Do you believe the invasion in Iraq was necessary or misguided?

Question

Why?

Answer 1

The MOST unnecessary, misguided invasion of another country ever.
As stated before Saddam WAS contained and WMD is the most egregious lie ever.

There is easy proof of that and the military gents can affirm.

IF we actually believed there were WMD and we KNEW where they were (as was indicated) why did we not secure these sites before we sent our full invasion force in? Would they not use these WMD's against us if we invaded them (?) putting our troops in peril?

Everyone knew there were NO ties between Saddam and Osama, in fact, they were enemies. Osama and the Shiites had ties with Iran which Saddam was always at war with

And don't blame Clinton for not doing more on terrorism.
Remember, every time he tried to address the issue, "blue dress - blue dress", it's what I call blue dress politics. Wasn't there a book, a movie about trying to go to war to avert attention from the "blue-dress"?

Why do republicans, and in fact all politicians, believe that if you tell a lie enough times it becomes fact?

This "war" was "so" unnecessary and mismanaged, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should be tried as enemies of the state.

They have "ordered" men and women to die in a war that is unjustified and when told there was not sufficient man power and equipment they ignored the advise, therefore causing unnecessary American deaths.

They not only ignored good advice they fired military personnal because they told them they needed more personnal, equipment and even the cost of "their" war.

They violated national security by uncovering a covert CIA agent for petty politics when we were in need of covert information.

Misguided? It will only take 6 months, cost us nothing and will be welcomed as liberators.
6 years over half trillion $, and the bombs are still going off (by the people we liberated) in jubilation and according to the President "Mission Accomplished"

Answer 2

It was both unnecessary and misguided, and not just in hindsight.

During the period leading up to the invasion, Bush was mostly selling the idea that Saddam was probably going to give WMD's to Al Queda and that was a scenario we couldn't afford to let happen. To be fair to Bush, the belief that Saddam was working on a nuke and already possessed a stockpile bio/chemical weapons had been shared by his predessesor (Clinton) and his top world colleauge (Blair), as well as, most of the world intelligence community. It's the intelligence and rationale behind the assumption that Saddam would team up with Bin Laden and give these weapons to Al Queda that was horribly misguided.

The invasion's biggest misguidance was all about the Bush Administration having no real plan for regime change. As a result, we have the mess that exists today. People assumed that once Saddam was gone, a plan had already been worked out for the Shiites and Sunnis to cooperate and build a working government. Bad assumption.

In Vietnam, it was a simple matter of protecting a favorable south Vietnamse government already in place, by destroying its enemy. Both Nixon and Johnson didn't have the political will to do it. In Iraq, Bush had the political will and the military means to take Saddam out, but not a clue on how to establish a favorable government, which is and was the ultimate goal. So, if in Vietnam, where the plan existed, but not the political will to carry it out, how can Bush begin to even ask for the political will regarding regime change in Iraq, if he has no plan to do it?

Answer 3

I tend to favor it being necessary over the other choice.

First, the situation was festering there, without having changed over the course of the entire Clinton presidency. Contrary to the UN brokered ceasefire (not peace treaty), they repeated violated the requirement for inspections, repeatedly violated the requirement to not mess around with US and allied forces enforcing the no-fly zones, etc.

Clinton, if he'd not been a moral coward, should have forced a confrontation, but he was more concerned with being liked than with doing what was in the best interest of America and the world.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the view that allowing such a situation to continue was no longer necessarily the prudent course of action. 9/11 was a kick in the pants reminder that what happened on the other side of the world could indeed have a very significant impact on us.

And if a madman with some money and a small but dedicated band of equally fanatical nutjobs could do something of the enormity of 9/11, then what could be done by someone with billions of $$ and a huge military and intelligence force as well as access to WMD?

As for whether it was the right or wrong move in the long run, it is still far too early to make that decision. It's barely been 4 1/2 years since we invaded. It's going to take a lot longer than that for history to make its determination.

Answer 4

The war in Iraq is definitely misguided. "In many capacities in this nation, none of those earlier wars holds a candle to this one regarding the misguided rationales, unprovoked aggression and the suppression of dissent. The bottom line is that, through the lack of the proper exercise of the responsibility of "we the people" to govern, granted to us and our elected representatives under the Constitution, we in America have allowed a band of tyrants to rule the nation and perhaps the world. Combining its unprecedented economic might with military power, this cabal distracts us from the truth, distorts the truth, and creates an imperialistic world view I don't want any part of. The U.S. Congress has abrogated its responsibilities and has rolled over in the face of the executive abuse of power. It has given into the same special interests which rule the nation, the planet. The war on Iraq is the visible tip of an iceberg whose underbelly reaches to the deep bunkers of our unconscious minds, the corruption of raw power blocking the pressing need to find other ways of achieving domestic stability, world peace, justice and sustainability."

Answer 5

Misguided. The focus should have been on removing the danger Iraq, Iran, and other nations posed, not changing thier governments or acquiring thier territory. Extensive strategic bombing campaigns would have sufficed.

Answer 6

A wrong turn in the war against terrorism. Now, terrorists attack the U.S. every day, boldly and openly. GW has made our nation look weak and foolish. The neocons have created a horrible mess that the next president is going to have to clean up.

Hopefully the next president will listen to our generals who were against the Iraq invasion from the start, and get us out of this horrible situation in the best way possible. We should continue to support the Kurds, they have been strong allies, and deserve our support.

Answer 7

Most of the world supported the U.S. move into Afghanistan looking for bin Laden. The move into Iraq, questionably a minor player even if they were developing WMDs since N. Korea had them and Iran was also developing them, turned the world against us. It was to be a show of force against a leader who continued to thumb his nose at the U.S.

Misguided would be a nice way to put it.

Answer 8

Totally unnecessary.
And C O M P L E T E L Y misguided.
A number of genreals were fired when they advised Rumsfeld there were not enough forces committed to the invasion and occupation. It all went down hill from there.

Answer 9

Necessary in the minds of those that constructed it. Many seem to think it is about terrorism. It is about putting the U.S. in a strategic military position in the Middle East. Misquided. Oh yeah.

Answer 10

It was in my opinion unnecessary and misguided both.