How many people agree that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place?

Question

I AM SO GLAD TO SEE THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT ROBOTS AND CAN REALLY SEE TRUTH.

Answer 1

I do not.....whats makes the US the World Police???

No matter what the argument we had no business invading that Country for any reason!

Answer 2

Not only was I opposed to the initial invasion, but I forecast that it would turn into a nightmare for America. It's not a case of hindsight being 20/20, but understanding the ramifications of our action, and knowing that we were not prepared to be in the middle of a civil war. Tito had held Yugoslavia together following WW II, only to have the country disintegrate into ethnic cleansing and inter-cine fighting once he died. Once we invaded Iraq, and especially when Rumsfeld refused to listen to the military commanders who stated we would require half a million troops to secure the country, it was only a matter of time before Iraq exploded into civil war. While Saddam may have been a tyrant, he was our tyrant, and as Colin Powell said, "You break it, you own it!" It has been America's biggest mistake to invade Iraq, and will probably take another few years before we admit this and finally extricate our troops from harms way.

Answer 3

Well I've been to Iraq twice and it's a real mess but Saddam had to go!! We may not have found the WM D's or may not have know if he was tied in with the 9/11 events but he had to go. He has taken to many life's and in alot of ways a modern day Hitler!! I obviously do not want to see any more of the Good Men and Women die but we can not leave now!!!

Answer 4

Iraq was an action to provide for the security of Israel by eliminating the SCUD missile threat from Saddam Hussein. The US taxpayers should not be footing a bill for Israeli security, and since this war had nothing to do with US security, the US should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.

Kokopelli say any idiot can see that.

Answer 5

It is obvious that we should not have attacked Iraq. It really does not matter if we stay or leave, the civil war will decide who and how Iraq is governed. It could not be much worse than al-Maliki, no friend to the U.S. and a good bud to Iran.

In any case the argument that it would become a base for terrorists is highly unlikely as they would be purged in the civil war.

Answer 6

it always seems that hindsight is 20/20. at the time I don't remember a great outcrying against going in,,,when it was popular everyone wanted on the wagon,,,after it gets tough,, then some want to stop the wagon and get off, the problem is we are there and loading up and moving out would be devastating to the country at this time,,,a lot of people want to compare it to nam,, do you remember the choppers pulling out of the embassy

Answer 7

Yes and No; we ,as in the WORLD, needed to act on Saddam, but we ,as in the US, should have waited a little longer to get the support from other countries or tried to gain the support of Iran/Syria before going in.

But it doesnt matter now, WE ARE THERE; whether you wanted to go in or not. We have to deal w/ the situation the best we can now, and cutting and running is the worst thing we can do.

Answer 8

i disagree...it was a war waiting to happen...better sooner than later...why i don't' like is all the complaining about America from other countries...and then those same countries expect us to be there for any and every problem...we are NOT the world police...America should take care of America and its interests first...damn the rest...

Answer 9

It's all about THIS evil secret!...
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=73518

Answer 10

We should not have gone into Iraq and we should not be allowing our insane president to keep us there. There is something seriously wrong with the American back bone.

Answer 11

I totally agree with Hopeful. We have to focus on finishing the job, not if it was right (with hindsight being 20/20). I say we do what we have to, and then analyze it when we have all the information.