how many people really believe that the invasion of iraq was ABSOLUTELY necessary? show of hands?

Question

seriously, and dont say "if we fight there we dont have to fight here" because what happens when our military is depleted, where will we fight then? flawed thinking is always funny.
it seems more people are coming around the the TRUTH, war is always a good way to divert peoples attention after a massive power grab. add religion into the mix and its perfect....bush isnt an idiot, hes an evil genius. or rather, his puppet masters are.

islam is a religion of war, look at what theyve done for millenia.... blah, blah, blah. might we remind everyone of the puritans of new england and their witch trials (which were worse in europe) and maybe the spanish in the south, spreading the word by making slaves and committing genocide. somewhere in iran, a childs head is being filled with the same crap that we hear about islam...only about christianity. when will we wake up?

i bet 6 years ago, half of the "no" answerers wouldve been saying yes.....wishy-washy

Answer 1

The only ones who thought it was necessary are the people who stand to make a profit off of war and they made darn sure we all bought what they were peddling hook, line and sinker.

It's amazing that they have sold and resold this war and people are still buying it.

Answer 2

It replaced into the two pointless and defective, and not in easy terms in hindsight. during the era greatest as much as the invasion, Bush replaced into oftentimes promotion the concept that Saddam replaced into probably going to furnish WMD's to Al Queda and that replaced right into a situation we could not have the money for to allow ensue. To be honest to Bush, the perception that Saddam replaced into engaged on a nuke and already possessed a stockpile bio/chemical weapons have been shared via his predessesor (Clinton) and his dazzling worldwide colleauge (Blair), to boot as, an incredible variety of the worldwide intelligence community. that's the intelligence and motive in the back of the concept that Saddam could team up with Bin encumbered and supply those weapons to Al Queda that replaced into horribly defective. The invasion's greatest misguidance replaced into all on the topic of the Bush administration having no actual plan for regime replace. as a result, we've the mess that exists at present. human beings assumed that once Saddam replaced into long previous, a plan had already been worked out for the Shiites and Sunnis to cooperate and build a working government. undesirable assumption. In Vietnam, it replaced into an uncomplicated rely of retaining a constructive south Vietnamse government already in place, via destroying its enemy. the two Nixon and Johnson did not have the political will to do it. In Iraq, Bush had the political will and the protection stress potential to take Saddam out, yet not a clue on a thank you to envision a constructive government, that's and replaced into the appropriate purpose. So, if in Vietnam, the place the plan existed, yet not the political will to hold it out, how can Bush start to even ask for the political will on the topic of regime replace in Iraq, if he has no plan to do it?

Answer 3

Wow! I am just amazed at how smart everyone is after the fact.

Of course it was unnecessary. Only no one in the world believed that Saddam was stupid enough to pretend to have WMDs and not really have them. All of the intel throughout the world (including notably Russia) pointed to the existence of real active WMD research and at least chemical weapons of significance in Iraq.

We had already invaded before we found out we were wrong and that Saddam had really just been lying to appear to be the bigger man. So, the invasion was unnecessary. Unfortunately that is hindsight. It's always 20-20.

Answer 4

Better question is, which POLITICIAN thinks the invasion of Iraq was ABSOLUTELY necessary.

I have serious problems with politicians who voted YES to give power to Bush to go to war with Iraq. I have even more problems when they turn around and is against the Iraq war. More so, when they say they'll bring the troops back.. but don't know when..

Talk about lack of INTEGRITY.

Answer 5

Necessary for what? -- it certainly was not necessary to stop terrorism -- and really had no impact on stopping terrorism.

It wasn't necessary even to stop the specific people who had attacked us -- because they weren't in Iraq at the time.

It was necessary as a means to depose Saddam -- because little less than an invasion would have accomplished that goal -- but whether that goal was necessary for anything else is a different question.

And the occupation after "Mission Accomplished" was not necessary for any of the above -- but then, the goals and objectives of the occupation change to suit the mood of whoever is trying to justify them.

Answer 6

I think this is a tired refrain and has absolutely zero bearing on the current state of affairs.

Some of us have NOT changed our initial position on the Iraq invasion, yet still support the need to remain.

Answer 7

Liberals are the idiots. They play right into the enemy's hands with their stupid Peace at all cost compassion. That kind of inaction allowed the Nazi's to march halfway across Europe before they fired the first real shots.This war is necessary and it will continue for decades to come.

Answer 8

I know that I don't think it was necessary...although I knew Bush would pursue it when he was crowned with the Presidency via the courts.

Answer 9

My hands are busy writing to my elected officials demanding a trial of our current administration...

.

Answer 10

only the crazy folks think so