does the Usa attck on iraq is justified?
143097
In one word nopes, definitely NOT. I agree with your views on most of what youve said. I just want to ask George Bush one thing, who made him the judge and the jury? Who gave him the license to 'liberate' countries of their autocratic rulers? If he's so concerned about the world being free and fair, then is he suffering from partial blindness that he cant see Cuba, Zaire, Mozambique and Pakistan? Or is it that these countries aren't rich enough? Plus, he didn't have enough knowledge or respect for the Iraqi sentiments or ethos, and what's happening right now at Iraq - the state of perpetual civil war - is thir own doing. But one thing that I can't figure out, about which I hope you'll enlighten me is that, is the average american stupid? If not, then how come the 'big brother' got re-elected?
930649
so are you arguing that we should stay in Iraq or not?  Because you say you can use sources why we should stay, BUT you are against withdrawal.  those are the same things.
533799
The US, of course. We had a purpose in 1945, when several of our men were killed by the Japanese Imperial Army. But to defend ruthless murder, like the bombing of an innocent Iraq, is bullsh*t. I refuse to justify Vietnam, Iraq, or other times that we have slaughtered women and children. I refuse to glorify the murder of children abroad and at home, let alone the many other twisted truths about are US. But don't blame the country, blame the ringmasters that ARE leading us to hell. Thank the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon and several other bastards that contributed to the blood that lies on our hands and the hate that is blown to us by millions. As far as I am concerned, anyone who defends the actions of the Conservative Horsemen may as well wish death on the US, democracy, and the world.\n\nAs for the war in Iraq, why the hell would anyone claim that as an excuse of the greatness of the American Forces. How many other countries are killing their own citizens? What have we done in Korea? To Osama Bin Laden? In Louisiana? What about poverty? Drugs? The defecit of the United States? To defend the murderers of our country is to spit in the face of Lady Liberty, to piss on the graves of Harry Trumam and John F. Kennedy, who actually helped to save the United States, and to congratulate and bow to the feet of Satan himself.
769129
Are you asking a question or are you preaching?  The discourse above sounds more like a sermon than a question.\n\nAt one point the US did support Iraq, and Saddam (when they were fighting Iran).  However they were never allies of ours.  The relation ship we had with them was more an "enemy of my enemy" thing.\n\nI doubt seriously that Israel ever trained the Taliban, much less in Pakistan.\n\nI am skeptical about the US "giving $6 billion to Al Qaeda,"  unless you are referring to indirectly through the purchase of oil.\n\nAs for the rest, it seems that it is the sermon part.
629197
It depends on what you mean about support.\n\nI think, in retrospect, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.  It has taken away too much political capital that would be better spent stopping what it turns out may be the real threat of the Middle East... Iran.\n\nI still believe in the best values of the US and what it stands for but I think the current administration has led us down a path that I have greater and greater difficulty supporting.\n\nDoes that make me unpatriotic?  I hope not.
247478
We fought in Afghanistan to capture Osama and friends. That was a justifiable reaction to 9-11.\nThe Iraq war was not then and is not now justifiable.\n\nI should add that the UN resolution did not authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq. Note this from a most conservative analyst, David Pyne, writing in "The American Partisan" before the war: \n"On Nov. 8, under heavy pressure from the United States, the UN Security Council passed a new resolution against Iraq mandating that it disarm itself of any remaining WMD capabilities or face 'serious consequences.' However, many of the nations that agreed to the new resolution were quick to point out that the resolution did not give the US authority to attack Iraq. The US has stated in response that it would use the resolution as authority to invade Iraq if it became evident that Iraq had failed to comply with the will of the United Nations. Iraq has since accepted the new UN resolution and agreed to allow inspectors to resume their inspections without conditions."\n\nSurely people can do better than this to justify the war! Inspections were being allowed, and inspectors publicly stated they found no WMDs, but of course we scoffed at their conclusions and unilaterally interpreted "serious consequences" as giving us the right to invade.
135224
Personally, no war can be considered justified. Common citizens of rival countries usually don't have any real reason to kill each other. Their governments make them think there is a reason.
689846
That's good satire. \nOne need only look at Iraq and what the US has done there, to have a quiet chuckle reading this question. Never mind that the question doesn't warrant a serious reply.
857477
I would love to say yes it is. But we can't leave now with the mess Iraq is in. I don't think we should have ever gone over there, we did. We can't leave them with this Chaos,  they have nothing in place to deal with any of this violence.We have to finish what we started. If we leave now, it only makes us look worse than we already look. I think it will be a long time before our troops can come home, unfortunately.
920675
USA face the reality when called the exestance of USA army in Iraq  by OCUPATION not( librate army take authnefication from  the  national security cauncel  or united nation  and the Iraq goverment doll ) at this moment situation will be better
959569
If you want the true answer to this, check out this recent poll by Bin Laden's favorite network, Aljazeera.  When asked, "Is Iraq right to extend the presence of the US forces for another year?", 59% said "No".  When asked, "Should the US 'cut and run' from Iraq?", 63% answered "Yes."  I don't think there is any debate as to which party supports these goals.
121580
Not a good syllogism.  Yes the US IS guilty of warcrimes. Yes the war was totally under false pretenses and yes the Iraqis are not better off today.  HOWEVER, in my wildest dreams I can not vusualize how Humpty Dumpty could be put back together. \n\nwe are kind of stuck with this Kubuki Theater and for good or ill, ( I think ill ) , its slowly, inexorably moving forward.\n\nHowerver the US has no legitimacy in this dog and kangroo court show.
157452
I think liberals have a valid point when they say that we have alienated some countries over Iraq, but most of those countries weren't really lining up to help us anyway. The prevailing attitude that you see with many liberals is that America's foreign policies are to blame for 9/11 and other terror attacks, and this is simply not true. The terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were the same terrorist who attacked America several times during the Clinton administration, when Clinton went out of his way to be "the good guy" towards the islamic world. Foreign policy is not to blame. The terrorists simply hate the Israelis, and therefore, we are guilty by association.
175004
Look at the long-term involvement of the US in Iraq.  Was it ever justified?  Did it ever make sense?  If you marry a psychopath, do you expect them to be loving, kind, and gentle?  Stupid past policies of the last few decades got the US to where it is today.  I'm STILL shocked that people think Regan was a great president.  You think the Iran-Contra scandal made Iraqis happy??  Selling weapons to their worst enemies?!\n\nAmerica has a knack for forgetting how stupid it was in the past.  Now you wonder why we are paying so much (via lost economic vitality).  Well, it's called paying for past stupidity.  Coming next: who will pay for the lie called "trickle down theory?"  Right now, the wealth is not trickling, but rushing to those in the know to invest in arms stocks in the 1990s (including the Saudis, Bin Ladens, and China).  Meanwhile, the rest of us Americans must be either ignorant, complacent, or disempowered.\n\nAnd yet, someone was stuck with breaking the political, economic, and military destructive stalemate of sanctions against Iraq from 15 years ago.  It was a lousy reason for a war.  Oil for FOOD?  Hello!  That's not exactly fair trade - that's raping an economy.  Someone had to take responsibility for putting Saddam Hussein in power... Who could it be, hmmm??  The GREAT SATAN?  Well, ok, maybe that's not us, but maybe you should get a grip on how someone else can say that.  How else do you describe someone that would arm Iraq with chemical weapons and sell Iran M-16s when they are at war with one another?\n\nSo, WMDs?  Bullshit.  The US was totally ok with it in the 1980s.  The greatest problem with the Saddam trial is the US government is probably too afraid to declassify the incriminating files that point to our government, yet prove - via US involvment - that he had WMDs.\n\nDon't forget: this is the same government that in turns practiced or turned a blind eye to genocide of Native Americans.  The US is not so morally special.\n\nLast, but not least, determining the morals of other countries for them is defacto imperialism.  We are Pax Romana.  We are Hail Britannia.  And like every other brainless empire that marginalizes those ruled abroad, we must inevitably fail.\n\nFreedom is a matter of personal responsibility.  You can't have someone else come in and do it for you.  That's not freedom.  That's trading one set of shackles for another.  Maybe the new ones will have a fuzzy trim, but they are still shackles.\n\nWithdraw?  Well, Bush is honest about that at least.  We dove head-first into a slurry pit.  You can't then turn around and pretend like it didn't happen.  Nobody would be fooled.  The opportunity to stop the war was 6 years ago and America blew it then and did again in 2004.  We screw it up again and again when we forget to demand investigations into how our national security was bungled because it isn't as fun and entertaining as a sex scandal.  I'm not sure how many Americans DIED because of that sex scandal.  I hope not as many as died in Iraq.  Nothing is more disrespectful to our troops as saying that ML was more of a disaster than the Iraq situation.\n\nBottom line: It's not about supporting our troops or having patriotism.  You can do those things AND hate this war.
53825
No way. The G.W. Bush administration is commiting a crime. And that does not end in Iraq, it continues in Guantanamo Bay and with the continuation of the death penalty against its own citizens. Only hypocrites can believe that this is morally and justly correct.
491731
I hear your comment, but not even the 3000 thousand that died in the towers equals the deaths from the American military. No death is valid as far as I am concerned. I really believe that America doesn't have the real story. An attack is a valid reason to sign a "Declaration of War," but the Bush Administration doesn't have one. I am concerned about this, as to it doesn't make any sense. Going into Iraq was unwarranted, and once again no "Declaration of War" was signed. This makes America appear to be just as much of a terrorist nation as the attackers. It's not proper etiquette to our Democracy and policies. The Republicans don't believe in Democracy, it is a Republic type of Government that America is being ruled by at the present. I don't agree with these types of policies and the rest of the World is also appalled by the Bush Administrations actions. All of this could lead to a larger Global War I am afraid. I say voting the Republicans out of office in November is Americas only choice at this point. I don't want to die for a small group of red-necks that stir up problems, and wont play a part in the military. My personal feelings that's all.
1010801
The “just war” doctrine requires rigorous consideration to determine if defense by military force is legitimate. Offensive war is never justified. \n\nAll the following considerations must be true to justify war:\n1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;\n2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;\n3. There must be serious prospects of success;\n4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. \n\nIt has been argued the pre-war Iraq:\n1. Was not inflicting lasting, grave and certain damage to the United States;\n2. Could have been influenced by diplomatic and international sanctions.\n\nIt is argued now that:\n3. There is not a serious prospect of success;\n4. The use of arms has produced evils and disorders greater than the evil eliminated.\n\nWith love in Christ.