Why dont you think the War in Iraq was worthwhile?

Question

It seems to me that reguardless the reason, the Iraqi people are free now. Yes it has costed us alot of blood and treasure, and Yes the intel for going into Iraq was more than likely corrupt. But the end result is the same. We will have a free and Stable Iraq shortly

Yes I care about freeing other countriesw

Innocent people die in war

Answer 1

It is worth it! Just ask our soldiers they have seen first hand what they have achieved. I know allot of soldiers that have been there and back and not one of them has said its a waist of time!
Hey guys ever heard of keep your friends close and your enemy's closer! Yeah think about it!

Answer 2

first of all, you used "costed" that's not a word. Second, Iraq is a failure, just get the through your thick skull. you say that it will be free and stable shortly, it's been too long. We are not being productive in Iraq and people are dieing for no reason. Yes, the Iraqi people are fee of Saddam's tyranny, but Iraq is now worse than ever. Every country should stop trying to police the world, stop following the United States as an example and just secure their boarders. Once that is done, there will be less fighting.

go ahead and give me a thumbs down, if you support this "war" (it's really an invasion), then you should go over there, risk your life and make everything all better.

Answer 3

Our previous policy of "containment" was both 1) effective and 2) less costly (in human life as well as $$$).

Plus, Saddam's regime proved to be a great counter-balance to the Iranians.

We had it all before the War. World (UN) support for the No-Fly Zones; a reason to commit naval forces to the region; and an ability to negotiate. Plus we could always launch an airstrike any time we were bored.

Now, we have a War that has created massive, long-term debt; our ability to negotiate with the regional neighbors has been lessened; we've empowered Iran, plus, the "democracy" in Iraq may prove to be more than we had bargained for in the first place. Not to mention the sheer death and destruction levied towards the Iraqis as well as the ~30,000 US casualties (injured and KIA)

Answer 4

A war against a country that was no threat to us is hardly worthwhile. The major culprit in the 9/11 incidents is on the lam and we spend our treasury and manpower somewhere else, what a waste. By the way, although I am very much opposed to the war in Iraq I am not opposed to having spent the same energy, manpower, and money to go after Bin Laden. As evil as Saddam was he kept his neighbors in check and stability in the Middle East.

Answer 5

I think getting rid of the murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein was worth it. I think LYING to the American people (and especially the American TROOPS) was unforgiveable. Some of our troops went to their deaths believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (it wasn't).

As to the Intel "may" have been bad - it WAS bad, in fact, it wasn't even REAL - it was based on a student's thesis, and NOT on real intel!

As to whether or not we will have a "free and STABLE Iraq", that remains to be seen. Things ARE improving, but it could be YEARS before Iraq is actually "free and stable" - possibly decades.

Answer 6

Isn't this twisted logic? WE invaded another nation. Did we have justification for doing so? I don't think so. The success or failure of the short term goals has no impact on whether or not this was the correct decision. By that logic, would you think it was not worthwhile if we had left 4 years ago?

The US has developed a strong military and with that strength comes a duty to use it judiciously. In this case, it seems that we overstepped our authority and we are paying the price for it in the world community. We have been ostracized by longtime allies and have developed "friends" that only have their hands out for aid. It is a disastrous foreign policy all around and the true repercussions will be felt for 50 or 100 years to come.

Finally, let me say that it is unlikely that Iraq will be "stable" for a long time. If Iraq does have open elections without US presence it is very likely they will elect an oppressive fundamentalist muslim regime just like the one that we just paid dearly to topple.

Answer 7

First, that was NOT the stated reason for going into Iraq, remember? Do you not remember "urgent" and "immediate" threat? Do you not remember "stockpiles of WMD"? Do you not remember " UAV's capable of reaching US shores"? Do you not remember "mobile chemical labs"? Do you not remember "reconstituted nuclear weapons"?

Second, we've been hearing that "we're just around the corner" from Iraq being a "stable and free" country now for the last four years. It's not happening. We're not liberating Iraq, we're caught in the middle of a sectarian civil war and, regardless who wins, Iraq will be neither free nor stable. It will be just another Muslim-controlled government that rules based on their insane interpretation of the Koran.

So, the real question should be: were 5,000 American lives worth creating another Muslim state? the answer is a resounding NO!

As an aside, if the questioner and some of the answerers believe that the Iraq war is so necessary and vital to our freedom and security, why aren't they over in Iraq fighting? I guess they feel it isn't that important after all.

If you're a hypocrite, go ahead and give me a "thumbs down".

Answer 8

We had a stable Iraq before we went in, and the Iraqi people were not "free" but how did that impact US national security?

I love how the hardest-core cons get so emotional and weepy and bleeding-heart about liberated Iraqis.

As for the War on Terror aspect, anyone who gets their facts from textbooks and experts and not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh knows that Saddam and al Qaeda hated each other and were never going to join forces, so if things go back to normal then what did we gain? We will have lost 4,000+ troops, 500,000+ Iraqis, spent 1.5+ trillion dollars, just to remove one of many murderous dictators from around the world.

Not to mention convincing many previously peaceful Muslims once and for all that we are Christian invaders bent on dominating them, thus increasing terrorism and MAKING US LESS SAFE

Answer 9

I not only think it was worthwhile I think it was necessary. That is what a good, decent country does. It protects the down trodden and it's only national interest. Iraq sent a message to terrorist nations all over the world, that we are resolved to stop them from attacking us on our soil. The terrorist have gotten the message, the problem is that the liberals have not.

I would like to point out that 80% of all Americans approved the war after 911. Now the chickenhawks say that they never approved the war. Which means they not only have no intestinal fortitude to stand by their convictions but they are also cold blooded liars.

Answer 10

I disagree with you. We perpetrated an act of aggression resulting in the slaughter of thousands, and the complete destruction of a 5000 year old culture, over a pack of lies. If any other country on this earth would have done what we have done, the leaders of that country would now be in prison. Your Machiavellian statement, is, in my opinion wrong.

Answer 11

Not too long ago the Army Times ran an article stating that the military will be in Iraq for 50 years. That's not shortly and that is a heck of lot of money to spend there.

I have nothing against nation building, I just feel that if we nation build in Iraq, we should also be nation building elsewhere.