Should we have gone into Iraq?

Question

Tough questions for those of you on both sides of the issue. Read carefully below.

If yes, why? There are lot's of evil regimes, is our country obligated to pre-emptively bomb and kill in order to take out every single evil government in the world?

If no, why? We also took out Nazi Germany without them doing anything directly against the U.S. Should we have simply let Hitler's regime flourish? What's the difference between a pre-empitive strike against one leader verses another? Both had murdered multitudes and defied international law.

Answer 1

Any dictatorship is fair game for any free country to tackle. A dictatorship is merely a super-sized prison.

We should have taken on the big kahuna - Iran - 1st, as they are the intellectual/spiritual fountainhead of the militant Islam movement.

Answer 2

No, it's been a disaster, in every way possible. Invading Iraq was always on the Bushco. agenda. The statements coming from PNAC during the last years of the Clinton administration pretty much demanded that the president take Saddam out. Most of PNAC became members of the Bush administration, or seinor advisers. So, as soon as Bush was selected by the Supreme Court, Saddam was history. We (the people of the US who pay attention) never had a chance to stop it, especially after 9/11 gave Bushco. plenty of opportunity to lie about Saddam's ties with Al Queda. It was never a question if we "should go into Iraq". Bushco was geared up for it on day 1.

A historical point..... After Pearl Harbor and the formal declaration of war, Germany then declared war on the US. It was huge blunder on Hitler's part, along with invading the USSR. So, the US declared war on Germany. Don't even think of comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany though. The two aren't even remotely the same.

Answer 3

no, it is an illegal war. there are so many evil regimes in this world, many of which are just as evil if not more so than sadams was. the difference between nazi germany and iraq is immense, sadam was no threat whatsoever to the international community. nazi germany had the greatest war machine the modern world had ever seen and it was using it to take over the world, sadam was an evil man but he was not trying to wipe out the kurds whereas hitler was attempting to exterminate the jews for good, actaully trying to wipe a whole race of people from the planet, no comparisons can be drawn between the two on any intellectual level. the war was over oil it was not about saving iraqi citizens from the evils of sadam, the world intelligensia told both the bush and blair admins that to uproot sadam would only create one of the bloodiest civil wars the world has ever known, this war has already begun and will not end for a very very long time, sadam had murdered mutated and starved( via the oil for food program) thousands of his own people but how many innocent iraqis have died since the invasion at the hand of co-allition troops? how many will die in the years to come? how many of our troops that were led there in under false pretences have died? and the civil war has only just begun many more will fall and it is so so sad that all these lives have and will be lost all for oil. war should be the very last resort of any administration and should only be used in self defence. why have we not gone to korea? why do we not liberate the palistinians that are being forced to live their lives in glorified concentration camps? the sudanese confict that is now spreading into chad? what about the chinese labour camps? the fact tht we allow these other atrositys to continue without any intervention other than "diplomatic condemnation" goes to show that the war in iraq was about oil, condi rice planned all this years before they got into power, the war is illegal the international communty and the UN told us this but would bush listen and would blair change his mind, i dont know about bush and america but all blair will be remembered for over here is the war in iraq, we are now huge targets for terrorism, things are worse in iraq than they ever, more iraqis have died in the three years since the war than ever died under hussien, there are two real terrorists in this world mr bush and mr blair and unfortunatly they drag the names of our two great and fair nations through the dirt, the war is most definetly WRONG

Answer 4

Although Germany didn't directly attack the US, Japan did.

They were part of the Axis alliance, which also included Germany and Italy.

Plus a major difference is that when we decapitated the German and Italian high command, and Japan surrendered, hostilities ceased.

Major combat operations ended for Iraq in March of 2003, and Saddam was taken prisoner shortly afterward.

....yet the fighting continues, more than 3 years later.

Answer 5

We should not have gone to war with Iraq. The arguments for us being in the war were based on known incorrect and manipulated information. Iraq was no threat to America. We had him contained so he was no threat to any of our allies. By dividing our forces by starting the war with Iraq and by ignoring the advice of the experts he surrounded himself, President Bush created a very poor situation that only the determination of the best military force in the world was able to overcome. In answer to your question, Germany was a force not only threatening, but attacking our allies. Saddam was a very horrible leader and maybe we should have taken military action against him but this was the wrong place at the wrong time for all the wrong reasons.

Answer 6

... Hitler took over the majority of Europe... Saddam invaded a tiny country 12 years ago...

Hitler was involved in genocide... most of the kurd genocide occurred in the 80s and early 90s...

Hell, we even supported him in the 80s in the Iraq/Iran war... where does everyone think he got all these weapons?

basically, we had MANY more reasons to invade in 1991... and he's really not done much since...

the comparison of the two is laughable...

The genocide in Darfur is about 10 times worse than anything Saddam has did in the past 5 years...

Answer 7

NO!

Saddam Hussein was as afraid of Islamic fundamentalism as we are- that's why he'd jailed so many terrorists. Remember when he emptied the prisons before we invaded? I thought, O* &h*T!

Zarqawi was hiding out in the western Iraqi desert hoping Hussein wouldn't find him and kill him until we "liberated" Zarqawi. Zarqawi then begged Al Qaeda to let him start Al Qaeda in Iraq.

The President's foolish war has squandered people, tax dollars and spread terrorism. How dumb is that?

By the way, the neo-conservative ideal of spreading democracy can't work unless they have the foundation of democracy in the Constitution- the freedom of religion. If a culture doesn't recogize this principle of religious freedom, democracy can't possibly function.

Answer 8

Please, Hitler was encompassing all of Europe! Almost the sole holdout was England. There is no real comparison as far as global threat. Saddam was a threat to Israel and no more (except his own people). So I say no. And you make my own point AGAINST Saddam, why not a leader that was much MORE dangerous like in Iran where they are clearly gaining nuclear material?

Answer 9

I'm going to say yes.
This country is an easy target. If we give the Muslims a taste of democracy, other Muslim countries will want it.
This is the big plan.
I think a lot of people don't understand what it's like down there.

Answer 10

Yes. And we should go after all the other evil ones too....just not at the same time. You can go one country at a time, even better turn them into good countries and have them help us. someone has to do it...is it not more evil to sit back and watch evil things happen?