Question on Iraq 2007
Should the USA send in more Troops to bring Iraq undercontrol?
Was the USA's invasion of Iraq legal?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Maza Music
- It's Like That by Run-D.M.C.
- Dont you wish your girlfriend was hot like me by The Pussycat Dolls Feat. Busta Rhymes
- Without Me by Eminem
- Hot In The City by Billy Idol
- White Wedding by Billy Idol
- Mony Mony by Billy Idol
- Loading Playlist...
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(11)
-
▼
December
(11)
- Who said it?
- Where is Osama bin Laden?
- What are the conditions in countries, that encoura...
- Does History repeat itself?
- Who is next: Countries of concern
- Who's land is it anyway?
- How have we (the World) become like we have
- How does a country's development mirror the stages...
- Stages of Escalation: The game of one upmanship!?
- Does the Government manipulate the Media or You
- Iraq
-
▼
December
(11)
12 comments:
Was the invasion legal? I guess it wouldn’t be called an “invasion” if the USA were allowed permission to step onto their soil. I know I wouldn’t want my country to be invaded, but you can’t say that the USA invaded Iraq just for the heck of it. There are threats of weapons of mass destruction and other nuclear weapons in the world. You can’t blame them for wanting to nip the problem in the bud. Iraq pretty much hates the USA now as it is so if they were harbouring such weapons; I wonder who they would strike first? When one fails to comply with a simple weapons inspection, wouldn’t you be suspicious of them as well? Then again if Saddam was inactive for the past twelve years and there wasn’t evidence that he had weapons, then the USA didn’t have any grounds to invade. Who’s to say the invasion wasn’t an act of vengeance for the 9/11 attacks? It’s true that Bush’s motives weren’t clear, but it must be tough to run a country while having to deal with one’s personal feelings and while having the power to do so, could invade and bomb whatever country he wanted. If it were legal, it wouldn’t be called an “invasion”.
Should more troops be sent in? Personally I don’t think so. What has the American presence in resulted in so far? True, Saddam was captured and executed, but there has been a lot of destruction as well and many casualties for both sides. There must have been a reason that the USA did not have UN backing in the first place. You can’t expect to help a country that doesn’t want your help. I don’t think the people are willingly going to accept America’s help after witnessing such destruction in their lives. If it’s a matter of keeping Iraq under control I think countries other than America should send troops to maintain Iraq itself. It’s not sending them to war, but something like a peace keeping mission if it were acceptable by the Iraqis. Aren’t they still conflicting because America won’t get the heck off their soil? From the beginning America wasn’t appreciated in Iraq and if they decide to send more troops, won’t that lead to more conflict. I think Iraq like any other country wants to be strong on its own and not have to depend too much on other countries especially one that has destroyed everything their country had. If they send more troops to keep Iraq under control then I feel that it will only lead to more conflict. We can’t say that having the troops there is a bad thing if they do want to maintain the peace, but having them there is not necessarily a good thing either after such a war. It’s shouldn’t be a matter of war anymore, but saving this country that has fallen. They have conflict with America, therefore I think sending more troops equals more conflict.
The United States should certainly NOT send in more troops. Nor should there be any troops there to begin with. UNSC hadn't approved this war, therefore the United States is in violation of the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention and its president should be taken before the International Criminal Court for those violations and the murder of the innocent people they killed. There is blood on the hands of the United States government, and they should be held accountable.
the united states should not send more troops to iraq, instead pull them out. im not saying all of them, just enough to control civil wars in iraq. the iraqi's dont have enough technology to over power the united states therefore they can send more troops back home. instead of many soldiers, maybe the united states should bring more people who can talk to teh iraqis and help them with their poblems and make iraq a better place.
do i beleive the united states invasion was legal? i agree 100% the united states had the right to invade iraq. saddam is a terrorist who killed thousands of people not only to the united states but to his own country, iraq. with his power of threat he couldve done anything with his nuclear weapons and one switch can kill millions of people.
jhay-
In my point of view, the US president seems to be taking such extremes because he wants his popularity up. Iraq clearly didn't have WMD. It was all cookedup by Bush so that people would like him again. With this in mind, I do not aprove upon sending troops to Iraq. If the troops are just their for Bush's benifit then it is just plain wrong. But, also, the troops being their in the first place is bad enough. Both Iraq and US--along with there allys--are dying for an unclear cost. If Bush have left the UN with the decision making, he wouldn't be so hated, and America--most likely--wouldn't be in Iraq right now.
part 2: was it legal?...
I believe that the US occupying Iraq IS indeed illegal. America did not go by the rules of the UN. America only claimed that they had an obligation to combat Saddam, but by doing so, President Bush also disrespected the UN and its decision making process. By acting alone and disrespecting the UN, I believe that US occupying Iraq is illegal. It's the same thing as a police acusing someone of doing something and beating them up versus a police that can actually beat them up because they have a warrant. Bush didn't have the UN backing them up, thus, as i believe, they have no 'warrant'.
I think that the US has done the right thing sending troops to Iraq. I don't think sending more troops would make anything smoother or easier though.
Iraq has been spending all of their time complaining about the US and their military presence, and civilian casualties, when the person who until recently was in power, had used chemical weapons on his own people. I would put all my hate and anger in THAT basket before pointing a finger at the states.
Sadaam was a dictator, just like Hitler, and we all know how that story panned out. Sadaam was on the verge of having "too much power" as did Hitler, which drove him insane. So we really need to stop and think about the possibility that we have just barely avoided another Holocost.
Post a Comment