War with Iraq: Was it Neccessary and If So Why and What Would Have Been A Better Plan?

Question

First off Iraq had No WMD's and No 9/11 Connections (Bush Admits it in the link below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-c8Bf8LWWk&mode=related&search=

So without the terrorist connections and WMD's were there any justifications for waging war against Iraq (e.g. Saddam's Human Rights violations or War Crimes) and what would have been a more Strategically Sound Plan?

Answer 1

There is a saying in the military. You go to war with what you have, not with what you wish you had. Same statement applies, you make decisions with the intelligence you have, not with what you wish you had. Looking at what we knew then I think this war is justified. Based on what we know now, maybe we shouldn't have. Bottom line is we went in there and removed the powers in that country, now we need to fix it.

Answer 2

The war in Iraq came not for something that Iraq did like the fake nuclear issues. Iraq has resources both discovered and hidden more than any country in the world. It’s a gold and back mine. This is a known issue since Ottomans, and no one can deny it, although some groups try to put it on a side. Do you know that Iraq has oil more than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait? I agree that if we had more resources in Afghanistan then we would have eliminated al qaeda by now.

To see more of Iraq nowadays and before check this site: http://www.iraqimage.com

Answer 3

Iraq's Saddam Hussein did not live up to the surrender agreement he signed.

There is a terrorist connection and the WMD's are most likely in Syria.

When you are kneeling on your prayer rug (or your head is being cut off with a dull knife) just explain to them that their were no WMDs and Saddam was not really a bad guy. I'm sure they'll listen.

Answer 4

No, it was not necessary. Saddam did not have the WMD's he was accused of having. The U.N. said as much and the U.S. could not provide any information or reliable intelligence to contradict their findings. That is why an overwhelming number of nations did not approve the resolution granting the use of force against Iraq.

If the Bush administration wanted Saddam Hussein gone from controlling Iraq, then it is up to the Iraqi people to make that happen. A democracy is for the people BY the people. Not by an occupying force. Instead, Bush got caught up in his own politics and emotions and decided to attack simply because his buddies wanted to have more of a say in the oil production and because his daddy went to war with Hussein.

However, since this war has begun, I believe that the only way to win it is through covert operations and intelligence. Because the people of Iraq see the U.S. forces on the ground, it promotes hatred and a target for the insurgents to use to demoralize the military and to gain sympathy and recruits for them. Instead, I say we give them an enemy that thye cannot see so well. We need to infiltrate their operations and begin to understand what they fight for and how to undermine them best. Simply, we have to fight them from the inside. This would make less of a visible force on the ground in the streets and would give the Iraqi people the sense that they would be in charge of their country. When we gather intelligence to prompt a pre-emptive strike, it should be doen with small covert military groups in secrecy with Iraqi security forces taking credit publicly. Again this will give the sense of independence to the citizens of Iraq, and also boost confidence in the Iraqi security forces.

Answer 5

Given that the US Army has determined that it was Iran not Iraq that used blood agent against the Kurds in Halabjah, and apparently Sadaam was in compliance with the sanctions
(unlike Israel which is in violation of over 30 UN Resolutions).
What should have happened would have been that the UN would have lifted the sanctions.

Iraq owed France and Russia each 80 billion dollars. In order to pay those debts Iraq would have flooded the market with oil. At that time oil was getting $22 a barrel and an Iraqi flood would have driven that down to around $16. At those prices Exxon and Chevron would have been in the red and George W wouldn't have been able to show his face in Texas.

3500 Americans and a million Iraqis would be alive, tens of thousands of GIs would not have been wounded.

Answer 6

We should have gone into iraq years before we did. Saddam disregarded all 17 UN resolutions that resulted from the gulf war. I've seen the footage of the towns he decimated using chemical weapons (that's wmd's...how could he have used them if he did not have them). The streets were strewn with dead men, women, and children. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands he murdered and discarded in the numerous mass graves around iraq. The world, thanks to slick willie, had begun to view threats made by the US as empty and knew that we were too gutless to defend ourselves. OBL stated as much in his declaration of war against the US.

Answer 7

To answer the first part of you query, in my opinion there was no compelling reason at all for going to war with Iraq. Saddam was not a nice guy, but he was not our problem, and we deal on a daily basis with other national leaders who are just as psychotic and bloody-handed as him.

The second part of your question deals with strategy. To me, the invasion , or 'liberation' of Iraq was a fatal distraction from what should have been our true goal...the destruction of Al Quaeda and the death of Osama bin Laden. That campaign, of course, was being fought in Afghanistan; when our forces were sent to Iraq this had two immediate effects. Firstly, it cut our available forces in Afghanistan to such a degree that the campaign was all but completely halted (allowing the current resurgence of the Taliban). Secondly, it made Iraq the focus of Al Quada's efforts against us; instead of pressing them in their home bases in more or less open battle, they could infiltrate Iraq to fight a classic guerilla war...and the first rule of guerilla warfare is that you never fight unless it is on the ground you have chosen and the odds are stacked heavily in your favor.

What would have been a winning strategy in Iraq? Stay the hell out; anybody should have seen the sectarian strife that was held in check only by the brutal grip of Saddam's Baath Party. Well now the flames of civil war are blazing...and our poor boys and girls are roasting in the middle of it.

Answer 8

Totally unnecessary war. After his defeat in 1990 Saddam was only ever a threat to his own population. Most Iraqis could live a normal life for most of the time. Now those days are just a distant memory with the anarchy that the occupiers have allowed to take over.

Answer 9

Thats right. There was no JUSTIFICATION for invading Iraq.
I will never forget his scripted press conference.

a better plan would have been to get osama and spend a trillion dollars creating jobs here that have to do with real border security and changing from a fossil fuel society.
But the top dogs can't get richer that way.

Wonder how many people from the American Interprise Institute have kids serving in Iraq.

Answer 10

There is no "war" with Iraq, it was an invasion. The US needs to keep their nose out of other sovereign countries business. US Military is in 130 countries. I do not recall the US being elected "Police man of the World" and/or spread "The american way of Life" to the 4 corners of the earth.