Knowing all that we know today, should the US have gone to war with Iraq?

Question

Or maybe the US should have concentrated on Ben Laden in Afghanistan? Or maybe the US government should have worked within the aegis of the UN. State your reasons and why. Stay on topic. Please check your emotions at the "door".

Answer 1

The orriginal Gulf War was probably necessary at the time, although in retrospect it didn't really solve anything. The more recent war with Iraq was started under false pretences as there were no weapons of mass destruction. At least it resulted in overthrowing Sadam Hussein. Having said that, I think we should now leave them to get on with it themselves as so many of our young soldiers are being killed on a daily basis. The Spanish withdrew thier troops ages ago, and we (the British)should do the same. Unfortunately while our government continues to be tied to America's apron strings, I can't see this happening. The "rebuilding of Iraq" has more to do with oil and massive redevelopement contracts than peace. The "squabbles" among the different groups of Iraqis could go on for years unabated.

Answer 2

It has nothing to do with what we know now. It was and always has been, Hell No. We are collectively paying the price for rushing headlong into a situation which had little forethought or public discussion and scrutiny. That old story regarding not learning history comes back to haunt us. Skepticism and debate are necessary before exercising administration policy. Any administration's. We were fully justified by our invasion into Afghanistan and had the force of world opinion on our side. Here we are 5 years later Bin Laden still loose, the Taliban resurgent, more terror in the world not less, $3/gal fuel, Military spent, the largest debt in the country's history and we must stay the course. For what? What course? There is no direction.
War is the last option in dealing with the world. It has always been for a moral society. The "make war first" crowd is in the realm of the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world.

Answer 3

Saddam having gone is a positive, but all the reasons the US stated for going to war have turned out to be lies, there were no WMDs or the capacity to make them, there is no evidence that Iraq had any link to al quaeda prior to the war. If they had taken their time and gone down the UN route maybe Iraq could have been freed from Saddam a lot more peacefully (although we don't know that). So no they should not have gone to war when they did, but they should not leave as many people seem to suggest because they made the mess in that country so they should stay there until they have helped clean it up

Answer 4

I have to say no! Why? The Iraqi conflict was already a mistake from the very beginning since the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Bush has used flawed intelligence to prove a (lying) case for an illicit war in Iraq by saying Saddam acquiring WMD's; there was no proof of it, however. The Bush administration should have, at least, worked with the UN in resolving that crisis peacefully. And now look at the mess he has put us into.

Answer 5

We shouldn't have gone in knowing what we knew then! The intel from the UK's Rockingham Project proved one of the two key sources of WMDs was a liar even code named him curveball. The CIA had worked with Ahmed Chalabi for ten years and should have known he was out to use the US troops to over throw Saddam for personal gain. The UN inspecters doubted their existance as well. Ecentially we went to war based on the testimony of one person...a CIA informant Ahmed Chalabi.

Second Iraq was not part of the war on terror until the day after Bush stated Mission Accomblished. By destablizing the country we have made it a hub for terrorists.

Lastly, We do not understand the facts behind the "New Hitler" Saddam used the WMDs against the Kurds...a militant group that was destablizing his country..in short a terrorist group. We all want to nuke all terrorists yet we feel it just to limit Saddam reaction to terrorists? Seems hypocritical to me. Furthermore look how Iraqis respond to freedom...civil war maybe in their culture rule by heavy hand was the only way to prevent this war? Maybe by Saddam killing all those people he was saving tens of thousands? I don't know I just like to rationalize both sides.

As far as Afganistan which is part of the war on terror, Iraq has taken troops away from the search for bin Laden. With full military concentration I feel we would have been out of Afganistan by now with a clear signal to terrorist and the governments that support them.

Answer 6

No, we should have never gone. All the facts that were known then because they were articles printed by truthful journalists not the paid corporate hacks on the nightly news. Now all of sudden Bush and Cheney say there is no link. There never was it was total BS. People get upset over 9/11 and that is understandable since that was one of the darkest days in our history. Watch the news and see what we have helped create (destroy) in Iraq. If that doesn't make you sad for the average citizens in Iraq then we truly are uncivilized as a nation.

Answer 7

so you think your smart enough to win every football game on Monday? if that's the case look at the facts and a map. if we went to Afghanistan and not Iraq are troops would be cornered and cut off. Iraq, Syria and Iran would be a threat to the whole operation. finding one man will not give us the victory. this is a global war against a determined enemy. Iraq is a strategic battle in that war. a free Iraq will promote peace in the middle east. is it hard? yes and will get harder, but we are on the door step of Iran, and Syria. that is where we need to be. Clinton proved you cant sweep it under the rug.

Answer 8

Going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan made perfect sense after 9/11. Bin Ladin and his cohorts did not expect it and it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately it was not properly throught through or adequately resourced.

Iraq was a costly and ultimately catastrophic diversion. Global terrorism is worse now as a direct consequence of it. Saddam Hussein had nothing to with al-Qaeda. Invading Iraq achieved noting positive. The world is a far less safe place because of it. While the crazy war continues in Iraq, Afghanistan continues to be denied essential military resources and the mess gets steadily worse.

George Bush is without doubt the most dangerous and most disastrous president the USA has ever had.

Answer 9

Yes, Saddam required removing from power as all dictators like him should be.

They were never going to find Bin Laden so extra man power etc would have been wasted.

UN are supposed to be a peace keeping force, but have proved uneffective. Mabye abolish UN and establish Military of Peace via NATO?

America and Britain took a brave stance declaring war on Iraq, there reasons for doing this were wrong and exagerated. Though the actual actions were correct, as we will never have peace as long as People like Saddam remain in power.

If only they would show the same passion for justice against Muggabe.

Answer 10

I listened to the President speak last night. I believe him when he said that after 9/11 Saddam was to big of a threat to leave in power. No I don't follow like a lamb to slaughter but I thought going in there made a lot more since than trying to keep Iraq in a box for a 100 years. I mean if he is that dangerous that his country has to be pinned downed 24/7 than after 9/11 I think we needed to go in there.
I also listened to Hillary Clinton last night. I actually agreed with what she was saying.