you can believe that, but the Iraqi war is still not justified.
You say that its not justified, but you have no reason to back it up with. I am not going to sit back and and let the attacks of 9/11 go unpunished. Everyone knows that if they do someting that isn't right that there are concequences for their actions, same goes for religious extreemists with bad intent. If they don't like it then too bad they shouldn't have started it.
First of all, in relative terms, Iraq was NOT a major safe haven for terror. US officials themselves admit that a majority of the problems in Iraq rite now are promoted by insurgents that are coming from out of Iraq.
HuH? you say that there isn't a safe haven for terrorists in Iraq, and then you say there is a lot of Insurgence? Make up your mide. There is no difference between terrorists and the insurgency. Bolth behead hostages, plan ambushes, make bombs, and bolth want to harm anyone who don't believe in the same way they do. You don't give the military brains much credit; they know if they go to a counry where there is insurgence that it will bring more insurgency that is what they expect. They want to force insurgency to confront colloation forces in Iraq instead of New York or London.
Secondly, the promoters of Sadaam were not terrorists before we invaded. They are fighting because of political reasons not muslim extremist reasons.
If you talking about "the promoters of Saddam" then you mean the Ba'athists, and yes they were terroritst to their own people! The Ba'athists were sort of like Saddam's gestapo police. They would find people that Saddam didn't like or for whatever other unjustified reason, they would take people to be torturted and then killed. I'd call that terrorism. It dosen't matter what their reason is for killing people either Colloation soldigers, News reporters, or Iraqis. Just because they have political reasons or religious extremist reasons doesn't give anyone the right to kill.
Thirdly, for us the collateral damage may not be intended, but for the civilians who lose their loved ones, do you think they feel the same way? Do you think they mourn, then shrug saying oh well... collateral damage.
No one wants collateral damage. Their saracifice was for the future of their country and for the saftey of others in the future. Without their death they wouldn't have a safer tomorrow without Saddam.
The thoughts going in there head are, I wish this war never happened. Atleast under saddam my child or husband or mother would still be alive.
Not nessiarly, random death of civilians isn't that much different from Saddam randomly killing people. Except that collateral damage is accidental, and Saddam killed people to enforce fear and sufferage in his people. The people of Iraq weren't safer with Saddamm he was basicly Hitler. Saddam tortured people and dumped them into mass graves, you call that safer?
This fuels US hatred and causes more insurgency. More soldiers face violence, and then more civilians are accidently killed. The vicious cycle goes on. However little the collateral damage may be, the effects of it are disastrous.
We want more insurgengce to come out of hinding and covorting in Iraq than to show up in a 737 headed for capital hill or London. More and more civilians are becoming police officers, news reporters (because Saddam had news filted by him to make the people of Iraq believe what he wanted them to believe), and soldigers so that they can protect themselves (from Insurgence) without our help, but this takes time.
The fact still remains that out of all the countries that had many more extremists than Iraq, including Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, we chose Iraq. We know that the WMD pretense was false. And sure taking sadaam out of power is a good thing. But the amount it has done for us in the war against terror is nothing...
The war isn't just limited to Iraq its in Afganistan, The United Kingdom, The United States, and other middle eastern countries as you said. The war has done a lot for the war on terror. In the spring of 05 US soldigers discovered a large facility with traning materials(for bombs and bio weapons), dead hostages, passports, SUVs with US licence plates and registration. More recentaly Iraq soldigers discovered a huge underground bunker with the same kinds of stuff in it like the other falicity except more of it. Colloation soldigers also capture insurgence (terrorists), and gain valuable information on whereabouts of other safe houses and insurgence personel. To say that the war in Iraq does nothing for the war on terror is nieve and uninformed.
The war in Irag is not justified at all. Irag was in fact subject to Bombing by El Quada because it was ruled by the Secular Ba-athist party. Saddam was the enemy of Bin Ladin. Bush is the Family Friend of Bin Ladin's family.
How is the Bush "the family friend of the Bin Ladin's?" Prove this, Oh wait you can't because there is nothing to back that up with. Save your crapy opinions for someone who cares, like relligious extremists. Whats your point of Al-Qaeda "bombing" Iraq because it was ruled by Saddam. That just means that even more Iraqis are being killed by terrorists that collation forces have to stop.
You are subject to some huge thinking disorders.
So are you!
Irag was not training Terrorists, that was the Taliban in Afghanistan.
If you read what I posted earlier you would see just a few examples of terrorists(insurgence) traning in Iraq, and there are many more. Yes, there were even more terrorists traning falicities in Afganastan.
The decision to invade Iraq was made even before 9/11.
Like I said earlier this has no factual evidence to support this theory.
Don't you read or gather information before you write.
Yea, maybe you should do a little of this yourself!
Even Bush admitted on television, that Not One Shred of the expected the expected evidence to justify War had been found. Remember Bush complained about faulty intelligence gather in and bad sources.
It wasen't just Bush who had the wrong intelligence. Every nation who is in the colloation had the same information. Even John Kerry was for going into Iraq to get rid of WMDs in the 1990s; thats why he lost in the 04 elections after he found out that there were no WMDs he changed his tune to suit the political climate and was labled as a "flip-floper," and lost.
