Was Iraq war a mistake?

Question

Absence of democracy, Wepons of Mass Destruction and support to terrorism were the reasons given for the Iraq war or which the latter two were false. In fact Bush's close Ally Pakistan becomes a fitter case for a war if these are the conditions for an Invasion. True the Taliban were asking for it for a long time, eventually someone else would have kicked their @ss if it wasnt for America. Did Bush's personal bias against Saddam lead America to war with Iraq? Did Bush play with the sentiments of the Americans and the support of the International countries after 911? Surely The U.S wouldnt have attacked Iraq if it wasnt for 911 which we know Iraq had nothing to do with. Surely the U.S public was lied about 911 and led to a war because of one man's bias.

Answer 1

completely and utterly - the Bush admin. doomed itself by going there

Answer 2

In the sense that there was no justification for the war, yes. it was an horrid mistake. But as a stratigic manuver, it was of great value. It's a well known fact, that the average attention span of an American is what carries them from Game to game, or American Idol etc.
Lets get the Talaban ques. first. When the Afghani people elected a moderate socialist gov't, the Talaban rose up against them. The gov't asked Russia for assistance and it was granted. Well as we know the Talaban with considerable help from the US, drove the Russians out, securing the Talabans hold on the country, The Us continued to pour billions into the Talaban, to help defeat the poppy growing operations. This continued until 9/11, when it was realized that Bin Laden and his thugs were working out of Afghanistan. Up to this point all the abuses of women & girls were going on, but the us turned a blind eye, after all they are an ally now, 9/11 changed everything. The story then was , these so and sos are forcing their women to wear Burkas etc, which they had since 1988, but now it becomes a great rallying cry.
However, georgie and the neo cons always wanted Iraq, so making up a bunch of reasons, all false, and contrary to the UN, the US &UK decide to attack. By the time, the truth is found out, they have alredy destroyed half of the infrastructure, and the have the makings of a great civil war starting. So now, they cannot withdraw. Meanwhile the US is building 14 permenant bases in Iraq. Great jumping off point to attack Iran- next target. Your 1st 3 words " Absence of democacy, If that was a legit reason, than the US should be attacking Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, yeman, UAE, Kuwait, China,and a number of other allies they have around the world. Not the least of which is the torture chambers at Gitmo

Answer 3

Which part of it? There are two unrelated aspects.

Part one, going in and deposing Saddam. Was there any real justification, or was it just an unprovoked attack. People will be debating that for the next century.

Part two, saying years after "Mission Accomplished". Yes, that was a mistake. Even if the goal might have been valid (nation building, spreading democracy, whatever), the means used were flawed.

What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan.

So, regardless of the goals, the means we're using to accomplish them are highly wasteful of both resources and American lives. And from any perspective, stupid means are not a good way to achieve any goals.

Answer 4

ok let's start with the WMD's absense. Now if Iraq didn't have them, then please tell me why the US wasn't allowed in certain places/buildings the first time.
Remember, just because we didn't find any, doens't mean Iraq didn't have them to begin with. And as you said, they were asking for it anyway. It was only a matter of time.

2. I think Bush would have looked the other way except for his father failed to take Saddam out.
3.Did Bush play with the sentiments of the people. I'm not sure what you mean by that. AFfer 9/11 many Americans were all for the war.
Last, I'm not so sure that Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Just because there is no proof, that doesn't mean he was innocent. I personally think he had his hand in it somehow.

Answer 5

It wasn't a mistake. It was done on purpose and the results are no doubt as expected too. You are assuming that the miss information was accidental if you cal it a mistake. It was obviously planned.

It was clear to almost anyone who cared to look that the majority of the world was unconvinced that Iraq had WMD's. Circumstances around the world trade center are unclear and at the best you can say the current administration new there was more to those attacks than what they're telling.

If you mean it was a mistake to let the Bush administration invade Iraq, this is probably true. Since the vast majority of people are not willing to believe their govt. would intentionally lie to them, and since most people want to think what they're told to think, it was an easy mistake to make.

The question is, now that the truth is starting to show it's head, are they going to do something about it. The question is much more complicated now than it was 5 years ago. The US has made a huge mess. By removing one of the major powers of the region and replacing that power with instability of civil war, can they just leave. Don't they have a responsibility to try and tidy up before they go?

Don't be sheep. Think for yourself. Eyes wide open.

Answer 6

911, WMD, all of that were justifications for going to war. However the core was decades of U S indecisiveness dating back to the Carter administration and every president was hesitant in unleashing the US military against foreign threat. As a result terror organizations became more aggressive. Look back at US actions involving Iran's hostage crisis, bombing of US barracks and embassy in Lebanon, Somalia, World Trade Center, USS Cole etc., respond was perceived as weak. Bush felt something has to be done. The following link is an article by George Schultz, former Secretary of State under Reagan. It is called "An Essential War". Interesting reading material.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004882

Answer 7

Big Time, yes the UN Weapon inspectors werent allowed access to all sites, so the UN as a community should have dealt with it, not 1 country and a freind or two.

Also just because a country doesnt mean that gives the right to any other country to invade it. Unless that country decides to have a revolution, we have no right to interfere.

And seriously, invading a country, will that do anything to stop terrorism. Think of Israel on a worldwide scale.

Edit: Yeah, he didnt start the war, his dad did....

Answer 8

Here is another misinformed Answers question.

1. We went into Iraq because we had a cease fire with Saddam after the Gulf War. Part of that was to allow weapon inspectors unfettered access. He refused. We had 19 UN resolutions. By breaking the cease fire, we voided our part (stop military action). It was then on. I watched Pres Bush talk about this before we went into Iraq.

2. No WMD's? What was gassing the Kurds? What about the missles with mustard gas that was recently announced.

3. On supporting terrorism, Al Qaida was in most countries with dictators. Do you think they were in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afganistan, and every other Middle Eastern country except Iraq? Think about it.

4. We would have had to go into Iraq without 9-11 because of my first answer.

I suggest taking the time to learn what actually goes on instead of asking questions based on lies perpetuated by liberals and our enemies.

Answer 9

Absoluely. Worse than Vietnam. I believe he would have found some pretext for invading even if 9/11 had not happened.
9/11 helped but being managed by the PNAC Neocons, the stage was already set to move in and take out Iraq.
Its a blunder of mistaken assumptions and cataclysmic consequences.

Answer 10

Suddam saw the Islamic Moslem terrorists as ememies of Iraq.
Suddam was crazy but he was contained and there were no WMD. The cost of American lives and money was not forseen by the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration will soon be dismantled and the Republican party will suffer as a result. Yes, Bush was bias..........it's obvious. But he made his daddy proud.

Answer 11

Yes a total mistake. More people have been killed in iraq after the US entered. An Iraqi would at least live to see another day before they entered. They may not be killing people but it sure started after they entered. Now because of this war that Bush suddenly decided to wage (taking people like sheep while he hangs at his white house) will never end and it will be a burden on the US who keep on saying that it will end. They shouldn't have entered in the first place and should minded their own business. We don't need the US to be the superhero everytime.