Iraq did not attack the USA. Iraq was no threat. In fact the United States supported Iraq back in the 80s. The Iraq war is wrong and stupid and all you here know that. Do I hear Vietnam??? The second coming. Get ready America to walk the walk of shame.
215368
It's not. It's saving the Iraqi's freedoms. Are you so selfish to think that we are the only country worthy of freedom?\n\nI've been there. I saw women beaten and raped on the streets by Saddam's Death Squads, people disappearing and kidnapped everywhere, women denied very basic rights and privileges like education or respect, the people's money stolen to build palaces with actual rivers rerouted to flow through them, zero social programs but an immense military, etc. \n\nThis country once fought tooth and nail for it's own freedoms many times over but the further we get from those brave generations the more the current generation will be ungrateful for all they did.
606836
You are a fool.\nI hear a lot of criticism of the US.\nI hear none for the dictators that are holding the world to ransom because they happen to be sitting on a natural resource then spending the profits on warfare.\nIf the war against Saddam was wrong then why didn't HIS allies from the surrounding nations help defend Iraq.\nBecause they were glad to see him go that's why.\nHe was a threat to his neighbours.\nHe boasted about his prowess in war..\nHe was trying to buy plutonium on the black market.\n\nThis was not a war against Iraq or the Muslims....it was a war against a dictator who murdered anybody who disagreed with him.\nThe quickest way to get the US out of Iraq is to stop shooting at them, that's bloody obvious.
483557
Iraq was not like it is now when Saddam was in power. Saddam was a threat to his own people, and those around him, period. World threat? Threat to America? Not by any thinking person's stretch of the imagination. We had to retaliate for 9/11 and a group of brilliant people decided Iraq was the path of least resistance after we topple their tyrant to install a democracy. Wishful thinking at its best, we are starting to see the worst. Things have degraded to their tribal levels split along religious sects. We invaded without understanding the culture and history of the region. Hatred and war are long time bed-partners in the middle-east. Just to keep the excitement growing we can now add extremely twisted, hate filled, religious fundamentalist zealots adding to the killing in the name of Allah.  Baghdad is eerily starting to look like Saigon. We won't need a strategy to get out, we'll need emergency evacuation.
52086
At the current time we do not have enough troops to attack anyone else.  North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world, never mind that if we attacked them China might get involved and join the war against us.  And if you think the war in Iraq is bad a war with North Korea could easily cost us 1000 soldiers every 2 weeks or so instead of every year
595880
In addition to cantcu's succinct answer, which is the critical point, I would add that the so-called threat of WMDs in Iraq (which never existed) made bush feel like a macho lawman from the old west, while the prospect of WMDs in North Korea (which absolutely do exist and are flaunted regularly) makes the coward hide in his bunker. Why? China.\n\nIf the "good old USSR" (where ever did I get that phrase from? lol) still existed, bush would never have gone anywhere near Iraq, notwithstanding his desperate need to prove his manhood and avenge his daddy. Why? Because as China looks out for North Korea, so too did the USSR once look after Iraq. Like all such craven political leaders, bush and his aides correctly calculated that invading Iraq under the false pretext of a perceived "threat" of WMDs would not engender imminent attack by an actual nuclear power.\n\nWhat he completely miscalculated was that the Iraqi people would welcome force-fed "democracy," to say nothing of the endless campaign against imperialism led by assorted insurgents and outside forces (many of them terrorists who'd have never dared set foot inside Iraq while Saddam Hussein was still in charge). The fact the US already went through precisely the same insane scenario in Vietnam a few decades ago only makes his war crimes all the more treasonous and indefensible. Unbelievable....
506483
people seem to forget that back in the 80's we were allies with Iraq and Saddam Husein . the links i have given not only show you this but give detailed info. \nhttp://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm\n  \nall most every country that we have gone to war or had some type of military involvement with has come back to bite us in the butt.
309712
The war is wrong no matter who supported it. Besides, you can get yourself into a half-baked idea and later realize it was foolish. That's the real problem with what's going on; we refuse to pull out and spare American lives and resources.
5218
United States is evil. It just wants to approach it goals even if the cost is the life of millions of people. At that time the United States supported Iraq because it knew that the holy government of Iran is the biggest obstacle in Americas way to approach it's evil goals. But as soon as the Americans saw that Saddam's regime was turning it's back on them they stopped supporting it. United States doesn't care about the lives of people, and the human rights, this is why they supplied Iraq with Biological and chemical weapons wich caused more than 90% of the causualties of the war.\nthree years later the United States turned it's back against Iraq when Iraq attacked Kuwait cause this time Iraq wasn't moving with respect to their goals.
477182
Whilst both were supported by America, only Saddam threatened the oil supply. I believe that is why Saddam was hated by America. They have supported quite a lot of dictators in the past.
34653
I cant help you a lot, but french endorsed the revolution of the colonies in the us, in fact i think they even sent troops at the time consisting of the royal navy.\n\nAs of the second part, the people of both spain and france were and are totally against the occupation of iraq, i was in madrid at the time and a manifestation of 1.5 millon people crowded madrid`s center "puerta del sol" regardless of what their at the time president Mr. Aznar said. so you have a big dicotomy there, goverment endorsed the US, and people deplored it.\n\nFrance on the other side, both goverment and people were actively involved and against the iraq invasion.
646835
It would be senseless to say that Saddaam was not a threat. ALL dictators are threats to democracy. Does that mean you should start wars with everyone? NO!\n\nBill Clinton did not start a war with Iraq. He did not want to start a war with Iraq. How would anyone know for sure if Saddam had WMD"S? Clinton didn't, so he did not attack b/c there was no evidence.\n\nBush fabricated the evidence and started an illegal war with Iraq.\n\nYou decide who made the bigger mistake.
658623
I have been saying this to anyone that will listen!!!  People look back at the Vietnam war as a failure of the US.  The US went in there and tried to implement the form of government they saw best.  And now we are trying to transform the government of Iraq?  See the comparison, this war will be viewed as another US failure.  How many more wars will the world tolerate that Americans step in and try to force their ideas.  These wars also hurt our economy.  Are these failed wars the beginning of the end for the US as the leading "empire" of the world.
32641
We should not support this war at all. Our president just wanted to show that he was reacting in some way. However, he has created a mess in Iraq.
58520
In my opinion, Iraq isn't involved in a civil war. It's involved in a US-induced revolution.
2857
The united states does things that are in its own best interest, but not necessarily if its right or wrong. \n Iraq had no weapons, but we attacked anyway because it is to our advantage politically and economically. \nIt will free up more oil and give us more world power. It is selfish but that is how it is.
345665
Whether the war is good or bad remains to be seen, 10 ..20 years down the road. The logic goes that if we fight them in their neighbourhood then we don't have to fight it in ours. The problem in Iraq is that Iraq was not a terrorist country to start off, but it is now, once we invaded it. Some will argues that Iraq acts like a magnet drawing the terrorists there, but the war is also creating a lot more future terrorists elsewhere seeking revenge for what we do in Iraq. So we have created more of the very ennemies we seek to destroy. The current war is costing us billions every months; on the flip side, the insurgency use very little money to fight us. I'm afraid that in the long run, it's gonna bankrup our country, that's my prediction. We got out of Vietnam not because we coulnd't win it, but because it would have taken way too long and would have costed way too much money to fight to the end. The insurgency is fighting for their country, it's their homeland; they can stay there forever, but can we???
380389
Arcane are you  crazy?  Their are a lot more modernized middle eastern countries that Iraq.  I have been to a couple different countries and I saw nothing that even Iraq.  You need to know what you are talking about before you start saying stuff like that.  One other thing I want to tell you about.  If the Iraqis didn't want us there all they had to do is run us out,  but they are going through what we did  in our civil war, Losing life's, homes, family and what not they know that it is a necessary evil but most of them are ready for a change.  There have been more business open up in the last year than any other year in their history.  Soon as they can show that their military is able and willing we will be out but no sooner.  It would be a disgrace to the US and its people if we left now and let total hell rain down upon them.