Was the United States correct in going to war with Iraq? ?

Question

Please give at least three reasons why the US was Incorrect or Correct. Thank you!

Answer 1

We suspected Saddam had nucleur weapons as him and his chiefs talked about it all the time.



He violated UN resolutions several times.



He killed his own people with gas. Imagine if the U.S. did that to you.

Answer 2

It doesn't really matter if we didn't find exactly what we were looking for when Iraq was invaded. Our mission has changed from fighting terrorism to training the IPs and getting out of there. It amazes me how many people are quick to say we don't belong there when we are making great improvements daily. Just by being there we are providing the Iraqi people with some sense of security that they never had before. Their justice system used to be so corrupt that people fearded for their lives if they reported crime. Our military is in the process of training and building their police stations to be able to function properly on their own. That's an MP's main mission over there. They aren't patrolling the main roads or searching buildings as much, just focusing on IPs. Other MOSs have taken over typical MP tasks for us to focus a new goal. Just think what if you lived in Iraqi and you feared every day for the welfare of your family. Wouldn't you want someone to help out and provide some sort of protection to ease your mind? Thats what the US military represents over there. For every person that is bitter for us being in their country and wants us out, there are plenty of thankful people that appreciate our efforts and want us there. But this is the side you never hear about in the debates and why is that?

Answer 3

It is a HUGE matter of opinion. Are there any released confirmations on WMDs, not really but we know he had chemical weapons. Was it a major threat to the US? well not really he wasn't stupid enough to attack us. Should we have stayed in Afghanistan and made sure the Taliban didn't come back and caught Bin Laden? You could say we should've. But the fact of the matter is, we liberated a country from an evil dictator that put his people through $h!t. The people are on the whole happy that they're liberated and the conditions there are getting better, but we had threats like Saddam from multiple areas. Why Iraq? I'm not sure but we did a good thing in liberating the people but it might not have been the best choice. Matter of opinion.

Answer 4

well the reasons given to the American public for going to war were



1) weapons of mass destruction

2) prevent terror

3) remove an evil dictator

4) secure oil interests

5) democratic Iraq would stabilize the middle east

etc..



1) no weapons of mass destruction

2) terrorist orgs weren't in Iraq in large numbers before we invaded now they're more of a problem

3) we captured saddam

4) Oil costs 4 dollars a gallon, though this would've happened either way

5) Democratic Iraq really destabilized Iraq and the whole middle east, Iraq has been more stable recently but the middle east is still on edge.



Really not much was gained form the Iraq war (unless you can through things and realize was that the plan was to control Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan's oil pipeline as all countries border one another ps we haven't succeeded at this yet either)

Answer 5

the prezes best judgement was 3 "independant" sources said that saddam h had chemical,biological,possibly nukes,the means to deliver them(missles) the will and capacity to use them on the kurdish people of northern iraq,,the flaw was that the informer was alcoholic and unstable.therefore unreliable,a goof courtesy of george tenets assurances to colin powell that the weapons were there,this was gwbs combo crisis with elements of bay of pigs,vietnam,and the missle crisis(1962) iraq war began in 2003,,wmds not found a/o 2k6.at the time before invasion,bush still thought that shady saddam had the will. definitely had means to deliver them(scud missles).and would not chance getting struck by this guy.saddam had sympathetic and ideological ties to terrorists.the goof seems to be turning into a save in that iraqi people in great numbers have better lives without the buzzard

Answer 6

The link below is to the text of the Congressional Authorization For Offensive Military Operations Against Iraq. Begin reading after the first "whereas" and you can decide whether it was justified or not. That will develop your ability to engage in critical thinking where you won't have to ask strangers to help you with your homework.

Answer 7

Yes, we were correct in going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both countries were blatant supporters of Islamic terrorism. I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but Iraq did support terrorism. Saddam was a key financier in Hamas and other terrorist organizations.

1. We thought there were WMDs, it turns out that there WERE WMDs, just not in the stockpiles that we suspected.

2. We were correct to confront islamic terrorism head on in their region and not on American soil. We were correct in attacking Iraq because it showed other regimes worldwide that seaking WMDs would be against their interest (surprise Libya and North Korea came back to talks and relinquished all of their WMDs to the west).

3. We were correct in attacking to stop the massacre of Iraqi people by Saddam and his crazy sons. People always ***** and moan about Rwanda and Darfur and why the US didn't stop this atrocities, but when we try... we are insulted and hated for it.

Answer 8

No. Iraq presented NO threat to the US or our interests. We were sold a bunch of lies that SH had a hand in 9/11 and even Bush admits now that that was not true.



The intel on WMD and chemical weapons was trumped up for Bush's benefit. When he dispatched a trusted diplomat to investigate allegations of SH seeking nuclear materials in Africa, he outed his wife as his way of saying "Thank You" for giving an answer that didn't fit his desires.



We had a mission in Afghanistan to go after UBL and the Taliban government that supported him and gave him aid and comfort. But for whatever his misguided reasons, Bush chose to ignore those who had actually caused us harm and go after a tin pot dictator. We are not in the "liberation business." If we were, why is it that we didn't become involved in Darfur or any one of the other regions where the genocide made SH look like a playground bully?



Edit: I'm shocked and dismayed that some people still think that Iraq had any involvement in 9/11! Where have you people been hiding the past 3 years??

Answer 9

Yes, we were justified. First, Saddam was a threat to stability in the middle east, they did find parts, not the actual weapons but parts for building WMD's. Now why would saddam need parts like that for and why would he need a WMD? Second of all, Saddam had to be removed because he was a tyrant. What he did to his own people was sickening. Third, Iraq needed a change, they needed a real government.

Answer 10

Maybe the question should be was it right to let a genocidal dictator continue to rule?

Let him rob from the country's bank?

Abusing human rights?

Using scare tactics?

Violent the Persian gulf War treaty?

And may have WMD and will use them on his OWN people again like years before?

Answer 11

The US was correct because...

- They attacked us first

- The Iraqi society needs help

- We could use the support from Iraq



The US was incorrect because...

- It's not our business to intrude upon Iraqi society and try to fix it

- Iraq didn't need even MORE death and chaos

- WE don't even more debts and death and soldiers

Answer 12

Saddam ignored the no fly zone repeatedly. The UN only paid lip service to these repeated "No Fly" violations. He bragged that he had weapons of mass destruction and would use them against anyone who tried to keep him in his box. We , the U.S.decided that he had to be "contained" since no one else would step up to the problem. All intelligence up to that point, indicated that he did in fact have weapons of mass destruction.

Answer 13

How about if you just ask yourself what, if anything, USA gained from it and what it cost.

USA has never shown very much concern over humanitarian issues in other countries.

It certainly does not care if Arabs get to vote in Saudi Arabia.



Think pragmatically about resources, money and military bases.

Answer 14

Well from what I seen being in Iraq for 15 months... nope. Let them live their lives, and lets start correcting our own problems in America.

Answer 15

Bush 2 finished what Bush 1 could not.

A dictator in a ify part of the world is dangerous.

We were lied too.

Good may come of it.

Bush is an idiot.

Answer 16

Yes

Reasons



1. They tried to destroy the world trade center once (Failed)



2.They hijacked airplanes and crashed them into the world trade center (Accomplished).



3. Attacked the pentagon.



4.They killed millions of people and whats done is done.

Answer 17

This is a old and stale question that was asked more than a hundred times. Where have you been that you've missed reading the answers.

Answer 18

now that my friend, is a matter of opinion