another major reason why we shouldn't be there.
The financial cost is another reason. How many better ways could that money be spent?
The fact that we are in Afghanistan, a place where I feel we needed to be, means that we have now
spread ourselves too thin. If we had concentrated our efforts on one place the situation in
Afghanistan would be much improved.
Another reason - we have lost a huge amount of respect around the world.
We had no plan, it is easy to steam in and oust Saddam's regime, but they appear to have no idea
where to go from here. You cannot enforce democracy.
If we are there for humanitarian reasons, then why are we not in oil free Zimbabwe?
At least we have got rid of Saddam, but that is a small plus outweighed by all the negatives. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We have no business to be over there. Over 800 billion dollars to fund this war and we are heading
for a depression here. What are we thinking! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I hate to simplistic, but we are there under false pretenses. We were misled and need to get out of
there once they are stable. Since Iraq is now experiencing a budget surplus, now would be a good
time to start withdrawal. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's complex and there are good reasons to go either for or against.
On the one hand it was lies (or misunderstanding of facts) at best which lead us to invade to begin
with. It distracted attention and resources from Afghanistan which was the true place to respond to
9/11. So so many people have died. It's bankrupting us. It just drags on. And the tarnish it
applied to the US image around the world is a shellacking we won't easily wash off with even decades
of good behavior.
On the other hand, it really was a magnet to draw terrorists to fight against us in Iraq instead of
diffusing the fight around the world (not that there haven't been terrorist attacks elsewhere
anyway). And I really do think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. And I can't prove
this but I wouldn't be surprised if somehow we came away with some surplus oil from those oil fields
as well as a new very long-term Middle East region military base stuck out in the Iraqi dessert.
You weigh the two sides and personally I still say we shouldn't have been there to start with, we
did more damage than good, and we've bankrupted ourselves in record time. So: The US should not be
in Iraq. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
The general consensus of the innocent who live their, it is right that Saddam Hussein is no more,
and it is right that the oppressors are kept out. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
For oil? No. For democracy? No. For WMDs? No. For the people? Absolutely.
We should be there simply because the quality of life for the average citizen improved dramatically
as a result of overthrowing Hussein. Also, the part most people tend to forget is that Hussein
wanted to eliminate the Kurds from his country by any means necessary. These means in the past were
bulldozing villages with people still in their houses. Men, women, and even babies were slaughtered
by his ethnic cleansing. For them, we should be there. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
10 Aug 2008 04:17
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
