Gulf War Controversial?
923844
Because the Democrats created the controversy as a strategy\nto win the election...
15456
i disagree due 2 the bloodshed . infact they lived a peace full life during saddams dictatorship. no wmd found and the story turns to be bad 4 america
1004292
i do not support this war....has this war acheived something...im sure many will counter by argument by saying that USA has toppled down a dictatorship and restore democracy,find out weapons of mass destruction....but where is the democracy...and see people dying every day in Iraq...As i always said USA masqueraded their other aims(for eg----for money,oil----influence...and a way to demonstrate his force) the opinions towards US is divided...some are afraid of US...bcuz of it being a superpower...while others prefer to back US still because it being a super power....see Japan,Mongolia,Australia and many European countries sending troops in Iraq  i dont like the either u are with us or against us policy....war in Iraq can never be justified...and also UN has not approved the invasion so US has no right to invade....UN security council is a toothless dog...i does nothing to preserve peace...\nbut this does not mean i support Sadaam's regime(discriminating Shites and killing Kurds, invasions...link with terrorist orgs..etc)...
472915
Yes, it's a war.  You really want to know how and why it began?  Okay, here's a history lesson:\n Many people say it was President Bush who started this war, or that he's continuing his father's work. What started Desert Storm? Iraq invaded Kuwait, a U.S. ally. Kuwait in turn begged the UN for some help in eradicating the threat. The U.S. answered the call. When we pulled out, it was under the condition that Hussein would submit to occasional inspections to be sure that he did not have nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons capabilities. For a little over a decade, we were officially at a stasis. Unofficially though, we were firing on Iraq the whole time. Most of it was retaliation, for Iraqi approved attacks on Americans, or for the mass genocide we were well aware of. Some of it was to rid Iraq of Hussein, for both horrific acts. \nThen September 11th happened, and our policy had to change. The CIA (and other InterPol agencies that I can't recall right now) began receiving intelligence reports of suspicious activity in the Middle East, namely in Iraq. As a result, Hussein was warned that the UN needed to inspect for WMD's. He refused to let them in, and he threatened to retaliate if they tried. Before I continue, why would he do that? Think about it. Moving on. President Bush gave Hussein an ultimatum: "Let them in, or we attack!" Hussein said, yeah right, believe it when I see it. President Bush said, okay, if that's the way you want it...and he went to Congress and asked for their approval to attack Iraq. Once Congress was given the evidence, they voted with an overwhelming majority to go ahead with the attack. Then Bush went to the UN, and asked for their unity in order to rid the world of what was deemed a huge threat. Of course, they refused, all except Great Britain.\nSix weeks after the first inspection was refused, we attacked. SIX WEEKS. If Saddam had something to hide, is six weeks long enough to do so?\nGoing back just a little. The attack on Iraq had already been approved by the Clinton administration. Let me repeat that: ALREADY APPROVED, before Bush. President Bush asking Congress for approval on something they had already passed was only a formality, which he did not have to do.\nOkay, so what's the current situation in Iraq? No one knows, except those that are there. Again, NO ONE KNOWS!  I am a military spouse, so we have friends that are there now, and who have already served in the past couple of years. Some say it's awful, others say we're doing good. How do the Iraqis feel? Well, how many voted in their election? Their first REAL election in over twenty years. If the Iraqis were truly against us, wouldn't they be attacking U.S. soldiers? Not the insurgents, but regular Iraqi citizens?  Wouldn't more be aiding the insurgents? The fact that Iraqis are turning in the insurgents, saving many lives, says something doesn't it? \nOkay, as for the claim that this war is all about oil, it's half-right. Yes, it really is about oil...but not in the way that the people who make that claim think. I've had reports from people in Iraq that Saddam lived in opulence you can't even imagine. Gold and marble and ivory everywhere, 20 room palaces (note, I said PALACES, plural. He had several.)...meanwhile, down the road, maybe a mile away, there was a ten person family living in a one room shack. In absolute and total squalor. The U.S.'s homeless live a lot better, trust me. Hussein was starving his own people, making them go without electricity...and using the money from the oil to build his palaces. Yeah, that's fair. Sure. So we go in, and we seize the oil factories to turn over to the emerging Iraqi government. The Army is working to rebuild schools that have been damaged (many were damaged WAY before the U.S. occupied the country), repairing power lines, restoring clean drinking water...\nSo there you go.  Now you know.  I don't beli
1117900
Here is a rational argument for the Iraq war:\n\n1)  We couldn't monitor Saddam Hussein perpetually.  At some point, our attention is going to get distracted, and he would have reconstituted his weapons programs.  Look what happened with North Korea.  If we're not watching these devious little countries every moment, they can do great harm.\n\n2)  WMD's:  you may disagree with this, but I firmly believe Saddam, with the help of the Russians, removed his WMDs to Syria.  Read the link below.  It is quite a compelling argument.\n\n3)  Saddam was getting around the Oil For Food program restrictions by bribing the governments of France, Russia, and Germany.  Sanctions were supposed to force him to comply with the 17 UN Resolutions.  However, he could have continued indefinitely under this arrangement.  He was literally buying the "no war" vote from these countries.\n\n4)  Saddam was a threat to his own people, and his neighbors.  Every week, the Iraqi military was shooting at our planes patrolling the No Fly Zone, which kept the Kurds safe.\n\n5)  Saddam's links to terrorism?  How about the fact he was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers?  Or the fact that Al-Zarkawi was in an Iraqi hospital, a guest of the government?\n\n6)  We can't make the UN act responsibly, but we had a duty to keep the institution from becoming totally irrelevant.  If we let Iraq defy 17 UN resolutions, how many other countries would ever take the UN seriously again?  It's like when a parent tells a child to go to bed, but the child knows he can just stall indefinitely.  If the UN isn't taken seriously, it might as well disband.\n\n7)  Economic reasons for intervention:  Saddam Hussein and his family were using as Iraq like their own private piggy bank.  He was stealing the Iraqi people blind.  The economy of Iraq would never support the population and raise people up from poverty because Saddam and his evil clan were taking it all themselves.\n\n8)  Moral reasons for intervention:  Saddam was a brutal dictator.  You should see films of his rape rooms, his tortures (real tortures.... cutting off hands, etc.  By comparison, Abu Ghraib under our control was like Frathouse pranks)\n\n9)  Political reasons for intervention:  democratic countries never wage war against one another.  It's a fact.  Find two democratic countries that have warred against each other.  Doesn't happen.  Therefore, we are creating the seeds of peace in the Middle East by making democracies out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Countries all over the Middle East are now clamoring for democracy.  See the link quoting Walid Jumblatt:  The Berlin Wall Has fallen.\n"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."\n\n10)  Self-defense reasons for the intervention:  better to fight the war on terror overseas than among the burnt out ruins of U.S. cities.
713965
As a disabled veterans who has been in the gulf, my feeling is we already lost the war. I am angry because we should have never been there in the first place. Now my fellow soldiers are caught in a civil war that puts them in the middle of their fighting.\n\nTheir were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded. This invasion created a base of extremists that joined the Al Qaida group to fight our soldiers.  \n\nThis war is not winable! It's a guerrilla war, something our soldiers are not trained to fight!
829224
Yes, I know the difference. Does our president is the question. There was the invasion of Normandy during the second world war, operation Overlord. A valid invasion in the course of a declared war. What our president did when he sent our troops to invade Iraq was an act of war, as it is anytime a country invades another country without declaring war. Saddam wanted Kuwait's oil. Bush can't find Osama, so this was a diversion to placate America after 9/11, and just like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and George's of Iraq, many innocent people were and continue to be killed.
604213
I don't know for sure about the Vietnam war other than South Vietnam wanted to be a democratic society and the north was communism and the US wanted to keep it from spreading, which is the same as what happened in Korea for the most part.  The reason for the Persian Gulf War was because Iraq invaded Kuwait saying that the country belonged to them and we came to Kuwaits defense.
50589
It started in 1990 with Iraqs invasion of Kuwait.  The original Gulf War really didnt end, so it's been one long war.
514619
Iraq isn't the only thing to BASH BUSH about.  Same-sex marriage, immigration, the economy, the list is long and involved.\n\nWeapons of mass destruction?  There was flawed intelligence, but if you think Bush went into Iraq for any reason other than oil, you are mistaken.
974553
This was a massive plunder operation under the guise of patriotism misplaced.  It is otherwise known as the big lie.  Iraq was ugly for many, but peaceful.  Now Iraq is a violent shambles,directly due to the intervention of GW Bush.  If there were no oil there, do you think we would be there?  Not a chance.
413524
Sad but true, all wars since world war 2 have been conflicts. from korea to iraq. every generation has seen war. or as the gov calls it conflict. tell a soldger that korea, vietnam, panama, iraq 1, iraq 2 is not a war. i wouldnt but the gov would. they would tell them it was a conflict. messed up i think.
867410
Disagree:\n\nThe war in Iraq - it had nothing to do with 9/11.\n\nNot supporting our education.\n\nManipulating tax cuts to make the rich richer and poor poorer.  Middle class out in limbo.\n\nOur Government are now using their own people for their personal gain.  Example:  the war in Iraq for the oil and power gain, raising oil prices to put money in their pockets.  They all have stock in oil.  Also, oil is their families main money revenue.\n\n\nIn this administration, there is not much to agree with.  Our country is now in major financial bind.
664751
On Aug. 2, 1990, Iraqi military forces, on orders from President Saddam Hussein, invaded and occupied the small country of Kuwait. The Persian Gulf War of 1991--from January 16 to February 28--was fought to expel Iraq and restore Kuwaiti independence.\n\n     The attack on Kuwait by Iraq caused the United Nations Security Council to pass several resolution to close Iraq from International trade. The Security Council wanted President Saddam Hussein removed his troops from Kuwait and to distroy nonconventional weapons. Read about two of the most importaint ones: Resolution 660, first resolution after the attack, and 678, to use all necessary means to free Kuwait.\n\n War Summary\n     The Iraqi armed forces had extensive experience of warfare. They had just brought an eight year war with Iran to a successful conclusion. The Coalition troops, on the other hand, were largely inexperienced. Britain had found the Falklands War with marines and paratroopers; this war was fought with tanks and mechanized infantry instead. The Syrians had fought within the last decade in Lebanon, but the 9th Division had not been involved. The Egyptians had last fought a war in 1973, shortly after the US had wound down its involvement in Vietnam. Of the gulf states, only Omani Army had anything approaching extensive combat experience.\n\n\n     One reason that the Iraqis' experience did them little good was that it was the wrong kind of experience. They had plenty of experience in fighting a positional war of wearing down Iran forces. Instead of helping, this was a positive disadvantage when fighting a mobile campaign; they would have been better off starting fresh without a lot of bad habits.\n\n\n     Of Iraq's 545,000 troops in the Kuwait Theater of Operations, about 100,000 are believed to have lost their lives. Of IRaq's 44 army divisions, 42 were found to be combat ineffective.
434640
Nah, it wasn't oil.  That's probably the most overworked cliche.  If it had been oil we'd have complete control of all the oilfields by now and that's not happening.\n\nSome part of it might have been left over grudges from the first Iraq war, but I suspect that combined with George Bush #2 getting some justification for finishing things, like the overreaching for weapons of mass destruction, was all it took.\n\nThe real reason I believe had more to do with Israeli security than anything else.  Iraq represented the biggest threat to Israeli security and pressure by Israel on the US may have had something to do with it.\n\nOther than that, Bush may have deluded himself into thinking that God told him to do it. Bush may be on a sort of "religious" conquest in his own mind.\n\nOne of these three possibilities may have been the prime motivator, or some combination, but I doubt very much if oil had anything to do with it because events subsequent to the invasion do not support that theory.
1149483
I'm sure somebody used em to describe Vietnam.   I think, though, that the issue they're talking about is our responsibility to provide stability in government. The removal of Saddam created a very real power vaccume in Iraq. (question of right/wrong in doing so aside) Simply leaving after getting Saddam, would have drawn even more condemnation from the world. The world would  be screamin at us for NOT doing something to help them. As it is, they're screaming at us FOR doing somehthing. Whether or not what we're doing is effective, is another story.
515690
this is a controversial subject. there are arguments on both sides