Knowing what you know now, do you STILL support the decision to invade Iraq?

Question

A sample right wing answer:

I most certainly do. He had use WMD on his own people, he had invaded two countries, he had violated 17 UN resolutions, he gave money to suicide bombers, [place here lies about his ties to Al Qaeda and the WMD he shipped to Syria before the war.]

Answer 1

The best people to ask would be people who have actually been to Iraq.

Right now people are ignoring the people who have been there in favor of a bunch of political pundits who never left the US.

As just about any US soldier can tell you - what the media is feeding you regarding Iraq is grossly distorted.

Answer 2

It depends on who you're asking? Because it's under the 'military' subtitle, I'll first answer the question as a military member:
First, understand any opinion is irrelevant as a enlisted member- in the way that if you're a military member, you follow orders. If you are a Officer MAYBE you opinion matters (since you are ordered to enforce the US constitution), however, any enlisted member's opinion is neither consider nor cared about, you're a bullet catcher, a peon who's job is to follow orders, not make them.
If you're asking a government/politician, this is the right person to ask. Of course, depending on your ideology of government, your answer will vary.
According to a classic liberal ideology (the founding fathers mindset), any international military offensive action without provocation is not only illegal, but immoral.
To a neo-realist (Bush), this type of think is completely aligned to this type of ideology; you have to be a offensive personality- strike any possible threat
To Democrats (more liberals), the answers are more of a progressive nature (in the way that talking will solve all problems), and any social problems can be solve through social ways.
Personally, you're question is both far too vague and also irrelevant; opinions don't matter. What matters is if you can observe the stated subject both quantitatively and qualitatively.
To answer your question though (realizing my opinion doesn’t matter), I don't think Americans, or any other country, have the right to force foreign policy on anybody else. It is neither their right, nor in their power to enforce corrupt laws. If a genuine threat exists, action is necessary, but speculation and past grudges can’t fit that bill. The Iraqis and Hussein did not cause 9/11, so the invasion was not warranted. The invasion was not only a violation of international law, but also of basic human rights. America was and is in the wrong.

Answer 3

Yes the process took so long however he had time to send the WMD to Syria and hid some out in the desert, which are now coming to light now.

When the troops had achieved their goals the politicians and big business took over too micromanage the war.

Now I feel you have made a mess you cannot clean up.

Enjoy it

Answer 4

Any one of the 17 violations were justification enough to invade. There have been plenty of mistakes, and a long term strategy to win the peace and quell ethnic strife seem to have been non-existent...but Iraq and the middle east are still much better off without Saddam

Answer 5

1. we supplied the WMDs used on the Kurds. Unfortunately the US Army War College determined that the shells that killed thousands of Kurds in Halabja contained a BLOOD AGENT which we had given to the SHAH OF IRAN.
Halabja wa near the front and the Iraqis were withdrawing. They admitted using Mustard Gas we supplied them. But the report, issued in 1996, determined that it was the advancing Iranians who use the gas which killed so many civilians.
2. Israel is in violation of 37 UN resolutions
3. The "Suicide Bombers" he sent money to were Palestinians fighting Israel. Even the Christians in Palestine support Hamas

Answer 6

I was neutral during the invasion--I really had no opinion. It's when the nuclear inspectors came out with their reports is when I took a stand to be wary of Dubya's decision to invade.

Answer 7

Yes, Bush made the correct decision. It is a decision that should have been made by Clinton. Clinton should have removed Saddam from power when he broke the first resolution agreement. Not Taking him out of power when we threatened to do it the first time only empowered Saddam and gave him time to hide what he had. Not to mention make the US look week. Clinton turned our threats into a joke. Just think another Clinton could be in charge again if we are not careful(Heaven forbid)

Answer 8

Probably though I would have wanted them to get at Al -Qaeda and Osama first.

Answer 9

Are you into mind reading? Is so keep practicing.
Is not the point here that you ask questions & let others answer?
Not to make up their answers.
The answer to the pretend question is easy - YES!

Answer 10

I see in my mind little babies wrapped in their mothers arms as they lay stiff and dead in the Kurdish streets from Saddam's gassing...but thats just me.