Did you approve invading Iraq because of the WMD threat?

Question

Part two; would you have approved if the original rationale was regime change?

Please answer both questions. Some may agree with one reason but not the other. I'm using only the reasons floated by the Bush admin for comparison.

Answer 1

No, I actually did not believe there were suddenly all these WMD's in Iraq, and Saddam WAS cooperating with the inspectors. WMD's and development of nuclear weapons are a better rationale for invading a country than regime change; but they are only a valid rationale for a just war if the other country is an imminent threat. I think the US could have done regime change through covert means that looked like an internal coup. This worked many times in the paleocon days, and did not squander thousands of American lives or deplete our military. Anyway, why not try negotiation, then covert means, then invasion in that order?

Answer 2

I did not agree with invading Iraq. I felt we should have listened to the weapons inspectors, who were telling us that were not finding any WMD's. I would have approved if the original rationale was regime change, on one condition. If there was a movement from inside the country, a revolution, I would have approved sending troops to help. That way, when the government was toppled, there would have been a group ready to take over the country, rather than us occupying it until someone decided to step up and lead. I really feel that, as a sovereign nation, the decision to change governments must come from within. It is not our right to decide how others govern themselves.

Answer 3

The immediate priority was to go after the perceived threat which at that time was Osama Bin Laden (who is still free).
Saddam was no threat to us and kept the region in check by suppressing the Shi-Ite majority from uniting with the Iranians. We have given the Iranians what they didnot win thru the war that they fought with Saddam(with our help thru a third party).
We must have had a hidden agenda for invading Iraq but Iraq was nothing like the nightmare we have created for the region.
I dont buy that idea that we were so sympathetic about "freeing" the Iraqi people just look at how many have been killed whose numbers were not even reported on a regular basis by our press.

Answer 4

At the time the WMD threat was assumed real by many in-the-know political figures, so yes, I did.
The regime change idea should have been launched when it was first proposed under Clinton in 1998 and yes I would have approved then. Even before then when Desert Storm was going on, it was Colin Powell who talked G.H.W. Bush into stopping short of going to Baghdad, and I would have said it would have been easier to pursue even with the threat of WMDs at the time.

Answer 5

Does one allow people to be openly murdered by their own leader? What did we care about the Kurds? WMD in Iraq had been repeated for several presidencies. The real issue isn't how the Kurds were murdered, but that Saddam Hussein was part of the ethnic cleansing effort at the hands of Islamic terrorists. He saw himself as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar. Like the rest of the Muslim terrorists, he ultimately wanted Israel wiped off the map. If you want to argue whether there is evidence of WMD and relations with Al Quaeda, that's fine. If you don't invade, how does one stop them? I'm not sure there is a good answer.

What were we doing in Yugoslavia? Wasn't that Europe's problem? We were defending the underdog, in that case Muslims. How many governments have turned a blind eye to mass torture? The real issue is how to go about stopping it. Just in the 20th century we have lived with evil incarnate in the hands of several leaders: Stalin killed his own countrymen. Hitler only went after degenerates, which included a predominance of Jews because they were disturbing the social order. Japan tortured thousands of Chinese because they were superior. We screwed up Viet nam because the Southe Vietnames didn't want to take charge of their lives. When we left Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnamese atrocities increased at rapid rates. Why was our presence in Viwt Nam bad but we just wring our hands at thousands being murdered? All of this ignores the mass murders of the Armenians and Tutsis.
Unfortunately, now we have Islam openly stating their moral superiority. Did you hear the interview with the Fox news crew that was kidnapped last week? Their captors insisted that all of America's problems could be solved by converting to Islam. They hate our right to make our own choices; they are fighting to prevent the spread of our freedoms.
Iran insists that it needs uranium to provide electricity for nuclear reactors. Gee, don't they have more oil than anyone else in the region? What do we do there? Frankly to invade earlier would have made things worse but to strike now makes success less likely. Does anyone think sanctions will really work? I don't think there are a lot of good responses to the situation or answers to the greater theoretical question. Leaving things alone just makes things a lot worse. After all, what the terrorists really want to expunge is the liberal attitudes throughout the world.

Answer 6

No and No and No again. There were/are rulers in this world who are far more dangerous than Saddam. If that were the reasoning why didn't we go after North Korea?? The reasons we've invaded Iraq have went from WMD's to liberating the Iraqi people to fighting the war on terror........???? Don't people see through this facade??

Answer 7

It was total bullsh*t from day one. We invaded another country pure and simple. If there was not oil there we would have stayed out it. The only time we are anywhere is to protect our interests. That's it no other reason. If you believe it was for any moral reason you have been brainwashed beyond help.

Answer 8

regime change yes,wmd no.when they were found they were found to be outdated.the us invaded iraq because the government wanted us to believe we were doing something about 9/11.

oh yea and OIL

Answer 9

I DID NOT APPROVE OF INVADING IRAQ BECAUSE THE WMD ISSUE. BECAUSE BUSH SAID "IRAQ HAS WMD'S AND I HAVE PROOF" THE ONLY THING IS, HE WOULDN'T SHOW ANYBODY THE PROOF. SO WE HAD TO TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT. IT WAS A LOAD OF BULL.

BUSH WOULDN'T HAVE USED THE OTHER RATIONALE BECAUSE HE NEEDED HIS FEAR CAMPAIGN TO GET PUBLIC APPROVAL FOR HIS ELECTIVE WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE.

Answer 10

Who is this question addressed to???

Do you think Congressmen are actually reading this forum???

No one reading this forum has any say in going to war. That is a decision made by Congress. They only listen to $MONEY$ If you have the kind of cash it takes to make Government decisions I doubt if you would be reading Yahzoo.


Go big Red Go