On what basis was the attack on Iraq a good idea in anyway at this point? Looking to hear from Republicans?

Question

I just don't understand how anyone still could think that the decision to attack Iraq was a good idea as though if they could go back in history they would do it again. I have an open mind though, so I am very interested in hearing the view from those who strongly about it.

I think a few in here have missed the point of the question. I was not just asking for a list of benefits for having attacked. Obviously there are some big benefits that ALL agree on. However, as any intelligent decision would require, weighing these against the negatives is the only way to properly justify it. I don't need to list the negatives, but I have yet to see, read or hear enough benefits to provide any basis to make it a good idea.

In fact, you could apply many of the same resulting benefits to many other nations (such as listing all the bad things about Saddam) and unless you are suggesting that we attack all those nations as well, then that arguments doesn't quite hold up.

Please, if you are going to list the benefits as your justification, at least explain why they outweigh the negatives. Thanks.

***JOHN D*** I felt that I should specifically respond to your comment being that you made some ignorant claims about me. First, I made it clear in the question that I am by no means a supporter of the Democratic party. The fact that you would make such a conclusion despite me saying that might show your ignorance for trying to answer a question you clearly didn't fully read (or perhaps comprehend).

As far as how 911 affect me, you made your own assumptions about me to make your point. That is pretty ridiculous being you have no idea how it affected me.

In regards to the world being better off with Hussein out of power, are you suggesting the ends justify the means? Should we then go on attacking every nation whose leader is harmful? Do you make such a statement without regard to those "AFFECTED" badly the results?

Who is biased??? I voted for Bush and just refuse to think he is always right. Your whole answer stinks of bias! Good day.

Bottles - apparently your motif is to make decisions without weighing the benefits and consequences. Enjoy your selective reasoning.

Answer 1

There are several basis on which the attack on Iraq was a good idea. The problem is, the people running the show didn't have clue one on how to do it right and when it came to taking the advice of the Generals that were on the ground, the advice went in one ear and out the other.

Answer 2

It is a fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction: it used them. It is a fact that Iraq was required, by the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and a dozen subsequent UN resolutions, to get rid of them in an accountable matter. It is a fact that it did not do so. It follows from these facts that the attack on Iraq was legitimate. But was it wise? Bush concluded, after 9/11, that having WMD in the hands of a rogue regime was too big a threat to tolerate, and that he would prefer not to find out the hard way by having terrorists do something like set off an atomic bomb in New York City. Which is why he did what he did. Now, was he wrong?

Answer 3

I would like you to think back to Sept 11 2001. A little fight started in New York City. Remember that? Well, I do because I personally know families that were affected by that day for the rest of their lives. Well, Iraq harbored criminals of the same sort that were planning more attacks. I took that personally and believe that if the issue was personalized to you, you would realize why the fight happened and must continue to happen. For instance, if someone entered your house raped and murdered your daughter, or wife or a loved one of yours, and fled to a neighbor, who threatened to do the same, would you want the police to take the guy out or say, " Well, we don't want to stoop to that level, plus the people that are harboring this guy didn't really do anything so let's just let him be." So the question to you, my democratic, biased-media believing friend, what would you do?
Additionally, I think Pres. Bush asks a good questoin, is the world better having Hussein out of power? Yes. And if we stop now, like Clinton in the past, we will be faced with another attack.

Answer 4

Regardless of WHY we're there, we ARE there and need to deal with it.

I think if we could drop the PC BS and fight the "insurgents" using the same tactics they do, we WOULD win.

And yes, I *do* believe it was the right thing to do. 12 years and 17 failed UN resolutions....where would it have ended? How many more people would have been shredded alive? How many more little girls would his depraved, brutal, pedophile sons have raped? I have a very very dear friend who just returned from Baghdad, 2 cousins who served in Iraq, and numerous friends and acquaintances who were in Iraq - every single one of them has told me that we ARE doing the right thing over there. Since they've actually been there and they were the ones who got shot at, I'm inclined to believe them.

Anwar - if you truly believe that our military is all bad, I'd be DELIGHTED to help you move out of the country. Are all cops bad because a few are? Are all liberals idiots because a few are?

Answer 5

for some reason I think Im about to waste my time but ohwell.

The saudis back the sunnis and the iranians back hezbollah and the shiites. Lebanon is under attack by hezbollah (iran) and venezuala is now a false democracy that is siding with Iran and russia. Russia is supporting Iran with weapons to feed their starving people and EVERYBODY wants to destroy Isreal. These are all the biggest reserves of oil.

the only middle eastern country that has oil and we could salvage for now with even dubious intelligence is Iraq. Ahmadenijad stated he is going to cut the flow of oil to the west and we already know they hated Saddam.

we have a drug addiction to oil and if we lose every foothold to the middle east our economy will be destroyed. Our military would be then unable to mobilize and we are at the mercy of all those countries I stated above. We have to have a friend in the middle east if not us our selves. whether our people like it or not we are the big brother of this world. we have to make sure people like ahmadenijad cant do his biddings. We want peace but if we are unable to control it evil will reign. we are in a bad spot because we have to be proactive in the day of nuclear proliferation. The radical muslim factions want to destroy the western democratic ideology and if we lose the foothold in the middle east it will weaken our abilities to stop them.

Saddam was a bad guy. he killed and torchered his an many other people. he oppressed his people and was ripe for the picking if not by us someone else.

Iraq was but a foothold in the global attack on Radical islam.

I can answer questions on this to because I know what they would be but I doubt you made it this far so let me know if you care.

Answer 6

There are several good reasons. The oil is ours. To protect Israel. To have a base in Middle East so that can invade Iran anytime we like. To get rid of Saddam. To test our new weapon system effectiveness. To boost our Super power status. To revenge 911 attack. To have our troops have 'actual training'. Having said that, all Hell broke loose after we declared victory and we are at the recieving end. The commander thinks it is a easy game....to bad or we can make it big if we do it right.

Answer 7

Refusal to believe the truth is a sure sign of problems.
Saddam Hussein was given 17 opportunities to comply with U.N. Resolutions, not U.S. resolutions !!! And 10 years. . ... . 10 a decade !!!
And Saddam himself was a weapon of mass destruction.. . ... . . how easily you forget/ refuse to remember !!
And what part of your God-given brain allows you to believe that he didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction . Think about it, and logic will give you the answer . Think.... . ... . Why in the world would he refuse inspections and disclosure, facing CERTAIN WAR with the U.S. and others, if he didn't have anything to hide ???!!!!????!!!! Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever . It does however, make sense that he did have WMD's and he was buying time to hide them.. .. . . .perhaps in those trucks that went over the Syrian border and to their ultimate destination in the Bekka Valley . And add to that, the best Syrian Brigade suddenly went to the Bekka Valley and 'guarded' that shipment in the middle of NOWHERE . Gee, I wonder what could've been in those trucks, trucks that left Iraq only days before the invasion . How easily you forget/refuse to remember !!
I've taken the time to 'fill' your so-called 'open mind' with FACTS.. .... . independently confirmed, recognized and understood . Ya see, what you don't realize is that there are Democrats who are fully apprised of this situation, but they're not gonna tell you. . ....... . that would take away from all their momentum from their HATE CAMPAIGN ... You are being played like a fiddle, and if I was you, I'd be pretty pissed . Cause now you're publicly making a fool of yourself, only because a Democrat wouldn't tell you the truth !!!!!

EDIT* - After reading your 'edit', I think you are the one confused here, not us . Listing the COUNTLESS reasons and FACTS does prove that the decision to aatack Iraq was right . Perhaps you see things differently . Perhaps 'consequences' are more important to you than RIGHTEOUSNESS . Perhaps bloodshed and destruction are too much for you to stomach . Fine, then don't watch, but don't come to me and cry simply because you're incapable of handling the truth

Answer 8

Because according to Clinton they were a threat. Bush was just man enough to do something about it.



"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Answer 9

I GUESS A GOOD ANSWER IS "DEFENSE OF HUMAN LIFE." SOMEWHERE, SOMETIME, PEOPLE HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT TYPE OF WORLD THEY WANT TO LIVE IN-JUST NOT THEIR LITTLE CORNER OF IT. SADDAM WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR LITERALLY MILLIONS OF LIVES BEING LOST IN AND OUT OF HIS COUNTRY. THE KURDISH PEOPLE SUFFERED UNTOLD DEPRIVATIONS UNDER HIS RULE--THE EFFECTS OF WHICH ARE STILL BEING FELT. MURDER AND RAPE WERE COMMON "SPORTING EVENTS" LED BY HIS TWO SONS. WE HERE IN THE U.S. HAVE SEEN VICTIMS OF HORRENDOUS CRIMES PERPETRATED RIGHT IN FRONT OF STUNNED PASSERS-BY THAT DID NOTHING. WE ALWAYS SEEN TO DECRY THAT SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS. TOO OFTEN, HOWEVER, OUR PEOPLE PREFER TO SIT BY INSTEAD OF STANDING UP TO FACE THESE DESPOTS WHO WOULD MURDER HUNDREDS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE AS IS HAPPENING IN IRAQ THIS VERY INSTANT. IF WE, AS A PEOPLE, CAN TURN OUR BACKS ON THOSE THAT CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THIS BARBARIC SLAUGHTER BY CRAZED THUGS, THEN WE SURELY ARE A SAD LOT. I THOUGHT BEING FROM A PREDOMINANTLY CHRISTIAN-JUDEO COUNTRY REQUIRED A LOT MORE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE THEN THAT.

Answer 10

You're uninformed.

1. Saddam is no longer torturing, raping, murdering men, women and children;he is no longer shooting at our planes; he is no longer invading countries and gassing innocent people; he is no longer violating UN resolutions; he is no longer researching and developing WMDs; he will no longer bully his neighbors;

2. Iraq has drafted a Constitution;

3. Iraq has had two free elections with minimal violence.