Kw-logo-smaller

Should We Be Fighting A War In Iraq

Should We Be Fighting A War In Iraq - Reviewed by Kidzworld on Dec 27, 2006
( Rating: 1 Star Rating)

war iraq george w bush junoir junior speech address ultimatum march 17 saddam suddam hussein hussien hussain husein hussan husayn irac irack irak united states US america americans troops britain UK nations UN sanctions death children iraqi feedback o

On March 17th, George W. Bush gave Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq, or face invasion. Since then, the United States has begun its attack. Tell us what you think about the war waging in Iraq!

1 I think we should have a war. Everybody thinks everything will get resolved if we just try and work it out nicely and blah blah blah. That's never gonna happen! We should show our strength. We don't have to attack innocent people, we can just attack the biological or nuclear plants. We have proof (September 11,) that the Al Qaeda members mean business. If we don't step up to the plate and fight, they'll think we are weak and will attack us more. We owe it to the REAL heroes (all those who died in the September 11th attacks,) to fight. What about all the children that lost their parents and friends on September 11th? We owe it to them! Unless, for some odd reason, Osama, Saddam, and all the other Al Qaeda members back down, I say YES to war.

Kidz Submit by:

Nickname: faeriequeen_91
Age: 13

1 I think we should not go to war because it could effect family lives and effect going to work and business. If Saddam doesn't step down, there is no telling what could happen.

Kidz Submit by:

Nickname: lachrisha6
Age: 11

1 What is faeriequeen_91 talking about? Are you stupid? You think if they only want to attack the nuclear and biological plants that they need the armed forces of 30 of the world's strongest countries? Pretty stupid, huh? And what is the "proof" that the Al Qaeda members mean business? You only know what you see on CNN. And that's crap. Bin Laden is nothing - how do you expect him to devise such a brilliant plan to attack the WTC. And outsmart the CIA? Pretty weird, considering that he was actually TRAINED BY AMERICANS! It was just an excuse to attack Afghanistan. Now they control the country and have instant access to the Chinese, Pakistani and Indian borders. The same is going on with Iraq. You think Saddam Hussein is really their target? Then how come the first thing they did was take control of the oil? You think that to get ONE MAN, they need 225,000 land troops, in addition to weapons and planes worth 95 billion dollars? I don't think so. And who are those "heroes?" They may be, but how many were there? 2,000? 3,000? What about the 8,000 Muslims killed in the Bosnian war? The millions killed as a result of the Gulf War? The millions of Iraqis dying of cancer and other diseases because of the first Bush's weapons? The thousands being killed in Palestine? Aren't those heroes? Sorry faeriequeen_91, but unless you get your facts straight your gonna sound pretty ignorant.

Kidz Submit by:

Nickname: confused1988
Age: 15

  • For faeriequeen_91's response to confused1988 and more Kidzworld member feedback, click here!

    Related Stories:

  • The Republic of Iraq
  • The History of Afghanistan
  • Veteran's Day
  • More About Events and Peeps Around the World...
  • 3 Comments

    latest videos

    We all know that Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governator... er, governor of California but what is the capital of that state?
    • Los Angeles.
    • San Diego.
    • Sacramento.
    • San Francisco.

    related stories

    Random in the forums

    Boysrock50
    Boysrock50 posted in Debating:
    "-Karpov-" wrote: "Boysrock50" wrote: I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'. As it is now do you think it's ok to continue doing it?   I'm not sure how it is done right now, give me some time to read about it, not really a topic I've bothered about before. All you tend to hear is protests against how horrible it is, but people seem to be fine with it on a whole tbh >>hmm it's unpleasant but I think most of it is necessary. I would say it's acceptable at the moment but we should try to find alternatives, e.g. testing on lab-grown tissues. And only test on animals for the things that have no alternatives
    reply 17 minutes
    -Karpov-
    -Karpov- posted in Debating:
    "Boysrock50" wrote:I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'. As it is now do you think it's ok to continue doing it?  
    reply 19 minutes
    Armygirlfriend
    North America. 
    reply 21 minutes
    Armygirlfriend
    When you truly love someone, no distance or amount of time can tear you apart. Sure it would be easier to move on, but being with anyone else would just be settling. The days are lonely and the nights are worse but when you have a love this strong never let it go. It may be hard, but God knows it'll be worth in the end. It's my favorite quote because I'm dating a soldier. I live in the state and town we met in but we've been together for four months and he's away at bootcamp right now but I love him. And this quote truly speaks about what we're going through. 
    reply 23 minutes
    Boysrock50
    Boysrock50 posted in Debating:
    I think animal testing is only acceptable if it is really necessary and if it's going to benefit us. I can't really object to it as I don't know a better alternative to testing it's safety before human trials. If it's likely to cause more pain than gain then there's no point doing it just 'to make sure'.
    reply 30 minutes

    play online games