The US coalition was right to invade Iraq.?

Question

To what extent you agree with this statement?

Answer 1

Zero percent. The whole world was screaming not to invade Iraq. But still Bush went ahead.

Answer 2

The US led coalition was wrong to invade Iraq on two grounds. Firstly, the war had not been sanctioned by the United Nations therefore it was illegal. Secondly, the whole case for attacking Iraq, ie. that the country posed a threat to world stability due to possessing weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been just a blatant lie.

The main reason for invading Iraq was firstly to satisfy the Bush family's personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, secondly, to place a regime friendly to the West in Saddam's place, and thirdly, to gain access to Iraq's vast oil supplies.

The war has not only brought about terrible consequences for Iraqi people who now have to live in this hell hole of a country but it will also have long term repercussions for the countries which supported the war, most notably the USA and the UK. If you thought that 9/11 was bad believe me you haven't seen anything yet!

The truth is, of course, that the Middle East is about four centuries behind us in Europe. They still take religion seriously like we did back in the 16th century and this leads to terrible persecution and violence. In addition, they have not yet developed advanced political systems and they need a 'strong' leader much as we had back in the autocratic 16th century with such despots as Henry VIII. Without this strong, dictatorial leadership these Arab countries will degenerate into anarchy as we are now witnessing in Iraq.

Answer 3

Of course the invasion was correct.
western oil stocks are rapidly depleteing with american pressurized stocks within 20 years od depletion.
Chinese mineral reqirements are creating spheres of influence within the oil fields of the middle east that must be countered.
The United States did indeed sex up the need for invasion so as to ensure support was gained for a noble cause that the general public wouldnt understand.These methods are not unusual and are certainly not perfect but the current geopolitical landscape would be very different now if the ruling elites of the past didnt manipulate public feeling for what is ultimately their own good.
The by-products of the invasion are the toppling of dangerous dictator saddam.Iraqs neighbours will also be aware of resolve of the coalition, giving political leverage to the democratic west.
From a military point of view, occupation of iraq is vital to any possibly future attack of iran or syria.
The revenue raised from sale of oil to the west will be for the benefit of free iraqi people rather then the former ruling ba'th party.
No allied nation has any control whatsoever over the flow and sale of oil and has only responsibility of its security.
The mistakes of the past (chamberlains appeasement of hitler), demonstrate the need to nip situations in the bud while one has the upper hand.In this case secure precious oil flow now before china feels the need to protect its interests in the middle east oil fields.
Much of the anti invasion feeling comes from the inability of the left to recognise the obvious.
The coalition does not murder , terrorise innocent civiliians or anyone else.Civilian casualties are unfortunately an inevitable part of conflict and this is nothing new, oftne civilians are put at risk by their own leaders, as demonstrated by palestinian and lebanese rocket crews holed up in residential ares.
Memeroies are short, and it must be recognised that the rulign ba'th party of iraq was responsible for mass murder and routine tortue of innocents.The people have a new order of democracy and eggs had to be broken to make the omlette.
But then FREEDOM ISNT FREE

Answer 4

It depends on what news source you use. I say yes, it was a good idea and I also think that the U.S. will have acheved two thirds of their goals by the end of this year. Iraq will have a Democratically elected government, all the police and soldiers trained (over 500,000 people) and over 1,000 building projects finished (including police stations, hospitals and other infrastructure projects). Iraq's government will also have control of 50% of Iraq by the end of this year.

Now for the reasons going in:
1. Iraq refused to allow WMD inspectors to roam around freely.
2. Iraq was shooting at U.S. planes.
3. 500 WMD shells were found and that's part of the Congressional record. Force was required to find those shells.
4. The Bush Administration posted Saddam's nuclear blueprints online but critics said to take the information off because it was all that was nessesary (minus the uranium and physically building those structures) to make an atomic bomb. Force was required to get that information
5. Records taken from Saddam show that he was backing various terrorist groups, but we wouldn't have had proof if the U.S. didn't take them by force.
6. His administration was killing his own people for kicks.

Answer 5

I do not believe that the US should have invaded Iraq, however I do believe it was based on faulty intelligence. Now that we are here and have removed the government and all governing structure it would be wrong for us to pull out and allow the nation to destabilize and fall into a civil war, or worse be taken over by Iran or Syria. I am disappointed that people believe that we invaded for oil, and that we are rapists. Remember that soldiers are a cross-section of society and are capable of crimes in Iraq just as easy as they are in the US.

Answer 6

100% disagree. the linkage between 9/11 and the Iraq regime did not exist. The ability of Iraq to deploy chemical/biological weapons within 48 hours did not exist. No WMDs have subsequently been found in Iraq.Intelligence experts in the U.S. , instead of being accountable to the CIA had to give their finding direct to the President's close advisers who then disregarded any information that didn't fit their propaganda and preconceived ideas.The world has been lied to and deliberately misinformed, and public officials who would not toe the party line have been coerced and threatened. After all this Bush has the nerve to say it's in the cause of democracy! Yeah right, and it's the poor sods in Iraq who are paying for it.

Answer 7

if we did not bypass into iraq then afghanistan could be much less in all probability to have a resurgance in the numbers of taliban combatants and we could have been ever so on the brink of looking osama bin encumbered simply by fact we would have had greater funds, greater squaddies, greater valuable family members with the arab people and international generally... for some reason i doubt this yet i think of we would/or ought to have sanctioned North Korea as quickly as we heard they have been attempting to create nuclear weapons at that element lower back in 2004 and could have prevented what ever is occurring now. iraq with saddam + north korea with kim jun sick could be a grave mixture.... and if we stopped n.korea first it ought to have been plenty much less stressful in the experience that we would possibly not see "radical islamic terrorism" simply by fact for sure North Korea is farther from the middle east yet could have had a complicated time in taking down th regime. lower back if we positioned sanctions then on N. Korea a protracted time in the past we does not be the place we are in the present day. the iraq subject i think of could have waited as quickly as we caught osama and different "vast time" terrorists and destrooyed each and each taliban/al qaeda/terror hazard

Answer 8

I agree with it absolutely. When a country is surpressed by a dictator and ts people have no power or means of their own to overthrow him, other nations have a moral obligation to come to that county's aid. I just think it is a shame that the job was not properly in the first Gulf War.

Answer 9

I disagree - the invasion of Iraq has caused more problems than it has solved. From a security point of view it has focused Al Qaida into Iraq but this has not made us safer in the West.

Western culture is based upon war. Without war, it dies.

Answer 10

Disagree.
Saddam is a vile person but that didn't give the US the right to blame him (completely incorrectly) for everything that happened in the USA (particularly 9/11).
It was up to the Iraqis to rid themselves of Saddam.
There were lies told to the world to try to justify the invasion & this is unacceptable.
There have been thousands killed, this will continue & Iraq is now a more dangerous place for everyone.