Was Bush right to invade Iraq?

Question

and take out that far right wing conservative Saddam Hussein and his Republican Guard and a Republican Palace and conservative Baath party, so that Iraq could have a good Democratic party like the USA has?

Answer 1

This question is oh so clever.
You have both sides believing you're with them! LOL you have achieved what no one has on the politics board!
Bravo, kiddo.
As an answer to your question, no he was not right to invade Iraq. That was a mistake, now what we gon do about it?

Answer 2

I don't think we should have invaded Iraq for the following reasons;

1.) Terrorism: If I recall correctly, the 9/11 commission report stated that Saddam had never had any ties to Al Qaeda, and any casual interaction he MAY (and I stress 'may') have had with the group ended by the middle of the 90's, long before 9/11. By invading Iraq, we took the focus off of Afghanistan where, according to this administration, Osama bin Laden was living, where Al Qaeda maintained lots of training camps, and where the Taliban government of the country gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda.

2.) WMDs: The flurry of inspections right before the invasion concluded that Saddam had no WMD program or stockpiles of WMDs. After the invasion, this conclusion was confirmed. The handful of nerve gas warheads which were found were of 1980's vintage and contained mostly degraded material; in other words, they were not a weapon viable for any military use, but rather leftovers which were most likely forgotten about by the early 90's and found again by looters in the anarchy in the wake of the US invasion.

3.) Democracy: Bush said that we were invading Iraq to give them the gift of democracy, and to get rid of a horrible dicatator. This rhetoric sounds a lot like the rhetoric of the Roman Empire, which invaded surrounding lands under the pretext of 'civilizing' the world, or the Europeans during the age of exploration, who want to bring the gift of 'Christianity' and 'civilization' to the American Indians, or the communists and socialists during the Cold War, who sought to bring 'equality' to the 'downtrodden' working class people of their countries, such as Vietnam and Cuba. People say Saddam was a repressive, torturous dictator. If you look at history, I'm afraid that you'll see that people like him are the rule rather than the exception. So many times throughout history, people have excused military actions as being part of some noble cause, and yet history has proven time and again that such wars achieve nothing, and more often than not are used as just an excuse to achieve more selfish goals. Democracy comes from within, no from without. Would American democracy have survived if the French had fought our Revolutionary War for us? If George Washington and the other Founding Fathers were replaced by French soldiers and politicians whose names we couldn't even pronounce?

Answer 3

Time and history will tell. Are there any instances of democracy being imposed on a population by force of arms. Right now it seems to be a impossible problem to achieve anything in Iraq.
It may just be that Iraq will have to solve it's own problems. They will be unlikley to do this if the US miliary pulls out and this move would be a further sign that the US is weak over the long haul.
This was a mistake from the beginning.

Answer 4

Saddam was a bad man. He was a dictator. It is not surprising that there is such unrest in Iraq. Was he right? I don't know. I wish he had not gone through such pains to BS the US to justify that war, and that he had doubled the troop strength to secure the infrastructure before launching the less then shocking and awe-inspiring attack on Iraq. We protest the war in Iraq, but as wars go it has had low impact. While we have lost in the neighborhood of 2000 service personal, it is far less then we lost in Korea in the same time frame in the 1950s.

Was he right? For me the jury is still out on that one.

Answer 5

The US has no right to just go invade any country. Liked Saddam or not the country worked. only American propaganda and lies, claimed that people were being killed, well everyday in the USA people are put to death. Well the fact is that now nothing works in Iraq. The USA won't admit it, but the country has fallen into civil war.

Answer 6

Halliburton and the oil companies say a big fat YES!, the rest of us believe Bush is a war criminal who has no right to poke his nose into other countries affairs even if Hussein was a dictator.
That is what the UN is for, or should be.

Answer 7

probable because of the fact Saddam Hussein declared Iraq grow to be gonna sell off their distant places reserves (in funds) and initiate promoting petroleum in Euros. that should weaken the U. S. dollar sufficient to make countless wealthy useful adult men interior the united states of a get worried. The WMDs have been invented as propaganda to get human beings all psyched up with regard to the assumption of busting into Iraq. We fell for it. And while all of us found out the WMD have been a huge lie, we did no longer fairly care, and nevertheless decide for to have self belief they have been probable there because of the fact a Republican won't be able to tell a lie. Republicans purely care approximately you, they have no suggestions for themselves and genuinely are no longer involved in money. it is why you spot so few Republican corporation leaders.

Answer 8

Of course not.

Granted, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, yet his reign was STABLE. Iraq was not breaking out in guerrilla warfare, and consequently, less people were dying.

Answer 9

Maybe. But hindsight is always easy to second guess.

It's time to stop living in the past, and make decisions based on the present. We can't change what has already happened.

It's time to stop living in the past, and look forward. Or get left behind.

Answer 10

Yes, we were right to invade. Bush didnt invade, it was voted on by congress.

Sure, give Iraq a Democratic party. Im sure they have stupid asswipes over there that need representeation just like our Dumocraps here.