Ok..any of you idiots still think going into iraq was a good idea?

Question

yep mml..your just the kind of idiot i mean.....yes we all knew he used chemical weapons....BACK IN THE 80's..so why didnt we go in then..in fact..why dont we go into every country where people are being killed..or it isnt a democracy...hey..north korea is actually developing WMD's....why dont we go in their...ill tell you why we dont idiot MML..because they actually have them....so they would use them..dumbass.

laredda or whatever..i know why we went in..a complex set of reason.....of course you have the personel reasons..but the biggest reason was that the neo cons had this moron idea that they could set up a peacful democracy..then democracy would spread all through the middle east like flowers in a field...and all americas problems would be solved..and hey guess what..your a moron.

Answer 1

It's funny that people believe we went to defend Kuwait when we didn't give a crap when they took it.

But as soon as they lined up their troops on the border of Saudis we were in overnight.

Yes, Iraq was a good idea and still is.

Answer 2

Yes, Due to the fact their is stuff over there. People who believe the democrat media is an idiot. We are rebuilding their country, Their is a lot of good going on over their. What the media portrays and actually takes place are two different things. Do you think if the US or UN found that their was WMD over their they would tell the World and US. That would hurt America even more. A threat to national security.

Answer 3

Who cares about chemical weapons and the like? I don't care if he had them or didn't have them, and he did have them. It doesn't matter.

For four reasons:

1. You cannot militarily defeat every islamo-fascist. That can't happen. The only way to win is to destroy the regimes that favor them and create republics that marginalize them, take away their support, and continually fight against them. That's how we destroyed the white supremacist movements. We didn't arrest or kill all klan members, we just took away their power and significance so that nothing they do matters anymore.

2. Iraq is the location of three major disputes within the muslim world: the sunni-shia split, the arab-persian split, and the baathist-wahabist split. By creating a country that can run itself peacefully, these disputes can be cooled, decreasing the drive to terrorism and the power of terrorist organizations.

3. Iraq did collaborate with al-qaeda and terrorist organizations. This is well documented, especially in the declassified documents captured from saddam's government, which show he was planning a major string of attacks against western europe before he was deposed. There is strong evidence of this, liberals just choose to ignore it.

4. As the most powerful nation in the world, it is our duty to destroy the enemies of civilization. Hussein was a murderous, torturous, and oppressive tyrant who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in his own mini-holocaust, and he should have been deposed.

Answer 4

It all breaks down to a simple math problem.
Human rights offenses + WMD (Reported and Believed by all) + continued support of terrorism + influence in the oil markets + demonstrated desire to expand instability in the region = Take the Mother __ Down. Lesson over.

Answer 5

No, it was not a good idea...and I never have thought that. I am, by nature, cynical...and the way the war was being presented was over-simplified and filled with propaganda. Dissenting voices were silenced and deemed un-American. I've read way too many books, and educated myself way too much to fall for these ploys.

EDIT: To the answerer above both sides authorized the use of force if necessary, it wasn't necessary, and our President should have used restraint as opposed to propaganda. Don't forget his administration cherry-picked what we now know (and they knew all along) false intelligence. They are only guilty in trusting their President, many Americans are guilty of the same.

Answer 6

The first Gulf War yes (the defence of Kuwait) but the second no. The second Gulf war followed years of sanctions, Iraq was already on its knees - it was clearly Bush family business.

Answer 7

Well honestly, you and I know this was a bad idea from the beginning. We could tell that this was a fasttrack to invasion of Iraq by exploiting a national tragedy. There will always be people like that who want to be tough while someone else goes to do their dirty work for them.

Answer 8

no i think its important to deal with middle east violence instigated by al qaeda domestically? ...is this a serious question.? clinton ignored the problem for eight years, and we had uss cole african embassy bombings and first wtc...do y ou want more than that????? you need to get off mom and dads computer before you get spanked and let the adults talk now...night night.

Answer 9

some people are never going to get over this issue. Be it a good idea or not, we are there. Deal with it.

Answer 10

Scafool will advance some solid factors. i imagine, from a in truth theoretical element of view, it would want to be extra helpful for sercurity's sake if Iraq stayed one us of a. the area is that an outstanding variety of Iraqis don't sense that way. each and each of the theories contained in the global are not likely to save a us of a at the same time if the folk there do not desire to stay united as one us of a. contained in the north, the Kurds are already appearing like they are their personal us of a--they have their personal protection forces; they have border guards; they have their personal taxing authorities; and they have peace. contained in the south the Marsh Arabs in all likelihood do not desire to really connect Iran, yet they have an outstanding variety of causes to concern being tied to something else of Iraq (lots of the violence is contained in the middle of the country--the so-referred to as Sunni Triangle. The southern Iraqis are as a rule Shi'ite and desire to stay less than their personal variety of authorities. The longer we, as an occupying power, withstand this, the further pleasing the extremists grow to be to boring those who in basic terms desire to have peace. If the Kurds managed to interrupt off, the as a rule Shi'ite south will desire to interrupt off too, really than get shackled to each and each of the violence contained in the Baghdad section. If the south does chop up off, it will be an best pal of Iran and could in all likelihood grow to be as non violent as Kurdistan is. So the genuine situation is the Sunni Triangle--it quite remains about 60% Shiite, yet has a large adequate percentage of Sunnis to save the continuing violence so deadly. that's variety of the route the country is going in, and if we do not change issues it truly is going to finally end up as 3 countries in spite of what individuals on Yahoo! imagine. the area with the chop up up of Iraq is that it received't stop the violence in Baghdad. the in basic terms thanks to stop the violence is to create some variety of amnesty software in case you're at present in touch contained in the struggling with. in truth the present Baghdad authorities grow to be attempting to barter precisely that variety of deal--until eventually the U. S. insisted that no deal may be made that could forgive attacks on individuals. i do not realize that stance in any respect, because that presumebly we are observing for them to forgive Abu Ghraib.