Is the US invasion and Occupation of Iraq setting a precedent?

Answer 1

Yes, it was started as a preemptive war, not because the other country attacked us or was an imminent threat.

Answer 2

Yes. A dangerous one. A lot of people will tell you about the sanctions after the first gulf war imposed by the UN, most of which Saddam ignored. The US used his apparent violation of the sanctions as the justification for the war. However the UN never authorized it. The invasion in 2003 was a unilateral move on the part of the US and a handful of other countries. In other words the US used the UN resolutions as an excuse to invade, while ignoring the position of the UN security council on the matter.

Answer 3

I think you need to look at the bigger picture in that how does the world deal with terrorism. Also, troubling is that a country who says they are against terrorism only to find out they are sleeping in the same bed with them. Remember terrorist have one thing in mind and that is to do physical and economic harm by any means possible. If it is for their cause they would have no trouble smashing your infant's head. Now how do you deal with that?
In my mind a new standard needs to be deveoped for dealing with terrorist. They are not prisoners of war and a country should not be held to the standards of the Geneva Convention. The terrorists rely on such standards as well as the western legal system to aid their cause. Also, troubling today is the media spin which is in my mind detrimental to the success against terrorist. The terroists are no fools. They travel with their family or seek refuge with civilians or use them as shields because when they are taken out then a cry goes up that we are killing civilians.
It is a complicated issue as the world gets smaller and extremists grow stronger. At least George W has a plan. Right or wrong it is at least a plan of action. Everyone just pays it lip service which goes nowhere.
Remember all the suicide bombings that took place in Israel by the Palestines. You don't hear about that much anymore because Saddam is no longer there to pay the family $25,000 for such actions.

Answer 4

No, precedent was already set. When the gulf war ended in a cease fire, there were UN resolutions written and agreed to. These however were not followed by Saddam and the coalition had the right to go back in. The UN part of this was only a courtesy call. After we found out the UN, France, and Russia were on Saddam's payroll, we also felt they were compromised. So the lesson is, back up your resolutions, and don't think you won't get found out when you are screwing over the world.

Answer 5

Not at all. After 9/11, we went into Afghanistan after terrorist strongholds. Later, we invaded Iraq to force Saddam to comply with U.N. resolutions that he blatantly chose to violate. We believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, since he had used such weapons on his own people many times in the past. He apparently was able to disburse these weapons before they were discovered, most likely to Syria. The only reason that we are still there is that the insurgents refuse to accept a free Iraq whose people can govern themselves.

Answer 6

Not at all. We "occupy" most of the countries we have fought with. This is a good thing. it ensures proper distribution of power throughout the globe instead of having it focused in one place.

Answer 7

It may be confirming what we already knew - it's hard to enforce a cease-fire against a nation that is determined to violate it and pursue banned weapons.

Answer 8

It's nothing new. The US has been meddling into other people's business for years. The precedent was already set.

Answer 9

It's not about a "war on terror" or "fighting for freedoms". It's REALLY all about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Answer 10

yes it does. the same precedent that was set when Hitler ivaded and occupied Poland.