Looking back, was the United States correct in its decision to invade Iraq in 2003?

Answer 1

When I look at what CONGRESS decided on invading Iraq, I have to agree with them and say yes it was a correct decision, although the evidence we were after never materialized. This was not the only reason we invaded. Read the actual text of the Iraq Liberation Act. and you might look at this a little different

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

Answer 2

No, not in 2003. We should have stayed focused on our primary goal - catching those who actually DID attack us.

At a later point, it may have been necessary to do what we did but the timing was off, the law wasn't on our side and we lost a lot of international respect because of the way that we handled the situation. Oh yeah, and the people who did attack us, are still on the loose. Maybe if we hadn't divided our time and our resources this wouldn't be the case.

There are ton of people who are living under the rule of sadistic leaders and we're not running to their rescue. There is genocide being committed as we sit in our cushy chairs typing but we're not doing anything about that. Don't try to make it sound noble people.

Answer 3

Yes.
The notion that the jugular vein of the world's economy was going to left under the yoke of Saddam Hussein or that the US was not going to have boots on the ground in the only remaining hot spot in the world is just not valid.
One way or the other it was going to happen.
Other than France, you would have had to look long and hard to find somebody who was opposed to the idea. Even those who were, were only saying it in public, not private.

The mistake was in firing every single manager in the infrastructure simply because they were either a Sunni or a Bathist.

They should have taken a page out of Patton's book. He was criticized for leaving known Nazis in charge of Germany's municipal business and he said leave me alone unless you can find me somebody here who was never a Nazi and can pick up the trash.
Macarthur did the same in Japan.

The Americans were never in a position to fill that vacuum with combat troops.

I don't have to detail for you what the result was.

Answer 4

No.

I think we should have allowed them to go ahead and use those hidden weapons of mass destruction on us before we did anything about that.

I also think that we as a nation should not help other nations that are suffering under the rule of a sadistic leader.

Why should we help people who cannot help themselves?

Why should we defend our country from a possible threat?

We may face criticism and ostracism if we make such an unpopular discision. Let everyone take care of themselves.

We may even get lucky. They could all destroy each other before they get to us.

Or hey maybe it is just a mass conspiracy theory. Yeah that's it.

There weren't any credible facts showing problems.
All of the informants lied. Maybe we should find all of them and execute them.

Yeah that's the ticket.

Or not!!

Answer 5

Absolutely not.BEFORE the war,I protested loudly.Unfortunately,we can not "uninvade"To leave a region that is crucial to the world's economy in chaos would be a worse mistake,one,that if implemented,will guarantee a world war within a year.we shouldn't have gone,that was then,this is now,we shouldn't leave.I don't understand the morality of people.OK,by invading,we were basically driving drunk and wrecked,the lib response would be to leave the scene.NO!!Ethical people fix what they broke

Answer 6

No.

THAT decision was made in 2000 betwen Donald Rumsfeild and Vice President Cheney, OVER A YEAR BEFORE 9-11 EVER HAPPENED, to build "enduring bases" to have a greter presence in the Middle East.

And for what? For oil, what do you think.

Answer 7

The decision to invade Iraq was wrong on so many levels. The war on terror has always been in Afghanistan and finding bin Laden. Iraq was and is purely for oil.

Answer 8

Of course not. The invasion was a dangerous precedent: "pre-emptive self-defense" is an open doorway for others to follow. Nation-building in one of the world's oldest cultures? Ridiculous.

We should have maintained our focus in Afghanistan, and screw Musharref about being "our friend," and driven those lawless swine in Waziristan to the brink of Hell.

Answer 9

Strategically, morally and ethically, an emphatic yes.
More governments internationally are under attack by terrorists today who are ready to die now for their cause and it is good that the terrorists are under scrutiny by Allies rather than being allowed to operate freely within regimes that would normally bend to their threats.

Answer 10

No.. they could have done like they did in the past and just "take out" the certain individuals that they needed to.