Are you for or against the war in Iraq? Why?

Question

I would also like to know what country you are from. I am from America and I am totally against the war. I feel that Bush was wrong in starting it.

Answer 1

Well initially I was for it, but now it seems we are there for no reason. There were no WMD, and we can't even get the oil out of the ground to pay for the war. It has been a disaster. I voted Democratic last Tuesday. Kiss my blue state ***, neocons!

Answer 2

Before the war was launched on Iraq, in one of the UN meetings, the representative from France warned that, "America can win the war (in Iraq), but America cannot win the peace." France, Germany, Russia and China were not supportive of the unilateral actions by USA to go ahead to strike on Saddam Hussein's regime.
No country can strike another country unless its national security is threatened. Iraq did not pose such a danger to the USA. However, misleading facts were presented: 1) Iraq had WMD (weapons of mass destruction); 2) Saddam Hussein had links with Al Qaeda; 3) Saddam Hussein was a dictator.
Point number 3 could be true, but understanding the ethnic/sectarian/religious divisions within Iraq might give one a clearer view of why an iron-hand rule might be more feasible to ensure that the Kurds, Sunnis or the Shiites do not massacre one another over control of a divided country. No WMD could be found as it was never in existent, and as far as most of us are aware, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden could never be bed-fellows.
By attacking another nation based on manipulated facts, the USA had set a precedent, in modern history, for future powers to use the same dirty trick again. It is a fact that the USA will not remain as the most militarily advanced nation forever, and if it were to decline in future, and other more powerful nations were to use the same pretext to attack the USA, can USA resort to the UN to avert such a catastrophe on itself, when USA had ignored international agreements and collective actions?

Answer 3

I am from america and I do not agree with the war in Iraq. I do however believe that the best thing that happened out of all of this was Saddam Hussein was taken out of control. I was all for them going after Bin Laden, but because Bush funded all his learning he couldn't continue to persue him for fear that secrets would be let out. War is never good. There are always people who get killed who have nothing to do with it. I pray it ends soon, but unfortunately we have made many nations angry and could very well be going into a World War 3. Good luck and GOD bless.

Answer 4

I'm against the war in Iraq. I served two tours one in Iraq and one in Afghanistan where upon I was wounded. I believe we cannot win this war. Our popular support in Iraq is gone, civil war is wide spread, and our ability to fight insurgents/IED"s is degrading. I blame the President for misleading the public about our reasons to go to war. I also blame the Pentagon for repeating mistakes of the past. We should have gone into Iraq with at LEAST 300,000 troops. During WWII we occupied Japan with over million troops in order to prevent civil unrest. Today, we are trying to occupy Iraq a country twice the size of Japan with only 130,000 troops. What idiot General thought this would work. As soon as the looting began after the liberation of Baghdad, American Generals realized their mistake and the need for more troops. However, asking for more troops, let alone a draft, would have been political suicide.

SSGT.
USAF

Answer 5

It is always "wrong" when your own soldiers are dying and there seems to be no solution to end the war. Who was it who warned that Iraq is America's 2nd Vietnam? Tariq Aziz former Iraq foreign minister. He knew. Shock n awe America was too arrogant to realize this. Now you need to talk to Iran, Syria to find some kind of solution to extricate your uniformed honorably. What's most worrying about American leadership is the arrogant thinking that technology will win wars. By charging into Iraq, it shows that America did not learn a darn thing from the Vietnam debacle.

Answer 6

I'm Australian, The Iraq war is a complete waste of time, there is no way that region of the world will ever bend to Western Ideals, your government would have been better off funding research into alternatives for oil, then oil from the middle east would no longer be needed and that region of the planet would become so poor waging war on the rest of the world would be the last thing on there mind.

Answer 7

Bush made a boogie man out of Saddam by making a caged mad dog look like a vicious tiger on the prowl.
It would be a good thing to do if the only threat to the world peace was Saddam.
But the truth isnt that. By turning away from the present danger posed by Osama and catching Saddam for possessing something he didnt, we have let the real danger lurk around freely.
Had this effort been put on bringing down Al-Qaeda, world would have been far safer place today.
I'm From India.

Answer 8

So far you only have one opinion on here I would even begin to trust. A big thank you for your service Sargent. Onwards, the war needs to be fought and won. We need to send in enough troops to win. If we do so now we have a chance. We should have done so before now. We cannot just cut and run. I am very afraid that is what the democrats will have us do. If we do not finish what we started than anything bad that happens over there is our fault. I do not believe that the democrats understand this.

Answer 9

Here's the logic I see.

Before the war: We have this crazy nut on the news all the time screaming at the west... this guy who absolutely hates the free world's guts..
A guy who WAS PURSUING WEAPONS which he could use to terrorize Iraq's neighbors.. And if he was given time, he would have been able to REdevelop those WMDs!
(it's not as if he didn't want WMDs!)

Now who else is there who has that kind of hate for the west?
BIN LADEN AND AL QAEDA, of course!!!!!

Now, IF Saddam had managed to get WMDs, how long do you think that he would have hesitated to pass it on to someone like Bin Laden when he had the chance????


Don't forget that if America did not invade Iraq, there would be still be a crazy tyrant in power who would be continuing to help propagate instability throughout the middle east!!!!!

Answer 10

If the Iraq war is wrong in your mind then so must have been WWII...

Saddam was a REALLY bad guy... you know one of those Hitler type guys who wanted to/tried to exerminate an entire race... The only difference is that the 'dead' are brown, not 'white'...

That alone was/is a good enough reason for the United States and Britain to be over there...

And Just like WWII... it is only the US and Britain that had the 'balls' to stand up to an 'evil' man.