War in Iraq; effective decision or bad choice?

Question

I think Bush has done an effective job in spreading democracy and fighting terror. Also, I can't understand for the life of my why people ask "If we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction, why not invade North Korea? They have nukes! This proves Bush isn't thinking!" As far as the world knows, no leader of N. Korea has ever used WMDs on innocent civilians the way Iraq under Saddam Hussan has. The world cannot live in saftey with an Iraq that operates under a fascist regime where leaders like Hussian can come into power not by free election but by force and intimidation. From the point of view of basic human liberty and from the view of world safety Bush made the right descision.

Answer 1

Ask the free Iraqi that has a job and doesn't have to fear Saddam's military anymore, that has hope fot the future, and that wants us to stay until his family's future is secure.

Answer 2

Who has given you the power to interfere in other nations affairs? Are you a UN appointed policeman?

It is the look out of the Iraqis, if Saddam had killed people, to fight against him...Saddam had not attacked US / UK or any other country. If he had done so, then there was a reason for US to attack Iraq..

Bush has made the wrong descision and is paying the price..If he is really fighting the terror, then why support Pakistan, which is harbouring the terrorists...

Answer 3

Ha hahaha, you gave me a laugh for quite sometime. You may watch all those propaganda machines in the US media. In truth, the US already lost the guerilla war in Iraq. Its also a loss on the political front. The biggest loser in the Iraq war is the US. I suggest you surf the Internet rather than watch the clowns on Fox News. Please do not think that your country can go around with a gun and dictate any particular nation, oh by the way, did anyone ever mention that Saddam was supported by the US during the Iraq - Iran wars. I find it surprising that after 3 years and what happened in Lebanon and the history of the Middle Eastern conflict, people like you still don't get it. Peace be upon you.

Answer 4

Yeah, starving a million North Koreans to death instead of using WMDs was a humane thing for Kim to do and qualifies him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

The *world* lived in much greater safety with Saddam in power than they do now! There are plenty of facist regimes that massacre their own people all over the world - their leaders just didn't try to off the President's daddy, nor are they filled with oil... if you believe for a minute that establishing a democracy was Bush's first priority, boy, are you a dumb neocon! Free elections in Iraq? There were "elections" in which the voters cast ballots for whomever their mullahs told them to vote for, and what they got was a completely ineffective, totally corrupt government (can you say "$5 billion in US tax dollars under fraud investigation?" I didn't think so). Civil war and anarchy kinda make that parliament kinda moot, don't you think? If they do eventually get that party started, it will be a Shiite-dominated, anti-American majority, dodo! "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." Boy, is that ever true!

Answer 5

In addition - Saddam sent his tanks into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait with the stated intention of capturing all the Middle East oil production to choke off the West.

Clinton made the decision to remove Saddam by force with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton tried but failed. Bush succeeded.

Answer 6

wish in 1 hand ,want in the other . no one likes to stub their toe .but it happens .the secrets we'll never know from Clinton to Bush . may have a great deal with effective or bad .
not allowing the spred of that type of leadership was a necessary means needed to upscale traditions in trade ,democracy ,and personal trust between the people of all countrys .
a big sleep bomb would be handy !
the wars should not continue .
NK could stand down and participate .
Iraq would flourish IF they could live and let live .
and gangs could get along too IF you know what i mean .
then here we are .is it all a dream?

Answer 7

I'm disturbed by your statement that spreading democracy is a good idea in the same sentence as combatting terror. Democracy is a great thing, and I believe is the best system, but to say we should actively push it via military means is just flat wrong. I hope what you mean is peacefully promoting it. As for the rest of your statement, I disagree wholeheartedly.

Answer 8

Spreading democracy and freedom is a big brotherly thing to do and also a Christian thing to do. People balk at it because the cost of such endeavor is paid with the lives of our soldiers and citizens.
Personally, I think N. Korea might have been a better choice of country to reform. Not because of the question of nukes, but because its people wouldn't be so divided over religion and hence less infighting.

Answer 9

Remind me again what 9-11 had to do with Terrorists in Iraq?

Answer 10

this finished the Republicans are evil and the Democrats are saints element has incredibly have been given to quit. Politicians, for the main area, want regulation for one reason and one reason in basic terms. capacity. it incredibly is why they continuously have some loophole for their cronies so as that the gravy prepare of marketing campaign donations retains rollin in, and so as that they could dole out favors to their acquaintances and punish their enemies. the problem is with the corruption in Washington with the yankee tax payer paying the fee. we incredibly desire to quit the internal battling approximately who's side is extra helpful and face as much as end the corruption.