Should we have went to war with Iraq?

Answer 1

no....was 110% the biggest lie to date fed to the american people.

Answer 2

Someone brought up the need to boost popularity and the like..well when that fails or to supplement that FEAR tactics ultimately work the best.
Get a nation to fear a political enemy and you rally everyone to support the fall of an evil threat.
But Iraq was never a true threat to the US, as much as Bin Laden North Korea and Iran -- at that time. It was just made to look as if they were.

And all the reporting factors--the fact that Saudi arabia asked us if we wanted them to hand over Bin Laden to us, and we did nothing (to the Bush Administration not clinton) shows that someone truly didnt want Bin Laden even though Clinton Administration and Clarke efforted to point out what a threat bin laden was to us.
So it does no good to play like you want to really get Bin Laden when you could have had him to begin with.

I wonder if all this is is one man not man enough to admit when hes wrong, and us soldiers are dying because hes such an egomaniacal person that he cant find it in him to admit he was wrong.

Actually that cant be the case, because they have efforted too much with deceit and propaganda tactics that they are hiding something, and its not about I could have been wrong, its we protect some interest theyve been efforting on hiding all along.
There truly is no other explanation.
Because we are just ow uncovering what they did, but the fact is they continue this madness which hows what they are truly about

Answer 3

Those who say " if we didnt go to war with Iraq the evil dictator would have killed more people" are naive. The war was NOT about getting rid of a dictator. The U.$. Empire has put into power many ruthless dictators in the past, most notably in Vietnam, and Latin America.

This war had nothing to do with getting rid of Saddam, (which was a positive outcome), this was only an excuse to boost the populations morale. In a psuedo-democratic state like America, politicians have to give the people an illusion of a "good cause", to go to war.

Invading another country and "liberating" them from a dictator while establishing your rule inplace is never a good idea. China tried that with Tibet, and it turned into generational genocide.

Liberation has to come from within a society, not without.

Imagine back during America's Civil War days, imagine for a moment, India invades and tries to "sort out our problems for us". By abolishing slavory in the south and trying to set up a pseudo-democracy. Sure India's intentions would have been good, but it would be no business for India to invade America and solve our civil war. Just as it is no business of the U$A to meddle in another nation's affairs.

But it is all in the name of geo-political, and economic interests.

Answer 4

Based upon all the evidence that we had at the time, yes. Bill Clinton made it US Policy that Saddam had to be removed. After 9/11 we finally realized that war was being waged upon us.

Was the evidence faulty? Apparently. But Hindsight is 20/20.

Oh one more thing... while not everything in Iraq has been successful. One thing has: The Battle is being waged Over There, not here.

Answer 5

Contary to belief, bin Laden was offered to the Clinton admistration, no the Bush. Furthermore, has anyone in this post ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, since Iraq had plenty of warning we were coming, just had enough time to move WMDs or send them to a different country? Maybe they did it to precisely give us what we debate now. Where are the WMDs? Now we have division in our country, debating about every little thing. It's exactly what they want, so they can strike again if the opportunity presents itself. This war is not about oil. It's giving a country that has never had freedom a chance to have it. But I suppose that hundreds of thousands of Kurds and vvarious other groups that Saddam tried to exterminate make no difference.

Answer 6

Absolutely. First of all, most people need to go educate themselves about war and its applications. Go read Livy, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Clausewitz and then some modern stuff, say, Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Requires a Pagan Ethos by Richard Kaplan.

Now, WHY we should be in Iraq? Well for one, they DID find WMD. They weren't complete systems, but they did find the means. There were rockets that Iraq had been producing that have a range beyond that allowed by the U.N. after cessation of hostilities in the Gulf War. They also found chemical precursors for chemical weapons. Those things alone would have been justification under international law if you get right down to it. Why?

Because Iraq and Saddam were subject to renewed hostilities under the provisions of the Gulf War. The cessation of hostilities was only predicated on certain conditions which Iraq failed to meet. What the Bush administration is guilty of is thinking they needed to find a new reason after 9/11 when legally speaking, Iraq's failure to comply with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire were reason enough to renew it. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 may have been in response to the threat of expanding radical Islam, but was justified because Iraq had violated terms of the cease fire of the Gulf War. It is a perfectly legal and justified continuation of a war that the international community supported overwhelmingly. It's just finishing what we started.

Now that everyone who has ignored that fact has been educated, let's move on to the more important point that doesn't get brought up: Iraq DID have terrorists that were hiding out there and being supported by the Iraqi government. Like who?

How about Abu Nidal, who--prior the the 9/11 attacks and the rise of Bin Laden--was the worlds' most notorious and wanted terrorist. Responsible for around 300 terrorist attacks, including what prior to 9/11 were the most deadly, dastardly and bold attacks in the world, he was living openly in Iraq prior the 2003 invasion. While the details of his death are subject to speculation (whether he committed suicide or whether an Iraqi Mukhabarat assassination unit did the job is of no concern), there are some things that aren't.

Abu Nidal received from Saddam and the Ba'ath party both indoctrination and financing. Saddam offered him refuge at various times over the years. After Abu Nidal fled Lybia when Khadafi booted him out, he moved to Iraq to avoid the Jordanian courts who had condemned him to die. He was so evil and nasty a terrorist that he even tried to kill Yasser Arafat, the old terrorist who led the PLO--an organization that also put out a death warrant on Abu Nidal.

And he was living within a mile or so of Saddam's palace in Baghdad. In a villa owned by the Mukhabarat (Iraqi secret police). Now...let's see if anyone can add and put one plus one together to get two, shall we? The most pervasive security apparatus in the Middle East (that would be the Iraqi government) of a dictator who funded and harbored the world's most notorious terrorist and rented him his villa had (a) no idea he was in the country? or (b) was doing what it always had, offering him safe haven. Hmmmm.....

Now, the fact that Saddam had him killed just days before the invasion begs the question, why? Well, there's several reasons. On the one hand, Abu Nidal may have--for the right amount of money--turned on Saddam. There's no honor among thieves after all, and even less among terrorists. Another option is that he didn't want the U.S. and allies to capture him and be able to say to the world "See, there ARE terrorists here!" There are other possibilities, but those are the two most likely reasons...and they aren't even contradictory, and thus are the most likely when you consider everything.

The fact is, there were terrorists in Iraq even before the insurgents started up. They have been coming and going through Syria, Jordan and Iran into Iraq for decades. We are fighting against radical Islam, and we are doing it in their backyard instead of ours, so the obvious answer is YES WE SHOULD HAVE WENT TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

What we shouldn't have done is used whomever is running the Bush Administration's absolutely crappy PR campaign for the war. We didn't need any new justification for invading Iraq, the Gulf War gave us all the legal justification we needed. Skewing intelligence for political ends is pathetic spook tactics and not worthy of the world's only hyperpower. If they keep it up, we won't be for long.

While I'm at it, the best way to get our troops out of Iraq is to send them across the Iraqi border. East or west will do nicely...

Answer 7

In my opinion the first Gulf War was justified but the Second was not. Especially since one of the main reasons for going was weapons of mass distruction that to this day have not been found. We've already got Saddam too. I feel thats enough. We need to bring our soldiers home before more get killed. I support our troops but don't support this war.

Answer 8

hell yer theres to many people in this world lol nah just joking

i really dont no if we did they would get pissed and fight us and world war 3 will start which we dont want trust me if there is a ww3 there will be no world left with all this nuclear bombs and all this technology and stuff
so i think we should just leave them alone cause we dont want to cause trouble now theres more important things to take care of like saving water things like that

Answer 9

we never went to war with iraq...we invaded their country.

Answer 10

No we should have let the ruthless dictator slaughter thousands of children and women for fun and supress his people with no freedom at all

Answer 11

Depends on who you ask, I am sure large corporations like Carlyle and Halliburton sure think we should have.