Was the UK/US coalition invasion of iraq the correct course of action?

Question

with no evidence ever being found of weapons of massive destruction.

Answer 1

ummm no, I've been saying it since they invaded.

Answer 2

A big no to that. The reason they went, was that wanted to. The invasion did no good and resulted in thousands of civilian deaths. Instead of Sadam's men torturing people we now have allied forces men torturing people. Iraq is less stable now than it was before the invasion, and Bush and Blair are squealing like pigs because they want to get out now that things aren't going as they wanted. They think that things might go better for them in Iran, that maybe the Iranians will play the game the way that they want it played. Let us all hope this never happens, war is always a disaster, and should only be used when there is no other solution.

Answer 3

They should have waited longer...

As for the comment about no WMD found.. well that's a selective comment about the findings....

The first point of the summary findings was that Saddam's objective was to have UN sanctions liftd and then rebuild his chemical/biological WMD and the time frame was from 6 months to 2 years to fully re-arm his WMD.

So I tend to take people use the arguement that "no WMD found", just as guilty of selective information, as Bush was in wanting to act immediately...

Both are guilty of misleading the public by not supplying full information for people to make informed choices.

As Hans Blix said, 2 weeks after the invasion "He's not sure if Saddam has WMD but removing Saddam would be a good thing for the Iraqi people"

I tend to believe Hans Blix more so than those who claim they knew Saddam didn't have WMD, after all he was in Iraq at the time.

Answer 4

Sorry but that isn't even the correct reason that the invasion happened. I called it a week after the bombing and invasion of Afganistan. When Bush, Cheney and the rest realized that they were not going to get Bin Laden it was only nature for them to turn to Iraq and Saddam. They already knew they could beat him. I predicted that Bush would invade Iraq as a way for him to get our minds off the fact that he didn't get Bin LAden and Wal La dang if that isn't what happened!!
It was so transparent that most ppl actuall believed the story of WMD's talk about ppl be lead by stupidity. Most have not made the connection and if they have they won't admit that its actually true. Makes too much sense!!

Answer 5

No.The reason for invasion in Iraq was to get a control over the oil resources to USA.Oil is not going to last for ever.USA and UK require a lot of oil.US oil resorces are kept as reserve.Iraq oil is for current consumption.Every body knows it.

Answer 6

By now MOST of us already know the answer to that question. But, let me clarify.....NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! The US is into world domination and complete control of the world's oil resources. Has that not become painfully clear to everyone by now? For great US news go to alternet.org.... it's my favorite. And as a reluctant American, I have to commend Tony Blair for FINALLY deciding to do the right thing and pull British troops out of Iraq. Afterall, everyone else already has.

Answer 7

I live in the US. Most Americans are against the war. In fact, I don't know anyone who is for the war right now. Don't listen to the crap that says all Americans like the war. Bush is the one who started it, not the American people.

Answer 8

Seemed like a good idea at the time. don't forget Saddam DID once have WMD and just before the war the UN Weapons Inspectors were still looking for them.

Answer 9

To be honest, not sure. WMD's could have been a false reason for it, but hey, it might have been for a better reason. Only time will tell though

Answer 10

Not when you end up fighting the enemies of Saddam Husein. It certainly does not make sense.

Answer 11

No. No. No. Two giant countries smacking a weak small one. Utterly disgusting.