Does anyone think we still should have gone to iraq?

Question

P.S vote mitt romney for pres

Answer 1

We absolutely should have gone over there but we should never have brought an army. The amount of money we've spent on this war is incomprehensable to anyone but economists. The Trillions of dollars taken out of our schools and roads to invade a nation that didn't pose a threat to us could have possibly been used to buy Iraq. If we took a fraction of that money and used it for humanitarian purposes we could most likely had just as much success shaping Iraq's government as we did with force but we'd have as many allies in the Middle East as we have enemies now. Iraq needed our help and we needed a stable demorcacy in the Middle East that's an oil producer but we didn't have to pay for it so dearly.

Answer 2

I think it was a hasty war, fought before it's time, using the veil of "terrorism" and "WMD's" to cover the real agenda. However I do think it will be good for the people of Iraq in the end. If we keep doing what we are doing there then maybe we can find a style government that will best suit the people. That is of course if we get another president in office.

Answer 3

Yes, with this all said and done we will have a military outpost similar to the base in Germany. This will serve as a viable duct to help protect democracy and shed a sense of security and help stabilize the region with a US anchor. It worked for Germany. There are a lot of angry answer based on the "now" point of view rather than long term strategy...

Answer 4

desert storm did not give the chance to invade iraq. that was an un mission created to move irag out of kuwait. nothing else. and for those whose believe that saddam needed to be removed thene why aren't we doing anything about all the other leaders who kill people in other countries like china korea or any place in africa?

for those wondering about the reason to invade research the attempt assassianation on bush sr by saddam in the ninites and you will understand a bit more about politics. in texas you don't mess with someones daddy or they'll get ya.

Answer 5

Yes, the status quo was failing. Oil for food was a joke. Progress on WMD's was stopped. Democratic ideals have been spread to the middle east for the first time. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are free from a military threat. Lybia seeing our fire power at work gave up terrorism and WMD'.s And We killed alot bad guys who now can't reproduce. So your answer is yes!!

Answer 6

The best response to that horrid mess over there was nuke N.Korea,Iran,Iraq,and Syria till there was nothing left but pump jacks. But the compassionate conservative president thought it was best to leave the innocent alive..if there is such a thing over there as an innocent..

Answer 7

No. Our military and government should have finished finding bin Laden and his men instead of starting a new project. We went into Iraq on false pretenses, and look where it's got us. We should have dealt with one country before pursuing another.

Answer 8

yes ,yes, yes but i will say i dont know who is the worse enemy the left wing democrats or the media. whats worse and the funny part is im all the way with Bush and the democrats just lost there best man with lieberman. I wish him luck as a independent. god are u people stupid.

Answer 9

No, but then, I didn't think so before we went, either.

(My memory of public opinion before the invasion is that about 48% of us opposed going, 42% approved. As soon as the bombs start being dropped, however, many people switch to "supporting our troops". I've been one of the ones against all along.)

Answer 10

The answer is that bush's dad knew it was a bad idea then and it's still a bad idea. you want to get rid of a gov't figure you hire a top notch assassin. not roll out the troops and get stuck like the Israelis with enemies always hitting you day in day out.