ANSWERS: 11
  • absolute BS
  • Have you been in a coma? We have a new President and everything!
  • My my now we do not need to worry about that as obama is sending all the troops to Afghanistan
  • It was a wrong-headed, illegal war of aggression sold to the American people with a pack of lies orchestrated mainly by Cheney, Rumsfeld and their minions. I hope they are held criminally responsible for the needless deaths they caused on both sides.
  • A super, colossal, gigantic mistake. It even hurt the war against terrorism, because they should have concentrated their effort in Afghanistan in order to destroy the terrorists and their training camps...but the effort was diluted while invading a country that had nothing to do with the real problem: The Muslim fundamentalists that were operating outside of Iraq.
  • War makes lots of money for Halliburton.
  • There was no "case". They invented one. 1) Find WMDs. If you don't find em, make up stories about "aluminium tubes" and "yellowcake" 2) Find links between Al-Qaeda and Saddum. If there aren't any, make up stories about "secret meetings in Prague". 3) Find evidence that Iraq is preparing an attack on America. If there is none, just take some propaganda out of Joseph Goebbels' book and rename it the "Bush Doctrine".
  • There was no case -- George Walker Bush administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality. There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon. But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in itself, constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent, and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed that act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons. Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received weapons from the United States. Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of mass destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war. A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sepember 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil. A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations.
  • No case at all.
  • They used Clinton's intelligence just another Clinton lie.
  • A poorly veiled attempt to finish off what daddy wasn't allowed to.

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy