Was invading Irak a mistake?
141801
Yes.\nIt cost thousands of lives,hundreds of billions of dollars,\nand lowered the standing of the U.S. in the international\ncommunity. Even when the war ends there will be a cost-the\npeace of mind of many who served,suffering from post-traumatic stress.\n All of this to confiscate Weapons of Mass Destruction that\nnever existed.\n Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake.
380803
Yes, but tell that to Bush......\n\nRumsfeld made the call. Before invading Iraq all of the Generals were saying we need 300,000 troops min. Rumsfeld thought of it like a company. Wanted to save money. Only 125,000 was sent. The Iraqie people rioted. Then thought oh if we can do this then we can kill americans.\n\nNot only that but the people that fought the Russians in afgan, which is called the muchiadian. (don't know about spelling) Slipped into Iraq. Along with people from Iran which sponsers the most Terriost cells then any other country. Along with people all over the middle east.\n\nThe first thing secured was oil production. Not WMD, Not explosive supply caches, Not radioactive material sites.\n\nThe boarders should have been secured. The country should have been shutdown from outside visitors. The War should have gone on longer to weed out any fighters. Any loyal Republican gaurds. \n\nThe Iraqi Army should have not been obloshished by Bremmer.\n\nRumsfeld made the most mistakes. He should take responsibility and retire. He also tired twice but Bush wouldn't allow it.  The message is not to him. Its too Bush. \nIf this were a company everyone would have been fired.\n\nIf you look at History Bush will keep the FucIc ups close to him. They only person that I know of that has gotten fired from making mistakes in his cabinet is the guy that was incharge of FEMA.\n\nThis is Bush's personal war. Because Saddam tired to kill his daddy.
259384
personally, i thought we never should have went in. i never believed the reason for going was "weapons of mass destruction".  since iraq was under a no fly zone and we had spy satellites flying over head .. i never believed it was even remotely possible for iraq to be a threat to us.[ we never invaded russia, and they were a real threat] . iraq could barely reach isreal w/ some old russian rockets during the first gulf war. cheyney and his puppet bush just wanted to  position the cronies in business power in there. they continue to compound their lies.. and as free americans it is all our fault for being so lazy as to allow these kind of people to get anywhere near the controls. that said we broke iraq and now we must fix it . stay till the last drop of american blood and spend every last  american dollar until that country is rebuilt and safe .and then we should get out of their lives completely , no doing business no trade no oil... if we are to maintain any pride or dignity... this has been utterly shame full.. GOD help us."red wing nutso"  how appropriate is that name?  what are you doing here why arent  you in iraq supporting your beliefs[ and dont tell me you've been, you talk like a boy] first off its their oil if they want to sell it @ $1,000 a drop thats up to them... would you go to your gas station and kill someone for a fill up?[ well not you , i'm sure you dont have the stones]... id rather walk than have someone die for oil...but thats just me, i know many americans put a greater value on their "toys" than they do they well being of their nieghbors. we better start thinking about what makes america great , our toys or our morals. you know"uniquels" ive often believed that , and if bush would have said that right off i would have respected him, cause i'd have done the same for my dad."earl" if you believe that, pick up a gun, show me something... guess not huh? just another coward w/ a big mouth!
326003
Absolutely not!\n\nToo many have already died.  This war was a mistake.  We never should have invaded and now there's no easy way out.
919750
Nope.  Under Saddam the utility system worked, there were no roving gangs of thugs, and there were not Al Qaeda insurgents wandering the land.  Since the invasion 600,000 Iraqis have died.  Saddam was a bad guy, but the price of the invasion has been very high for Iraqis.
928147
No.  The entire process was doomed from the beginning.  Besides the fact that the operation was poorly planned and executed, the people of Iraq have too many long standing ethnic/religious differences.  Just like eastern Europe under the Communist regimes, these differences were quelled by the strong-armed rule of Sadaam.  We are dreaming if we think that we will force middle eastern people to become like us.  They will not accept our religion or our western values.   They will have to work it out themselves with our support, not our intervention.
1124657
wrong as wrong can be, every death that has happened over there since the day of our invasion, has to blamed on bush.  he should be tried as a war crimminal in iraq.
966130
When Bush realized mapquest gave him the wrong directions and he had invaded Iraq, he just made up a few reasons and they bought it.The greater the lie the more people will believe it.
933520
The insertion of troops was a major mistake. The entire region under Islamic influence from Morocco to Indonesia is far less stable as a result. The U.S. is increasingly seen as dictatorial by increasing numbers of people around the world. Our economy has been vastly weakened. We do not have enough troops available should other emergencies develop. The Civil War, denied by the Bush administration but acknowledged as being fully underway by the rest of the world, deepens daily and leaves American troops there as sitting ducks. There can be no victory in Iraq. Just as the British learned after World War I, the Iraqis will not be conquered. There is too much value underground (oil) and too much division above-ground. The only result of continued occupation will be increasing governmental debt for the U.S. and more dead and injured American soldiers. Military contractors such as Halliburton are being enriched. The Bush administration has no idea of what they mean by "victory", nor does Tony Blair in England.
609655
Is this the same trickster who changed the reasons he invaded Iraq?\n\nI expect him to say next that Clinton and Kerry made him cause the mis-step.
156952
Well no ones answer will be objective (except for mine of course LOL).  The fact is that their were multiple  Terrorist training camps in Iraq and bush made it clear that we are against any country that harbors terrorists.  Sodom Hussein also gassed thousands of curds.  Leading to the weapons of mass destruction accusation.  Manly he was an incompetent leader who had invaded other countries before and wouldn’t have a problem with doing any thing that would kill innocent people.  And no it wasn’t for oil.  If it was than why am I pay so much for it.
889631
You need to get you're facts right mate. The Turkish Army invaded the north AFTER the Greek army had invaded the South, there are two sides to every story, dont just believe what you hear from the South, and also North Cyprus, or TRNC as its called, is not recognised by most of the world, so now matter how much you dont like the newspaper you couldnt close it down even if you tried
834156
it has very specific ground:  get the oil.  \n\nthe infrastructure of irac has not been rebuilt, but trust me, what has been built is good defences around the oil wells and a few american military bases around the borders...  \n\nit never was a war against terrorism, bush should be on the next stand to saddam hussein for crimes against the irakies, and making his nation one of the most reviled and corrupt in the world.\n\nstill got doubt??
425044
No.  All Bush had to do was read one of his fathers essays to know why it was a bad idea.  Even Cheney was against invading Iraq before he was for it.  The war has created more terrorists and terrorism while not dealing with any of the sources of terrorism.\n\n"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."\n\n    * At the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991
970226
Cowardice is staying the course out of fear of admitting that you were wrong.\n\nCowardice is staying with a broken strategy out of fear that you might appear incompetent.\n\nAt this point, anyone who doesn't listen to the spin machines on either side of this debacle (and can read congressional reports) knows that Iraq was, AT BEST, a mistake. All the reasons for invading Iraq were falsified. \n\nThere was no plan for what would happen after the invasion, or what any middle east strategist would call a plan. Whoever thought that a country that used to be torn by centuries of social and religious strife would magically harmonize and embrace democracy was completely naive. Just look at what happened in Kosovo.\n\nIn fact, our invasion has made things worse. Just do a search for the latest congressional report on terrorism.\n\nNow most normal people, when they realize they've made a mistake, apologize and try to correct that mistake. Most normal people realize that if you don't fix a mistake that it can become an even bigger mistake.\n\nSo that's what we have here. A result of what was a mistake turning into a really big mistake and getting bigger everyday.\n\nSo how do you fix something of this magnitude? Well, you really can't. It's now up to the Iraqi people. Our presence there only acts as a lightening rod.\n\nI'm sure some will say "Well with a big enough force...". Those who say that apparently aren't familiar with resistance fighters, especially ones with religious fervor. They also aren't familiar with a similar situation that happened not to long ago involving the USSR and a rag tag band of "freedom-fighters" led by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. The USSR lost by the way.\n\nYou can't force people to do something. They have to do it on their own. Forcing them just causes anger and enmity, even if what you're trying to force them to do is for their own good.\n\nThe ideal soultion is to get a large multi-national peace keeping force in Iraq. Unfortunately, the US blew that capital when it basically ignored the UN and invaded Iraq anyway.\n\nSo now what? Well, we can stay there and be stuck in a conflict that never ends (see Vietnam, USSR vs. Afghanistan) that just keeps escalting in costs in life and capital, or we accept the fact that we made and incredible mistake (which we did) and cut our losses.\n\nI can guarantee that if they start a draft, you'd see a full scale revolt against the government. More than half the people believe Iraq is a mistake and any politician with aspirations of re-election wouldn't touch a draft resolution with a 6 foot disgraced republican lobbyist.\n\n~X~
287091
I think his attcak on Afganistan and Iraq were wrong and now attack on iran would be biggest mistake
576079
The troops should never have been there in the first place.\nI'm not saying I thought Saddam was a good man- he was a moron. \n\nBut let's look at another factor: who said these guerrilla soldiers are actually insurgents? The Iraqi military were trained for years by the US and the UK. The standard procedure if the UK were successfully invaded is for the auxiliary troops to begin assassinations and terror campaign against the invaders. The Iraqi's are doing just that and the insurgents are the foreigners going in to Iraq to help them.\n\nI don't remember hearing any Iraqi's saying they wanted they're country invaded. Do you?\n\nIt's the same old story of politicians sending troops to war while they sit back and get rich. Of course they don't send their own children off to war, just other peoples.