I don't believe the whole weapons of mass destruction that was bull. But many people living in Iraq liked Saddam and the country was better before being invaded. But also imagine if a bigger country ( I know there are none but lets pretend) invaded you tried to kill your leader and knocked down all infrastructure involving him. I think America should have been punished!
Military - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
We absolutely did. Although no WMDs were found, there was plenty of evidence showing biological and chemical weapons had been perused. Most military personnel believe they were flown via passenger jet to Syria and/or smuggled into Iran.
2 :
no there was no reason but that being said the world is better off without Saddam
3 :
you are just asking about america, or the 8 other countries that went in with us? on a side note, right or wrong, Sadam and his administration were mass murderers of innocent people, citizens of Iraq. Its hilarious to me how many people forget the thousands and thousands of people he killed........ some would call it genocide, yet because they have it in for the "Americans" cant see past that, so whilst good did come out of Sadam being over thrown, its negated by hatred for America. Now, no WMDs were found,,,,, yet its funny to me that the same person who didnt possess WMDs attempted to start a holy war by launching scud missiles into Israel.........
4 :
oh please this is bull do you seriously believe its America's fault that Iraq is how it is. please it is not just the united states but other countries that have problems with that country. there was going to be chaos one day or another.
5 :
Oh yeah...the country was MUCH better if you were one of the 5% of Sunnis who supported and worked for the regime. For everyone else it was lethal. Little history for you ignorant one... 1. Saddam invaded, occupied and terrorized Kuwait in August 1990 2. He was told to leave by the UN 3. he refused 4. The UN authorized the use of force to remove him 5. The coalition removed him in 100 hours (Desert Storm) 6. The UN negotiated a cease fire (NOT a peace treaty) which obligated him to surrender all WMDs and comply with 22 other mandates in return for a cease in hostilities. 7. Throughout the 90s he refused to comply with 19 of the 22 UN Mandates that AUTHORIZED continued military action for failure to comply under the 1991 cease fire agreement. 8. The UN and US Clinton Administration pussy footed with him all throughout the 90s allowing him to rearm and grow more bold. 9. The US lead coalition removed him from power in agreement with the 1991 resolutions for failure to comply (even though Bush gave him 8 freaking months to do so) So...what YOu should be asking is WHY did the UN and Clinton Administartion FAIL time and again to enforce their own freaking resolutions for over 10 years? You should read a little history. Will keep you from looking so stupid.
6 :
You forget that America, UK, Australia and 5 other nations that went with us in Iraq so might as well punished them. Facts: Gulf war 1 ended in a ceasefire agreement. Under a ceasefire, a war may be legally resume to whatever REASON one-side or another. As part of that agreement, 22 resolutions passed by the United Nations stating if Saddam broke these resolutions then that would allow continual military action against Saddam Hussein's Iraq Regime. Saddam broke 19 out of the 22 of those for a decade. Making it legitimate to attack him anytime UN wanted. However despite this, UN did nothing about it until 9/11 happened. Saddam has used WMDs in the past against his people and his neighbors. Remember he used chemical gases on the Kurds in 1988? that's true. After 9/11, every Intel like Canada, Spain, Germany, UK, Italy and around the planet was saying Saddam was building new WMDs. Bush Jr got approval from UN and Congress in authorization to go to war against Iraq. Along with 18 UN resolutions Saddam broke, that's why US-led forces went to Iraq in 2003. However we never found any new WMDs. Why? Because Saddam actually faked his WMDs for a decade because he did this in order to scare Iran. Plus the Iraq's oil managed by Haliburton always goes to the benefits of the Iraqi people. Besides our oil prices is still very high and it's not lowered yet. As for George Bush adimitted he doesn't have any WMDs, he actually use a civilians understanding, not actaully what they are. Many civilians around the world still believes that WMDs refer to nukes. @Sharp you're a bit off. We found WMDs but we haven't found nukes. However we manage to find WMDs. Just not in a massive stockpiles. Old or not Saddam was supposed to destroy them according to the 1991 ceasefire agreement but he didn't. Anyone who still believe iraq doesn't have WMDs, here u go. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/technical_documents/s-2006-701-munitions.pdf 500 chemical munitions, 250 yellow cakes, and 453 biological weapons are yet to be found. They are considered WMDs. Wellow cakes is uranium that can be processed to create uranium rods for nuclear reactors or made into highly-enriched uranium which can be used to create nuclear bombs. Chemical munitions are basically used to kill a large amount of people, with a small amount of weaponry. Mustard gas are left in a smallish can and put to the side. When it's opened, the vapors will be breathed in by many people, who may not suffer any immediate effects, but within a couple days can either become blind, suffer severe nerve damage and most likely will die. They are WMDs and Saddam even used some of it's against our troops during the 2003 iraq invasion. If it's not WMDs, then tell me what they are. Plus we also found and exported to Canada 350 tons of Yellow Cake Uranium in order to pay their effort to Iraq. It was on a Canadian news and newspaper but you may have missed that news blast. Wikileaks confirmed this as well but you can just well. Google up "Wikileaks saying WMDs are found in Iraq". There are tons of them on the net if you bother to look it up.
7 :
What garbage. Iraq invaded Kuwait. We defended Kuwait at Kuwait's request. We kept asking Iraq to stop. They refused. We fought them back to the capitol. Saddam asked for a cease fire. We gave it. UN asked to step in. We gave it. TEN YEARS OF GARBAGE from Saddam and Iraq. Ten years of the UN being treated like fools by them. Finally, the USA gets attacked by Afghanistan, and we have a choice: Fight a two-front war, or end one where our troops are already on the ground and ready. We ended the cease-fire (not that Iraq hadn't repeatedly broken it for ten years) and ended the war. There was only ONE Iraq War, not two. Thank you for letting us know you take NO responsibility for the actions of Iraq in this issue. It is VERY revealing to all of us. Folks, free speech is a wonderful thing. It is very educational. Let them speak up. It's their right. It's to our benefit.
8 :
so much ignorance.....makes me sick.
9 :
it all depends on a persons' definition of "right". Did US have the right to invade Iraq in my opinion? Somewhat yes we did have the right. His actions threatened the dollar as the international currency (Many Economist agree this wouldn't have been good on the world economy).Saying Iraq was a better place is based on the opinion of those in Iraq. Saddam was a tyrant, and Iraq was not prospering if your not counting Saddam's personal deep pockets. The only thing Iraq has problems with now that it wasn't full of is terrorists. The terrorist feared Saddam and knew there was absolutely no mercy if they were caught. The fact that US practices the Rules of Engagement that the UN has set up, they are more able to get away with what they are doing. Saddam even intentionally poured oil into the water and was trying his best to change oil currency sells into Euros. This would have caused a great economic problem. Everyone is fixed on the idea that US invaded for oil and WMD's and forgot what Saddam was attempting to do. Considering US still buys oil and don't get it free, this is a false accusation that Europeans like to use on the Second War of Iraq. US is already suffering from its aggressive stance in the Mideast countries. The Mideast has always been and probably will aways be an unstable region due to the amount of people using religion as a basis for war. Majority of the Iraq people hated Saddam, but they regret him being gone due to the fact their security forces is incompetent at this period of time and that is the ONLY reason they regret it. We gave Saddam so many chances though, and don't forget it was only a ceasefire agreement that held us back from attacking them earlier. As for you hypothetical statement. If some tyrant was ruling my country and was doing horrible, I would be obliged for some other country to take him out knocking down infrastructure involving the person would be a bonus. One must realize in order to obtain success, they must first experience failures. This will be the case with Iraq; they not going to easily adapt to their new government, same as US. The US had to go through many issues to finally come up with the government it has now.
Read more discussions :
