Knowing all that you know now about Iraq, would you still go in and invade Iraq?

Question

Saddam Hussein is a really evil dictator but knowing everything we know now about Iraq, I would not support an invasion of Iraq. First, he never had nuclear weapons and he posed you real threat to the U.S. in terms of nuclear weapons. It was a mistake and a big one indeed. We should have gone for Iran instead because they're the real supporters of terrorism and they do indeed do have a nuclear program that is intended to creat nuclear weapons. All our resources that went into Iraq should have gone to destroying the Iranian goverment because they are a bigger threat than Iraq. 300 billion dollars and 2, 500 American lives was not worth removing a guy who had no weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration ignored intelligence; this war was a big mistake. I am not calling for a troop withdrawlment at all. We should stay in Iraq and complete the job and if we succeed it will be the biggest succes since winning WWII. We should have gone after Iran instead.

Answer 1

Nope, not the way it was done. I actually wrote and told them not to go into it half way. I said, if your going to attack them, you have to start with Syria & Hezbolla, and when you get to Baghdad decide whether to turn North and hit Iran first or go South and hit Saudi Arabia where Ben Ladin and most of the 911 participants came from. I warned them that anything less and the problem won't be solved.

They picked Iraq first because Hussein's atrocities and supposed WMD were a good excuse and because, I think, it had the fourth largest army in the world.

I don't think it is just a coincidence that a third rate dictator like Libya's Miramar Quadaffi, just happened to have most of the same equipment that Hussein was supposed to have. After all we gave him months to truck that stuff over to his Friend to stash for him.

The one good thing is that if we need to deal militarily with Iran, or Syria, Iraq is a very good place to be. Especially with Israel keeping the pressure on the Syrian flank.

I suppose the reason they had to do it this way had to do primarily with world opinion and diplomacy. It would have almost impossible to justify to the world, attacking Iran before anyone had heard about their nuclear program or given diplomacy a chance to resolve the issue. They also hoped that they young Iranian people, who are tired of living under a Medieval belief system, would revolt against the Mullahs and solve the problem for us. I'm afraid that now they are running out of time and options and the only choice left will be military action against Iran. The good thing about that is that most of Europe doesn't want fanatics to have nuclear weapons either and even the U.N. will probably support preventing it.

After attacking and killing people in England, Spain, Russia, India, Indonesia, The Philippines, Iraq, America, Israel, and now wanting to start a holy war in Africa, they don't have many friends in the world.

Answer 2

We really had no choice. Considering the circumstances at the time, and even now I still think we have done the right thing by invading Iraq. The Iraqi people needed help, so the United States did was it does best, by providing help. No other country wanted to assist Iraq, so the United States stepped up. I am so proud to be an American, knowing that we are helping people all over the world. Below is a quote.

"America is a Nation with a mission - and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace - a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman."
-George W. Bush




God Bless America

Answer 3

ok first, it was never confirmed that he DIDN'T have wmd's (btw wmd's include chemical and biological weapons and he USED vx gas on the kurds so he had to have possesion of it, a drop no bigger than the eye of lincoln on a penny is enough to kill a person in about 2-3 minutes). so you are already wrong in the premise of your argument, and saddam isn't just an evil dictator he is on the level of hitler, we just did not allow him to spread like hitler did (we went in and took him out). while yes we should go for iran, at the time iraq was the right choice, btw saddam hussein funded bin laden's first attempt to blow up the world trade center in 1993. and this country has become spoiled by the first gulf war and it's quickness and lack of casualties, if this current war lasts another 5 years (making it 10 years long equal to vietnam) at the current rate of attrition it will be about 1/5 the casualites we suffered in vietnam, and 1/10th the casualties from wwII

Answer 4

I never was for an invasion of Iraq. Who garantees us, that we are not creating an other Iran their? They are the same people! And even if not, what is better now? Was it really worth all the trouble?
I also agree, that instead an invasion of the truely threatening Iran would have been justified!

Answer 5

I have never supported the war in Iraq,, it was a roaring failure of the Bush team and a deliberate action,,, until the Republican Administration apologize for the American people, we will continue to be in the middle of the middle east of terror,,,,
it's like and AXIS OF GODS,,, Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed
George W. Bush should stand before the world in shame and say I'm Sorry for toppling Saddam, and putting Maliki in his place, because the Iraqi people have suffered and I have killed nearly 3,000 US soldiers and 100,000 or more Iraqi citizens........... may my GOD forgive me,,, as long as Bush believes he is on the RIGHT side of GOD,,, he will stay the course,,, which is the wrong way,,, for the U.S.A...........

Answer 6

we f*ed Iraq as the Brits did India (when pakistan/india/bangladesh was one) and created one big cycle of religious/communal violence and civil war the will take years to compromise. India is still undergoing that...look at recent bombings and temple burings.
the only difference is that the brits left india and let it reimerge to its own self.

Answer 7

hell no it's not worth the money or lives...or humiliation we should have gone for a more "serious" threat. no weapons of mass destruction, no terrorist ties for they came outside after we opened the borders.

Answer 8

Yes, but I would have left as soon as we captured Hussein.

We don't owe it to Iraq to rebuild their country.

Answer 9

all wars are a waist of lifes and money...at the end the united states is always the bad guys...

Answer 10

No.... and i was against this invasion before it started!!!!!

you can't fight terrorism by attacking other countries that didn't attack you!!!!!

that just breeds more terrorism like we have now!!!!!