Should we have invaded Iraq to depose Saddam?

Question

On the one hand-
Saddam was an evil man, guilty of mass murder, rape and thievery. He was the supreme dictator of Iraq, and stole money intended to feed his people to build palaces. He directed his people to make nuclear weapons and was led to believe that he was succeeding in that endeavor, while his people gave us reasons to believe that he was making nuclear weapons as well. By invading we could give the Iraqis freedom and democracy.

On the other hand-
Bush may have over-stated our case for believing Saddam actually did have weapons. We knew it would likely be a long and difficult battle. Mistakes have been made in the execution and in restoring peace to Iraq. Perhaps the Iraqi people didn't really deserve freedom and democracy, and can't appreciate it because they didn't earn it.

Did we do the right thing by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam?

Answer 1

To my friend The Fighter. Yes it was right to invade and depose Saddam. Rape Rooms, Mutilation, Torture, Poison Gas, Invading neighboring countries and the clear intention of much more justifies everything Bush has done. It would have been better to have been more brutal. But Bush is a good man who thinks War can be more Humane. I think the most humane way is the fastest way.
I also believe the time has come to assassinate Evil Leaders like these quickly and do so with the Massive Firepower we possess.

Answer 2

Saddam should have been removed from power for the reasons stated; he was an evil man.

However the reasons given for invading Iraq were indeed overstated if not completely fabricated. James Risen, the New York Times national security correspondent highlights the following in his book, State Of War: The Secret History Of The CIA and The Bush Administration (Free Press):

The CIA and the president had overwhelming evidence that Iraq had no nuclear weapons programs during the run up to the Iraq war. In fact, there was overwhelming evidence received from inside sources that Iraq had discontinued its nuclear program in 1992.

The false evidence used was provided by an Iraqi informant named Curveball, who was discovered to have fabricated to the story due to lack of corroboration and control by the CIA.

The CIA provided Iran with the blueprints and plans for its current nuclear program.

Before 9/11 the CIA warned that Osama Bin Laden was a threat to the United States but these intelligence reports were ignored and the annalists responsible for the reports were either sidelined or fired.

Only time will tell whether invading Iraq was the right thing.

Answer 3

I think Bush did the right thing in sending troops to Iraq to arrest Saddam. Justice was served. Even though people say that they did find WMDs, and then others said they didn't find them, but while they were there, they found like you have mentioned, mass graves of many, many people that Saddam has murdered. That's why he is where he is now.

The point being, the Iraqi people don't have a dictator who fed them with lies and killed innocent civilians. These people are looking for peace. Also our troops are there to train the Iraqi soldiers, to form their government. Until they are ready to be on their own, then hopefully our troops will be able to come home. Or sooner, now that the Demos are in leadership.

Just take a look of Saddam's history of crimes, he was a mad man in the very beginning. People were afraid of him so they did nothing. Now the Iraqi people thank America for what America has done for them. But, the radical ones are the ones who would rather shed innocent blood then live in peace. Kind of like the way it is going with the Israelis and the Palistinians in Israel. Israel wants peace, but the Palistinians (radical ones) don't.

Answer 4

We aren't so lily white. Over 1/2 million Iraqi children under 5 dies of starvation due to the blockades!

Iraq was never about democracy, Hell, we deposed a democracy in Iran with our CIA conducting terrorist attacks and blaming it on the President! His democracy was replaced with the Shaw of Iran!

You think Iraq is going to be democratic? Sure they are! Just like Kuwait!

Any attacks we carried out should have been about Terrorist and 9/11 which Iraq had nothing to do with!

We put Saddam in power by overthrowing the head of the Republic of Iraq, twice! We put Castro in power!

And why are you so worried about Iraq and democracy? You do nothing but watch while Bush dismantles our Constitution!

Sure Iraq hid the weapons! The US had spy satellites on Iraq 24/7. U2's, and we were using Russia's infrared capabilities! We could have seen an ant cross the desert, much less 50 tons of Saran!

Answer 5

No...Bush and Cheney lied about the intelligence they had, There was no nuclear capabilities in Iraq. There have been other warlords that did not require the same military involvement. It's all about oil. Bush's family is oil, they are tight with the Saudis and Saddam threatened Arab oil to the U.S. He was trying to unite the other Arab countries in how they sold that oil to us and other countries. That was the intelligence they really had but kept from the American people. They made up that other B.S. to sell the war to us, and ironically, we're still talking about it as if it were true.

Answer 6

YES! yes.
Moving the weapons was fairly easy since they knew we were coming (hard to sneak up from across the world). Plus other countries were willing to hide the weapons. We can all bicker over the weapon issue but truth is , they do not matter now.
We did not attack to depose Saddam but it was an added bonus.

Answer 7

You made mistakes from top to the bottom if you are ready to admit the truth.

Who supported Sadam in the war between Iraq and Iran in the 80s?
Western and American governments.

Who generated and supported Osama Bin Ladan at beginning?
American government.

Who supported Israel in destabilizing the middle-east?
America.

Who called Afghan mujahidden leaders as heroes?
American and western governments.

Who is calling Afghan Mujahidden leaders now as violators of Human Rights and criminals of war?
American and western governments.

And many, many mores….

Answer 8

the U. S. military conventional the secterian nature in (New) Iraqi goverment !! checkout the historic previous of the well-known Iraq from 1923 to the autumn of Baghdad in 2003. the goverment there become no secterian ameliorations between Iraqis! even in Saddam regime we were living in peace with one yet another in spite of the undeniable fact that the coverage of u . s . in my u . s . is Seperate to triumph over and make new map for center East

Answer 9

No. Any American military action should be about one thing only - revenge for 9/11.
Ultimately we're going to have to go into Iran and Syria, too. The Arabs'/Iranians brutal way of life and backward religion is a threat to us.

Answer 10

No, we shouldn't. It was because Bush didn't like him is why we invaded (Remember the excuse, the never found WMD's?) There are pictures of Saddam meething with Bushie when he was gov. of Texas. Check out the video of them 'shaking hands in 1983!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html