What's the better case for war: Iraq in 2003 or Iran right now?

Question

Iraq in 2003: Iraq failed to allow UN inspections. We thought they had WMDs. Saddam was a bad dude.

Iran today: we think Iran might be trying to build WMDs. Iran might be helping our enemies in Iraq.

Which is the better case for a war?

Answer 1

Here is the problem. The Iranian government is a bigger threat right now then Iraq ever was. When Bush cried wolf, we spent our resources and credibility over there empowering Iran. Now that Iran is a problem, we are a lot more limited as to what we can do right now.

However, had we not invaded Iraq, Iran would not have been a problem.

Answer 2

The logic in this question is flawed.

Saddam was in power under a cease fire and was not living up to his obligations while trying to gain even more powerful WMDs which he had already proved his willingness to use on both his own population as well as neighboring Iranians.
Plus at the time Saddam himself was greatly inflating the perception of the amount of weaponry at his disposal.

Currently Iran is trying to exert its self as an exporter of state sponsored terrorism and at the same time gain nukes.
Just this week they announced that they would have their reactors on line in 1 year not the five that all the sources have been touting for so long.
Are they lying also and dare we risk it either way.

Nukes aren't toys to be played with.
Neither are terrorists.

Answer 3

1) WMD was sold to us by Bush as nukes, not chemical weapons...remember the "mushroom cloud" b.s.? So, no Iraq never had them, and whatever Saddam had, it was NOT a threat to the US. So Bush lied.
2) IAEA inspectors were in Iraq and Hans Blix said that in 3 months they would have known what they had already found that there were no WMDs. Bush told them to leave b/c bombs were gonna fall on their heads.
3) In either case, there is no threat to the US; If the Iranian gov't is responsible for killing our troops then there are ways to deal with that. But we knew going in that Iran was the enemy of Iraq and our destabilization of Iraq would only empower them and encourage their interference.
4) If this is all it takes to start a war, then God help us.

"In a nuclear world, war is the enemy itself" -Denzel Washington Crimson Tide. HAHAHA (I just watched it last night)

Answer 4

I would have to say Iraq in 2003. Logic behind the answer; we have yet to expend 11 years of diplomacy and UN resolutions to get Iran to comply with the requirements imposed on it as we had done with Iraq. Iraq was to the point of last resort, we.re not there yet with Iran.

Answer 5

If Iraq did NOT allow UN inspections, why where there inspectors being flown out of Iraq just prior to the war???

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

Neither is or was a good case.

Answer 6

War is not the solution.

Everything the Bush administration has done regarding both Iraq and Iran has weakened America, strengthened the terrorists, and made all Americans less safe.

Answer 7

We do not think Iran is trying to build one, we know for a fact they are. And we will be there very shortly, I think as soon as the winter. I also think there are alterior motives for going to Iraq, perhaps even involving getting an area next to Iran under our control.

Answer 8

You're actually wrong. Saddam DID have WMDs unless mustard gas is no longer classified as a chemical weapon. We actually know Iran wants nukes to use against Israel. Both are good causes for war.

Answer 9

Iran, 1981. If we would have retaliated for the act of war that invading our embassy was instead of conspiring with Iran, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in now.

Answer 10

Neither...if we invade Iran, they will invade Iraq, and we will have a three way battle royale. I agree with Kenneth...Invading Iran is not an option given the problems in Iraq.