Do you think there was enough reasons to start the  war/ conflict in IRAQ?
374349
No. I think that this is something personal for Bush. It's a "I'm President now and I'm gonna get you back for trying to kill my dad" type thing. Also, we all know that there is plenty of oil over there. Well what is Bush's family biz? You guessed it, OIL. We did what we set out to do over there. We got Saddam out of power and we should've helped, not take over. I'm not a very political person , but this whole conflict and the deaths of so many people just makes me and I know alot of you wonder what is really going on
355975
No, It wasn't Clinton's idea.\n\nThe first war with Iraq was @ 1990-1991 - BEFORE Clinton. Thanks, Daddy Bush.\n\nClinton tried to kill Bin-Laden with a Cruise Missile Strike During the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Many people (including myself) thought it was a cheap tactic to get the attention off of the president. Perhaps if a third cruise missile was launched, 9/11 might not have happened...\n\nBush CONVINCED us that Iraq had WMD and ties to Al Queda within it's borders, and used our patriotism to get congress to sign off on a war with Iraq.
593642
There is good article on the BBC website that gives two views on the future in Iraq.\n\nIt summarises both sides of the argument.
316210
This is kind of a wierd wording.  Any person with an ounce of compassion will say "I would like the war never to have begun."  I think it should have ended long ago.  In fact if you want to get into it that deeply, I don't think it should haev begun in the first place.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Saddam is out of power and I totally support our troops.  They are over there precisely so I can complain about them being over there all I want.  I think the US has gone a little far though.  Maybe it's just that the governments goal are not being successfully conveyed to the public through the media.  I don't really know.  I disagree with the war, but I see no real way to end it.\n\nSimply put, the war in Iraq should have already been ended.
791956
I'd say one of the most pressing issues would include the US occupation of Iraq.  I'm sure you can find lots of historical data and speculations about the future conclusion.
823863
I truly do not know how to answer this question in full. I, personally, am not particularly fond of war, and yet it is a fact that it happens. So, then, what to think and do about it?\n\nJust for example, it would appear that Allied retaliation to the Axis during World War II was justified war. Germany was attempting to take over Europe and parts of Eurasia and spread its hate-centered, anti-Jewish zeitgeist all over the place. It would seem to me that the desire to exterminate an entire people based upon their bloodline--i.e., the Jews in this case--is evil and should be stopped. While there were many other motives involved in that war--Germany's wish for power and resources--it was the anti-Semitism that was most abhorrent, and thereby justified cause for war.\n\nFast-forward to the modern-day war waged between the U.S. and Iraq. The declaration insists that this is about terrorism and tyranny.  But we all know that Hussein was not directly allied with Al-Qaeda, even if he had certain affections for them. That is, Iraq was not the cause for the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11/01...and yet many Americans were led to believe that it was. So the reasoning for the war got changed from anti-terrorism to pro-democracy...which is, in this one case, insufficient cause to go to war. Iraqis--many, at least--did not ask the U.S. for help in liberating itself, and so the U.S. is attempting to force its system of government onto a foreign land when many in that land are opposed to it. So the question of evil is confused here. If many Iraqis had been pleading for the U.S. to help them, that would be another story. If the U.S. just sees that others are oppressed, or whatever, and rides in on the white horses in an attempt to bring liberation, this seems unjustifiable.\n\nGood and evil are not in the eye of the beholder, I don't think. But I do think that "good" and "evil" are ill-defined for political purposes a lot of the time, and that many are led to believe certain others are evil so as a state-sponsored war can be waged...when the true motives for that war are undisclosed to the very people supporting it.\n\nBut to give a clear and simple answer to your bigger question, "What's to say what's good and what's evil?"...God is to say what is good and what is evil. It is just a question of whether the people waging and fighting war have sought God's will and guidance before engaging their military machines. And we all know that more naive minds can be manipulated into believing that a war is God's will when really it is the mere will of people who are seeking access to natural resources, strongholds in unstable regions, land, power, and glory.
557849
there has to be war sometime. but i do not like it at all. i think that we can settle things with communication and agreement. i think that the war in iraq is because the president is not thinking about how to solve it without war. he says he is a christian but we do not believe in violence. \n                          -peace child
419350
The only reason that anyone is interested in peace in the middle east is because of oil. The Iraq-Kuwait war was started because of oil. \nSo to answer your question 95%. If Iraq and Kuwait didn't have oil then no one would give a rat's ass. \nJust because it is about oil doesn't make it a bad thing. If the would's oil production is cut off the reults may be 10 times worse than the war in Iraq.
1018754
Badly, very badly.\n\nAll three sides, the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites will fight like dogs, and eventually the United States will not be able to stop it. Those Iraqi troops we trained will also come back to haunt us too. This is a bad situation, and all the weapons in the US arsenal will not be able to solve it.\n\nOn the upside, I think it would have happened one way or the other, contrary to liberal public opinion....sad situation, time for us to leave!
412719
The War was not "Legal", if any war could be justified in Law. Saddam was an Evil Dictator, but there are plenty of those in the World, some of the Allied to the USA (Hello Saudi Arabia!) There were no WMD's, but Loads of Oil, and no one seemed to have a clue what to do After we got rid of old Saddam. I think the Western powers did all they could to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but I also believe that the USA and Britain went to war to secure a strategic resource, and for no other reason. 9/1 had nothing to do with Iraq, and that is a given. I think depending on the outcome History will judge the war as a naked show of aggression against a foreign power, with good or bad results. We will see.
251358
no it is not justified..the only reson we ewnt to war in the first place was for oil. and i think everyone knows that. This is wat war is all about, thorughout history form ww1 war was about natural resources liek oil. defiantely not justified
919281
Yes.  And there are too many reasons to list.  But a few of them are.....free medical care, free education, and no taxes for illegal aliens; welfare for deadbeats; and years and years of handouts to other countries who never paid us back.  Too many people use the war in Iraq as a reason, but that comes out of the defense funds which were already there.
679894
I would say yes.\nwe were losing, and we had to win at all cost. I say the ends justify the means.\nand we had to win decisively, we had to establish ourselves as the superpower so no one would try that crap again.\nand above all, it was not just some war fought over politics. we were up against murderers and racists and people who wanted to destroy the world. people like that must be stopped, even if it means killing them to make them stop.
990359
well, I certainly don,t.   I do believe that oil was one of the primary  reasons,  but perhaps not the most important one.  as early as 1999, when  dumbya was being touted for candidacy,  he told his biographer  that Reagan had advised him that if he ever became president,  to pick a country,   that would be a sure win.  he chose iraq because it was one of his daddy's biggest mistakes.  when hb1 first installed saddam , then gave him billions  of dollars and weapons.  (Where do you think iraq got all those weapons they used in the Iraq-Iran war?)  so,  major reasons were  to get his ratings up,  get the country behind him, get control of the oil,  and fatten lots of pockets  with war contracts.\nof course, most of the biggest and fattest contracts went to  a company called halliburton, formerly chaired by tricky dicky cheney.\none could go on and on, and many books have been written on the subject, and many more wll, in years to come.
365170
A very bad idea as follows:\n\n1) No connection of Iraq to Al Quaeda and no wmd's therefore Iraq was not a national threat.\n\n2) Bush did not have UN inspectors finish the job and did not follow the resolution agreement.\n\n3) First U.S. war that we attacked a country before being attacked. Lost a lot of our credibility with our allies.\n\n4) Financially crippling to the United States. Tried to do war on the cheap, under manned and under equipped with no exit strategy. Continue with tax cuts and no draft even though the war is costing billions of dollars. This is the second war the U.S. has not raised taxes, the first was Vietnam (at least that had a draft).\n\n5) Outsourced to "Private Companies" support logistics, security and intelligence gathering which resulted in no bid contracts and the torture scandals. \n\nHaving said all of this, the only good this war can bring is the ousting of a dictator and a theocracy (democracy in this region of the world would imply woman were equal and religion stayed out of politics).
733247
Tough question considering that they war on terror is not technically supposed to be a war against any certain nation yet we focus on the middle east and its extremist religions. The Iraqi forces are having trouble organizing because of the sectarian nature of the population. This seems to me like it would provide a great and easy avenue for the organized entrance into our nation of small coordinated covert extremist terrorist groups. I hate to say it.
724969
I'm leaning in this direction too.  I think we should become more deadly and finish the fight before we rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.  Maybe build and fight was a useful tactic before the beehive burst.  We should let the Iraqi's rebuild and kill the fanatics first.  If we use our resources correctly, then cannot another country train the Iraqi army while we rampage?