Do you think Bush & allies made the right decision sending troops to Iraq?

Answer 1

The CIA and the NIS were instructed by the Bush Administration to find evidence to confirm Saddam had Nuclear and Biological weapons Programs actively in use. The CIA and NIS new from the outset that they would find it impossible to do this, because they had no intelligence what-so- ever to give to the Bush administration who were demanding proof. They managed, between them to supply Bush & Cheney a report that was`nt worth the paper it was printed on. These agencies said at the time, and have continued to admit, to this day. Saddam had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. NONE !! The US and the UK went to war for NOTHING, It takes ONE BULLET TO ASSASINATE A TYRANT, NOT 650 000 DEAD PEOPLE. IT IS AN ILLEGAL WAR, pure and simple. If anyone would care to argue the point with me I`ll open up my e.mail for discussion, and supply ANY evidence they wish to examine.
And don`t give me any crap about violating UN sanctions, they were devised specifically to entrap the Hussein regime, thus ensuring he had absolutly no choice but to violate them.
I believe that now the US and UK have tested the water, as it were. They have set a precedent where by, you don`t actually need a viable excuse for invading another country and killing it`s people, they have devised their own set of rules. Astonishing and terrifying and truly barbaric.

Answer 2

absolutely not.first of all the allies were lied to about the weapons as we were.and now the president admits he had bad intelligence and there were no weapons.this means Saddam was complying with all United Nations sanctions and shouldn't of been attacked at all.so because of MR. Bush's lie or bad intelligence as he calls it close to 3000 of our troops have lost their lives not to mention over 100,000 innocent men women and children in Iraq.so not only was it a bad decision to send them in it is even a worse decision not to bring them home.

Answer 3

because of the fact extra troops (guy ability) ought to help in looking, combating, and killing insurgents. We shouldve despatched extra troops some years in the past. we would desire to attempt and end the job and we would desire to apply extra rigidity and tacticts to assist squash the final public of the insurgents. of direction, this may be for no longer something if Iraqis do no longer get up and do their section besides. We additionally would desire to 3 how get Iran to offer up supporting the insurgents. extra sanctions perchance. this would be a sparkling direction. in case you expected a sparkling direction to be p.c.. up and depart, then you definately are incorrect. Even the Dems like that bag lady Pelosi suggested we would desire to consistently have extra troops. She suggested that a mutually as returned yet of direction now she is saying no because of the fact as everyday, the Dems % to be against something Bush is for. the guy cant win because of the fact because of the fact the initiating of this, human beings have been turn flopping and only proceed to attack him, yet the place are there solutions or selection ideas? They dont furnish any. The democrats are proving to be stable for no longer something.

Answer 4

No I don't. I think we should have began the war right here in The United States. I don't mean, "Say no to Terrorism." I do mean Kick some butt. Stop any people from the Middle East form entering this country. Deport any that are here that are not citizens. Watch the ones that are citizens very close, very close. very close. Profiling? So What? Do you want to win or
or be politically correct?








t?

Answer 5

Well, hindsight is 20/20, and looking back I'd have to say "no". At the time it seemed like a viable and reasonable thing to do, but not so much now.
It is interesting to note that Saddam was just found guilty of crimes against humanity, but who is responsible for providing him with the biological gases he is supposed to have used against his own people? From what I have heard we (the good ol' US of A) gave it to him in order to help keep Iran in check back in the late 70's/ early 80's. I don't know this to be a fact, but I would not be surprised.

Answer 6

Yes, I think they really had no choice. It is kind of like a baseball game the pitch is thrown and you have a split second to determine if you should swing. Where I see the wheels came off the wagon is in the after action events. In WWII the people were ready to take back their countries because the "occupation was so short". The Saadam tenure had killed or cowed all potential moderate leaders that would established an effective government quickly. I support the decision to remove Saddam from power, we just are not having much luck with our present day revitalization, thanks mostly to Iran.

Answer 7

Without a doubt - NO! If his own father didn't think an invasion of Iraq would be successful due to the fact that there was (is) not a viable "exit strategy", then what would compel him to do so? Obviously, he does not have an exit strategy to this fiasco, whatsoever.

One more thing - this "war" supposedly was as a result of the search for Osama Bin Laden. When was the last time we've heard our "esteemed leader" utter that name? Granted, Sadam should be punished for the atrocities that he has perpetrated, but what about Bin Laden? He continues to release video tapes, he's "supposedly" still on the run, AND he's on dialysis? Gimme a break! But I digress.

Answer 8

I think there was something fishy about the whole thing, no wmds; I think the American public wanted action due to the 9/11 attack, but I don't think this was exactly what we should have done. I think it was what Bush wanted to do and he didn't care then or now what the American public wanted. Now if he had found Bin Laden and wiped terrorists off the face of the earth and gotten a treaty from all middle-eastern nations guranteeing that they would capture of kill any terrorists hiding within their borders, then maybe the lost lives and billions in dollars he has spent might mean something.

Answer 9

No. It was a bad decision. Bush sent troops based on false information, and to fulfill his own agenda. UN inspectors said prior to Bush sending troops that there was NO evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It has turned into a fiasco. Our troops are caught up in a civil war that has gone on for ages.

Answer 10

he miserably failed in Iraq for it is going to become another Vietnam. after finishing the task of establishing democracy and completely eradicating the talibans in Afghanistan, he should have gone for Saddam. it is really a bad military strategy. before the USA invaded Iraq there were no religious terrorists and no sectarian violence but now daily hundreds of people are being killed due to sectarian violence between shias and Sunnis. another thing is the bush administration could not find not even a single weapon in Iraq which cause for the destruction of the masses.now as per the polling conducted by the guardian news paper in the USA, Britain, Israel, and Canada, people are believing bush as a threat to world peace. he is ranked second to ladden in three countries.