Did you support the invasion of Iraq based on the WMD claim? Would you have if Bush was up front about his?

Question

reasons?

Answer 1

I supported the Iraq invasion until a certain event. North Korea Admitted to having weapons of mass destruction. North Korea states this, Saddam says "they have the bomb, I don't have the bomb" and Bush attacks Iraq anyway.

Countries who might have WMD get invaded. Countries that admit to having them don't.Now If you were Iran and you were watching events unfold what would you do?

Answer 2

I did not support the invasion. The Bush administration was the only entity claiming the presence of WMD. International inspectors and inspectors from within our own government claimed that it was all hype. By the time the Downing street memo was leaked, everyone knew the WMD case was fiction. Partisan supporters of Bush in this country seem to have blinded themselves to the facts.

After 9-11 a lot of people were angry and they wanted to lash out. Bush capitalized on this anger to go after Iraq - something he had wanted to do since before being elected. Read the PNAC documents which Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others drafted. But, again, partisanship has simply blinded people to reality.

Answer 3

Everyone knew Saddam had chems. He used them. The arguement was

1. Saddam used chemical weapons twice, once against Iran and another against the Kurds.

2. Saddam had a solid relationship with terrorists. Before the invasion, Saddam had Al Queda members in Iraq. This is fact. Saddam had training facilities for takig control of planes and buildings. This is fact.

3. Saddam used surrogates for attacks in the past, both with assinations of expatriate Iraqi defectors, palestinian terrorists, and other such attacks.

4. Saddam has WMDs, relationships with terrorists, acts throguh surrogates, and has the will to use WMDs. In the age of 9/11, we cannot wait to be attacked. We must strike before we are attacked.

That was his case. He was rigth then, and he is right now. It was the right thing to do for us to go to Korea under Truman. Truman was less popular that Bush, but that does not change the fact that Truman was right. History will judge Bush well.

Answer 4

I don't have much faith in the WMD theory but I still support our military involvement in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had proven to be a very unstable leader to his citizens and certainly a threat to his neighbors. His controll over the massive oil deposits in the region I fear was his motive for invading Kuwait and he may have had his eyes on other oil rich nations as well. His life before rising to the throne is well known. He was a payed assassin. He was also a thug, murderer, child molester and a thief who later lived high on the hard earned money of Iraq's citizens. He needed to be removed, but I think the President should have waited until the Iraqi people were ready to take over with an established government and the support of the Iraqi military. This, I believe, could have been done covertly and yes over a great period of time but with less bloodshed, dollars and negative reactions from so many of our worlds great leaders and citizens.

Answer 5

WMDs were only one issue. No-fly Zone infringements were another. Supporting Al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups and funding suicide Palestinians for operations in Israel were yet another. His Oil-for-Food swindle cheating the Iraqi people was another. His attacks on the Kurds and Shiites yet another. His disregard of the United Nations' resolutions another. All these reasons were talked about before the invasion--or have you forgotten?

Answer 6

War as a last resort, we had Saddam contained, he was mouthing off, but so do many leaders around the world. The weapons inspectors was in Iraq and had not found any evidence of it. War with Iraq was a choice, We did not need to rush to the conclusion that war was necessary. Therefore, I did not support the invasion of Iraq. To those that say Saddam had them and moved them to Syria, I say nuts to you. If Saddam had em he would have used them. What did he have to lose. To those that say we found them, nuts to you. Those were already reported by the weapons inspectors and posed no danger as they were out dated.

Answer 7

Yes, I did. I absolutely did. I was in college in Montana at the time, a liberal college. I used to love Fox News and watched it all the time when the war first began. After university I moved back to California. I slowly but surely began to change my views. I am a registered Independent, now, but I make it no secret that I lean left.

Answer 8

I would have preferred to go to war against Wallmart. But Bush had that family vendetta against Iraq.

The war has been good for the economy look at the DOW those 30 largest corporations in America have made billion$ off of this war. CEO salaries are up and the Plutocrats are happy.

Go big Red Go

Answer 9

Read the reports, WMD WERE used by Saddam... in the genocide of hundreds of thousands of Kurds, innocent men, women, and children...

That is PLENTY good enough reason to axe his a*s...

Answer 10

Bush will keep lying to his grave claiming he believed Saddam had wmds and lots of idiots will carry on believing him, the alternative is too frightening for their little brains.