Given the overwhelming evidence, does anyone still believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do?

Question

Does anyone believe that the U.S. / Nato intelligence machine could be SO wrong about weapons of mass destruction?

Does anyone still believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

Remember - "Weapons of Mass Destruction and Involvement in 9/11, were the ONLY reasons given that congress had to act upon"

Does anyone think that we have done anything other than further destabilize an already chaotic region of the world?

Answer 1

It was NOT the right thing to do. The Bush administration has admitted that the intelligence was faulty and unclear. It was clear that Osama Bin Laden was most likely in Afghanistan , yet Bush still chose to invade Iraq. Although Saddam Hussein was a terrible person and would have eventually been taken out one way or another, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 directly. It was just an excuse to let Bush win his little vendetta against Hussein. Saddam is dead now, and it has gained us nothing. There are 3000+ troops and countless Iraqis dead, terrorism has not abated, OBL is still at large, Iraq is mired in civil war and the USA has lost the respect of and is now hated by most of the world.

Answer 2

Given the overwhelming evidence, does anyone still believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do?

No... If Saddam was such a threat or had the potential to be such a threat, then he should have been dealt with during the Desert Storm Campaign of 1991.



Does anyone believe that the U.S. / Nato intelligence machine could be SO wrong about weapons of mass destruction?

Yes... Think about it, Military Intelligence, what kind of oxymoron is that!



Does anyone still believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11?

No... The real people responsible for that act are still at large and likely spread all over the globe.



Does anyone think that we have done anything other than further destabilize an already chaotic region of the world?

No... The people of that region have been at war with one another for centuries and all we have done is to attempt to eradicate a hornets nest by hitting it with a stick. Now of course, all of the hornets are angry and looking for the one who was holding the stick. All we've succeeded in doing is giving all of the believers in Islam a collective reason to hate the US more then they already did.

Answer 3

Just for the record, I'm a Democrat and thought the war was premature. The administration has done a terrible job of explaining its rationale. But yes, this has everything to do with 9/11, and WMD were only a supporting argument for going in, not the only reasons. I also think that not only has the destabilization of Iraq NOT destabilized the region, we're looking at a snapshot of the worst, and it's extremely myopic to think the President's overall strategy isn't both workable and likely beginning to work.

And while I'm on this roll, let me point out that this kind of partisan publication encourages instability more than the fact that our troops are over there, and increases their risks. Read up on 4th generation warfare, and consider the possibility that non-Americans, even our enemies might actually have internet access.

Answer 4

Hi,



My opinion as to the whole affair is as follows.



Absolutely not! I have seen a documentary about the entire saga of events involving the Iraq invasion and i feel that the united states was completely wrong with their course of action. So many innocent people died unnesicarily during the invasion and the long term effects are and will continue to be disastrous. I am not going to comment of the 9/11 invasion because I feel that whoever made the attack was also wrong.



I do not want to be discriminatory towards the people of the united states because I have some very close friends from there, however the decisions made by the United States government have been shocking and totally unnecessary. For the American people to have allowed the actions and having been so easily convinced by such a thin veil over the governments doings is unnerving. I firmly believe that the united states needs to clean up their act and the invasion of Iraq was a stark reminder.



This statement is not aimed at offending anyone and should not be taken so, i would like to make this clear in advance.



I would like to make it clear, once again, that this is an OPINION. I hope it is satisfactory.

Answer 5

I have never thought that we should have invaded Iraq. My son is in the Army Reserves. He spent a year there. It was a terrible time for me wondering if he would be killed. I believe the war is all about oil and control of the country, its government, and the irradication of its people. Our "mission" was to remove Sadaam from power. We did that 2 years ago. Why did we continue to fight these people? This war has nothing to do with 9/11. There is no conclusive proof that Iraq was behind those attacks. Killing thousands of innocent people is a shameful and horrible thing to do, and it is not accomplishing anything. Congress and the White House merely wanted to control the oil and the power that goes with it. We should be pulling our troops out, maybe then the country could heal itself. Imagine if a country sent their troops here. Wouldn't we have vigilantes or groups of people fighting this foreign army? Would we just stand back and allow them to topple our government and take over our country? Of course not! So what makes us think that we have the right to do that to someone else??

Answer 6

Nobody ever did say that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11



The Weapons of Mass Destruction was only an excuse to go in. Saddam Hussein could have avoided this situation by letting the UN inspectors do their job. Instead... he challenged America

and paid the price.



Destabilising the region is the whole point of the exercise. While the terrorists fight to regain Iraq... they don't have time to plan their attack on the Western World.



I have never seen anyone say...

"Gees... those terrorists made a huge mistake by attacking America on the 9/11"

They lost Afganisthan... Iraq and Saddam as a direct result of it.



Instead... people seem to feel sorry for them.

Answer 7

I never did believe that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I don't believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The people of our country were lied to about the reason for going in.

Saddam was a very evil man and if our government were to send troops over there to bring him down so he would stop killing his own people, then perhaps Americans can accept that, but that's not the reason that was given.

My belief is that President Bush was getting back at Saddam because Saddam had threatened in the past to kill the former President Bush.

Answer 8

You sound like someone who is trying to exonerate the liberals who voted for the war in Iraq. It looks like they were duped the same as the president on some of the issues pertaining to Iraq. WMD's not being one of them. i say that because all one need do is follow the MO of the culprit, that being Saddam Hussein.



At the start of the Gulf war, Saddam had Iraqi pilots fly all their airplanes to Iran. He knew the US would destroy his air force if left in Iraq. To this day, I don't believe those aircraft were ever recovered by Iraq. This is the MO I am talking about, because prior to the American invasion in 2003, Saddam had his WMD's flown to Syria. This has been documented and acknowledged by one Iraqi general who had first hand knowledge of this incident. So, to answer your question about US/NATO intelligence, I think they hit it right on the money the first time.



We can run away from a destabilized middle east, but it will not resolve a thing if we did. Frankly, I believe it will exacerbate an already volitile situation. It will give Iran the new found courage to spread it's terrorism to middle eastern states that have yet to be reached. States such as Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Egypt, Kuwait, to name a few.



Iran is the bad boy in all this. Granted there are other sh it disturbers to a lesser degree, Syria for example, has been the force helping Hezbollah and destabilizing Lebanon. Of coarse Syria is nothing more than Iran's surrogate in this whole matter. Syria is Iran's lap dog, snarling and snapping as Iran dictates.



Our troops will be in the middle east for a long, long time. Hopefully, soon they will be mopping up the carnage and devastation we put on Iran, because as long as Iran is left to destabilize the middle east, this thing will continue. The middle east will stabilize even to the point that Israel and the Palestinian authority come to a workable agreement, but first, Syria and Iran need to be neutered.



Perhaps the evidence you refer to is overwhelming in your narrow mind, but to many of us, this thing must be brought to a workable stabilization, and the perps must be eliminated. Only then can we say the job has been completed.

Answer 9

Lots of questions. I never did believe invading Iraq was the "right" thing to do. Should have totally taken over Afghanistan. Everybody in the world understood that 911 had to be avenged, nobody in the world begrudged the U.S. a little payback vis-a-vis the effing Taliban. Would that they were still hiding in their holes in the mountains, while Kabul became a world class - democratic - city. What we're trying to do in Iraq (and failing) would have been possible for Afghanistan. Bush got greedy.



And what Mae said.

Answer 10

Monday night quarterbacking is never the right thing.

Iraq did indeed have wmd's tho not in the amount that

intelligence thought. It's easy to be against something

after it's happened and one can then see it isn't going

well. But, we have to go where we are now, and we're

committed over there right now, and surely cannot wave

the white flag and butt out. Things could still turn around

over there and the good Iraq people will still be thanking

us for coming to their rescue from that barbarian Saddam.

I'm sure Bush would still have been bashed if he had

done nothing after 9/11. He got blamed for Katrina when

he apparently didn't do enough. However, no president has

done any more than send in troops and FEMA to any other

disaster here in the U.S. which is what Bush did. I guess

I don't know what everyone expected him to do with water

over houses, no communications available right away, a

mayor holed up in a dry hotel, a city demolished, and no

where for those who survived to go (except the stadium).

When they could get buses in, they did, but remember

roads were covered with debris and water and were impassable.

Im wondering what you would have done??

Answer 11

I think the principle of invading Iraq was the right thing (if it had been done by GOOD men) .... however, the execution has been appalling. There's been so much corruption, theft, hubris and outright, in your face, arrogance. All wars are based on lies to some extent so the claims about the WMD's didn't really concern me ( as Saddam did have horrible chemical weapons supplied to him by the US in the 80s) but it does concern me that the American people were/are so willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Answer 12

Weapons of Mass Destruction and Involvement in 9/11 are the only reasons the MEDIA reported on... over a decade of defying U.N. resolutions (many threatening military action), Saddam refusing to show that he had destroyed all left over chemical weapons that he used in the 80's as agreed after the first gulf war and genocide were other reasons, CNN does not report the full story..

So yes I do, and I am proud to have supported operations in the region.

Answer 13

I don't believe Iraq had ANYTHING to do with 9/11 but some Iraqi lunatics may be responsible for something similar in the future because of what we did. They didn't have wmd, and anyway, we actually gave Saddam a few in the past, we gave him intelligence and we actually gave him mustard gas back in the 80's,



BUT,

Saddam Hussein was pure evil, he did awful things to people of other religions, races etc. He got people out of the way to further his political and military career. He destroyed thousands of acres of habitat that provided food and water and forced people to migrate to other countries. He gassed 182,000 Kurds, he was probably responsible for over a million deaths in his country. He executed women accused of prostitution and forced their families and children to watch the beheading. He slung people on metal hooks and tortured them. The list goes on and I would compare him to Stalin or Hitler. The UN watched Iraq because of the massive human rights abuse. He would force children to fight and executed their families if they disagreed. He would force the children to perform animal cruelty. He even imposed the death sentence on people who took part in currency speculation. How could we let a man along the same lines has Hitler just carry on because we were afraid of civilian casualties? That is like saying we shouldn't of intervened with Hitler.



I don't agree with the massive loss of life because of the war but I am sure we have saved many people of the future.



I have found a link that shows you the human rights abuse carried out by Saddam,

http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr/2002/cdec/4_abuse.html



By the way I don't think he was a threat to the west, I am just glad he's gone because of the threat he placed on his own people. Nothing to do with any terrorism on the west, 9/11 or wmd. We also handed him over to the Iraqi government who executed him for crimes against humanity not weapons of mass destruction.

Answer 14

Study PNAC and add in that Saddam was putting Iraq oil on the Euro. Iran got what they wanted. Haliburton made a fortune. But PNAC is a failure (one more for Bush), 10's of thousands of seriously wounded Americans, 500K dead Iraqi's, 3K dead Americans, a bulls-eye now on the back of America, new terrorists created.



Hard to believe so many still haven't figured out that Bush 'punked us. But there are still those that believe Bush was trying to "save" Terri Schiavo also.

Answer 15

It's very complicated. There were many issues that influenced us..."US" as in "US" military folks doing it...not YOU...we just used your money. He was into a lot of nasty things....more that what you ever saw on the news.



CNN lies...the USA invading IRAQ was the right thing to do. Don't listen to those that use it against BUSH as ammo...we don't think he's the sharpest TOOL in the shed either...nothing to do with him...wasn't even his choice. It was a NAZIistic regime in IRAQ...we went in...did the same... NUFF SAID. No different than WW2...We just did it quicker with a whole lot of negative publicity and anti military overtones. The military just views it as a job that was over due to be done!



If an asshole like him dies...oh well, like pulling a weed in the garden of life.

Answer 16

What about those who lost their live under Sadam. Was our reasoning the same for being there as the beginning ...probably not. However, all those people who jumped on the war wagon and said lets go when it furthered their political career....now are saying Bush is the only person that should be held accountable. OK lets use the same justice used in Iraq by Sadam. Nerve gas wasn't it. That number was 5000. add on the 150 Sadam was found guilty for who tried to over turn his rule. Found guilty in their court Sadam was hanged...and so were those who helped him. Bush alone did not make the decision to go...so lets use Iraqi justice line the others up to be held responsible. Don't forget the voters...big line now. How about those who stood by and allowed it to happen...you got it line um up too. Now using th justice used by Iraq for Sadam...grab us some rope. Bush you are first...then who? You...me, the soldier that did the killing in Iraq because he was told to do so? Ok you say there was no WMD in Iraq ...or was there. Lets ask the 150...maybe the 5000. I think you nay sayers of Bush are so used to slick Willie in the oval office you have allowed your brain to rot smoking fine cigars soaked "in cider". The only mistake we made was to worry about rebuilding Iraq.

Answer 17

Hay big businesses has made a fortune over this war. So has the oil company's. They aren't going broke.

They don't care about a few poor boys dieing. They are getting rich. Have forgiven the oil companys from paying out millions to Alaskan oil spill. Have hidden documents that proved global warmings. They don't care if you believe them or not.

Their laughing all the way to the bank about how stupid the average American is. Americans still believe he is from God.

While they are caught in corruption and pedofile's and harming the enviroment.

Answer 18

actual not, and the U.S. gov't must be charged with warfare crimes for viotating global regulation , by deposing a sovereign Gov't without merely reason. there change into in no way any shown guns of mass destruction, this change into determined earlier the invasion by independant investigators., The warfare change into incorrect, The U.S. change into meddling in different international places affairs as favourite and is paying the fee in money, adult men, and global status.

Answer 19

none at all. Nothing good has come out of going to iraq for britain or america ( we were bombed on 7/7 because of iraq. )



Even toppling saddam was not worth it as he was no longer a danger to anyone except himself.



We should go after the real dangers in North Korea and Iran before they really do attack us

Answer 20

Contrary to popular misconception, perpetrated by many in the news media with false sound-bite journalism, the reasoning behind Operation Iraqi Freedom was not for any possible Iraqi involvement in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Saddam Hussein had the equivalent of a search warrant served on him by the international community in the form of numerous UN Resolutions. He failed to comply. If the local sheriff in your county gets a search warrant for your home from a judge in your area, and you attempt to deny him access, you may be detained. To avoid making a complicated argument too simplistic, it's suffices to say that Saddam Hussein was not pursued because of past acts, but rather he was eliminated 'pre-emptively' because of his track record with his neighbors (attacked almost everyone who borders him), his denying of UN Resolutions (closed the doors on UN inspectors numerous times, kicking them out of the country), and the 'potential' for his assisting terrorist organizations through his R&D of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's a tricky, complicated situation, but try to put yourself in the President's shoes for a second. You are in charge of a great nation that has been attacked. You are at fault no matter what happens. You were criticized for not doing something before 9/11 in Afghanistan, yet you are criticized for doing something before another 9/11-type attack in Iraq. Leadership is tough.



Let me point out one more thing. Oftentimes military people are in favor of attacking dictators, terrorists groups, and the like. The overwhelming majority of those who served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan were supportive of President Bush for re-election in 2004. However, with that, be aware that military personnel often disagree with the management of the war, rather than the decision whether or not to wage war. In 1991 we used approximately 500,000 troops to engage Saddam's "million man army" and drive them out of Kuwait. It was a turkey shoot, and an easy victory for the U.S. on allied ground (Kuwait). It is completely ridiculous to assume that we could then, twelve years later, invade Iraq with little more than 140,000 troops (give or take), overthrow a government, start a democracy, and secure the nation without considerable difficulties. The old mantra of Powell and 'Stormin' Norman' to "kill an ant with an anvil" were long gone by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.



It was right to remove a murderous dictator, and to give the gift of Democracy to a nation that will now be an ally rather than an enemy in the war on terror; however, we should have grown our military forces to the appropriate level first. There is a dangerous notion floating around D.C. that we can outsource and contract out many military positions and that technology will be the cure-all for military operations. Without the right amount of ground-pounders, we will continue to face difficulties in securing a foreign nation and setting up a democracy.

Answer 21

No, not anyone with any brains. I certainly never did. We now know it was just a vendetta against Saddam. Everyone knows it was Ossama bin Forgotten (Bush's friend & business associate) that was responsible for 911.

Answer 22

Invasion of Iraq was not a right decision because no weapons of mass destruction were found.

Answer 23

I don't know anything about politics, but here's my thoughts.



I agree that WOMD and 9/11 were the only reasons to go in. It turns out our intellegence was wrong. People got fired for that. I think we should have decided more carefully wether to go in Iraq, but we made the right choice. We had to go and get them before they come and get us. If we're not fighting it there, we'd be fighting it here. I don't see how you can disagree with that.

Answer 24

I went to Iraq during Desert Storm and again in 02 and then again in 03...



I think we had the right to go becuase of Saddam's unwillingness to comply with the UN as he agreed to do after the first war.



I do not feel bad about going and although I am retired from military service I would go back if asked.



Yes I feel it was the right thing to do.

Answer 25

Never did and protested before the invasion took place. Just do a search on PNAC and you will see the true reason this administration invaded Iraq.

Answer 26

I think that what we did was the right thing to do. The US had known for years what Saddam did to his people. And they didn't do anything except when he attacked the Kurds.



Our "main" reason for going there (the WMDs) may not have been correct, but it's like a child abuse case. They would rather investigate 100 false cases than miss 1 true case.

Answer 27

I never believed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I never believed in WMD, and I never ever thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

Answer 28

I believe that Saddam had some WMDs, but they were shipped out or well hidden in the LONG runup to the invasion.

He did use chemical weapons against his own people, what more proof do you need than thousands of bodies?

Maybe you should get some FACTS before you start spouting opinion.

http://usawakeup.org

Answer 29

The only evidence people are going on is the ones that the liberal media is feeding you. Do some research and not on youtube or the Washington Post. Listen to both sides like Fox News and your own news station. Try to balance it out so you don't get just the one sided view.

Answer 30

The only reason necessary to invade was that Saddam broke the conditions of the armistice of the First Gulf War. Period.



The concept of WMD and the broken UN resolutions (UN--ha! ha! ha!) are irrelevant.



I hope they store all those nice safe sarin and mustard gas shells in your town, not mine....

Answer 31

It was WRONG about the WMD's. It wasn't about WMD's, however, it was about fighting our wars on OTHER PEOPLE'S SOIL. You need to ask yourself, "Do I WANT fighting and dying in MY streets and homes?"

The WMD's were just a public reason to do something very unpleasant and unpopular. But it still needed to be done, so you could go to Disney World and not worry about being blown to s**t.

Answer 32

You couldn't be more wrong. We've rebuilt the country and the vast majority in Iraq are as happy as they've ever been. All the media is doing is keeping a body count, much like you are.

Answer 33

no and quit with the innocent people do not need to die crap obviously they do to control population

Answer 34

I feel it was the right thing. But should have been done in a different way.

Answer 35

No, No, and No.



Oh, I forgot there are still republicans. But even for them it is, Yes, Maybe, and Okay, You Got Me There.

Answer 36

apart from Bush and d*ckweed Blair ? No

Answer 37

no

yes

no

yes

Answer 38

some do

Answer 39

THERE IS NO REASON TO HAVE PEOPLE DIE 4 NO REASON

Answer 40

no