English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-09-04 02:51:14 · 19 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5 in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

I think we should have waited a little longer. Sooner or later we were going to have to deal with Iraq and Saddam but I think we should have concentrated on Afghanistan first, Iran second, and Iraq third.

That being said, now that we are there and we do not have a time machine. We must concentrate on Iraq and finish the job.

2007-09-04 02:55:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

Hindsight is 20/20 so we should not have invaded Iraq. That is not to say that we never would have needed to but without the threat of an imminent deployment of WMDs there was no urgent need to invade at that time.

Having said that, I think that, given the information that was available at the time that the invasion was called for. Please remember that there was virtually no one in the world who did not believe that Iraq was nearing the deployment of WMDs. People who did not want to invade wanted to use economic pressure to keep those weapons from being used.

It was inconceivable to the world that Saddam would pretend he had WMDs when he didn't.

2007-09-04 03:02:08 · answer #2 · answered by Matt W 6 · 2 0

It's not a matter of should we have invaded, but what we are going to do next? We spend too much time troubleshooting past events and not learning about them for future decisions. We need to decide what we will do next. I have to tell you guys, the government doesnt really have a plan in Iraq. Just ask the soldiers what they are doing there, the likely answer is, "I don't know." Those guys are just over there with really no function.

2007-09-04 03:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes, although I would have preferred to see one more round of attempts at resolving the thing through the UN and the inspections. I would also have preferred to see a little more preparation as far and handling the occupation after the war.

But like you said, hindsight is 20/20. We can always look back and see what could have been done better, but sometimes the consequences of inaction are worse than the alternative.

2007-09-04 03:06:56 · answer #4 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 0 2

We should never have invaded.

Hind sight be damned, I said it then and I say it now.

1. Saddam kept a secular nation and regularly executed religious extremists. (i.e. Terrorists)

2. Saddam had nothing to do with Al Queda

3. Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11

All of this was known at the time of invasion so there is no hindsight necessary.

2007-09-04 03:00:43 · answer #5 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2 1

Never should have invaded Iraq. So far, the reasons that were given for going in have been disproven. Besides, the will end up hating us and we will have to watch our backs once they do get back on their feet.

2007-09-04 03:06:20 · answer #6 · answered by outsider_27 4 · 2 0

this is called stable/undesirable judgment. once you're no longer a hundred% confident of a determination, you exercising that, in accordance to the constrained information you have. even nevertheless he wasn't a senator yet, HE on the TIME grew to become into IN CONGRESS nevertheless (he had a value different that senator), AND HE thoroughly damaging THE conflict, HE EVEN MADE A SPEECH WHICH MADE HIM nicely wide-unfold, approximately HIS opposition. merely approximately all who sponsored Bush, did it because of the fact it grew to become into POLITICALLY handy to realize this, AND did no longer have the heart to truly communicate THEIR MINDS. it is the particular case of Hillary, who theory that determination grew to become into handy for her destiny political profession. All people who theory it grew to become into the "handy" ingredient to do, exercised undesirable judgment, and that has consequences on all and sundry even in the present day.

2016-12-12 17:45:25 · answer #7 · answered by boven 4 · 0 0

No but who's talking about hindsight?Cheney knew what would happen before he started lying to sell this catastrophe.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

2007-09-04 02:59:04 · answer #8 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 2 1

The invasion of Iraq was not the problem. It was all the lies that werediscovered after the invasion and how poorly we managed the situation after the initial invasion.

Too many lies were told and we were frankly too incompetent in our wartime policies and practices.

2007-09-04 02:55:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 4

No, I prefer to fight them in Boston or Philadelphia or San Francisco or Miami or St. Louis or one of the thousands of Main Streets in Americal. Did ya forget the Twin Towers. They really wanna do more.

2007-09-04 03:00:51 · answer #10 · answered by Bob W 5 · 1 4

fedest.com, questions and answers