Honestly, did capturing Saddam justify our invasion?
144900
Hi there,\n\nI think the reason is to show off America's power or their greed for power.\n\nHere's why I think so-\n\nThe USA first attacked Iraq and captured Saddam Hussein near Tikrit. The reason Mr.Bush gave for that is that the USA suspects some biological weapons in Iraq.\n\nAfter the war was over but nothing revealed, Mr.Bush apologized for this bliss by saying that he received false intelligence reports. Now that's easy, it's the same thing as I kick you hard and then apologize. Whatever the damage should be done, it was done. \n\nSo I think the reason for these attacks is not any terrorist threat to USA or the greed for oil, but it is just to show off it's power to the world after the attack of Sep 11th. I just think it is a ploy to scare away the people. It means something like Mr.Bush wants to say "We are rich, we are powerful, we can do anything, so don't mess with us."\n\nI don't mean to offend all the Americans out there. I just told you my opinion about the attacks. If I offended anyone, my sincere apologies. And let me make it clear, I'm not being partial to Mr.Hussein. I think he ruled Iraq for quite some time with an iron fist.\n\nI just told you my opinion frankly, but anyone of you here are free to disagree with this. After all, everyone has their own thought process. \n\n\nrule wid style n luv@vinny
820164
SAddam had nothing to do with our being there to begin with. Our IDIOT president saw an opportunity to IMPRESS his DADDY because SAddam tried to have his dad killed back in the day- Remember, there were NO WMD's at all. NONE. We should not have gone there- and everyone seems to have forgotten that Osama is the one who admitted to the 911 attacks, yet we apparently dont care about finding him. When theres all this oil to be stolen by occupation in Iraq. Does anyone ever wonder how OPEN TO ATTACK having so many of our military in Iraq that we have made the United States? We have so little soldiers left to protect our own country that we couldnt provide support to help out victims of the Katrina Hurricane until it was already too late. It is ONLY a matter of time before the UNITED STATES becomes INVADED and OCCUPIED, and you think Im kidding or crazy? We couldnt even know when a CHINESE SUB was tailing one of our ships until THE CHINESE decided to let us know about it. We are overconfident and vunerable to attack. Just wait and see when the shit truly hits the fan and you find that it takes a week or more for the US to get its troops back in the US from IRAQ to protect its own soil. The chinese army outnumbers us 4 to 1- and most of our army isnt even in our own country. Do the math.
67010
Well, the only reason Iraq was invaded was for oil,I mean come on...why else Iraq? There was no proof to begin with, but there was proof for Syria, Libya, North Korea, Oh but no. We just had to ivade a country with no evidence for them having WMD's didnt we? And i mean you just have to look through the lines at this one..
108936
Oh gosh, don't even get me started. I'll try and make this as brief as possible\n\nBush's reasons for invading Iraq:\n1. To find weapons of mass destruction\n2. Because of Irag's alleged link with the 9/11 terrorists\n\nDid we find WMDs: Nope\nDid we find any proof or even evidence of a link between the 9/11 hijackers and Iraq: Nope\n\nWhile, i agree that saddam hussein (excuse my spelling) is a bad man, he kept stability in his country and posed no direct threat to us. It is not our responsibility, nor should it be, to decide who is good and who is "bad" and then take steps to remove them when we see fit. \nHad Iraq actually posed a threat to our national security I may feel differently, but Iraq did not pose such a threat.\n\nUnfortunately, our intelligence organizations are partially to blame, however, there are also individuals in the political realm whom are responsible.\n\nWhy did we not listen to the U.N. or Hans Blix? Are we too arrogant as a country to listen to what the international community has to say, especially the U.N., and organization we helped to create?\n\nOh my, i could go on and on and on and on, but i don't feel like typing that much.
679894
I would say yes.\nwe were losing, and we had to win at all cost. I say the ends justify the means.\nand we had to win decisively, we had to establish ourselves as the superpower so no one would try that crap again.\nand above all, it was not just some war fought over politics. we were up against murderers and racists and people who wanted to destroy the world. people like that must be stopped, even if it means killing them to make them stop.
947001
They haven't found any (please list your source), and even if they did, is that an excuse for going in and killing 10000's of Iraqi's?  That makes him no better than Saddam.
586911
Amnesy International is a less biased source than President Bush, that is for certian. It is amazing that our control of this country has resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and we have a hard time understanding why people are so upset. We did finance Saddam, as we have done other dictators. It doesn't make it our fault that he did this to his people. I think it is just really interesting that our stated reason for going over there is that he attacked us. When that wasn't true we changed it to weapons of mass destruction. Well... that wasn't true either. Now it is presented as spreading democrarcy... hmmm... if our goal was to protect people from corrupt governments and spread democracy we would be in a lot of other countries...and we would be assisting countries that are starving. Kind of blows that out of the water doesn't it. I respect our troops deeply, that they would put their lives and destiny's on the line for us and I feel sad and distressed that we are not even being honest about why we are ending their lives as well as thousands of civilian lives that we don't talk about in the so called "liberal" media.
850254
Gees, I could have sworn it was Bush who stood on the Kuwaitt Border telling the Iraqi's to overthrow their government! And we gave Saddam the gas!\n\nWonder what would happen in the US if we tried to overthrow the government and how many would be killed! But that's ok! Right?\n\nWe didn't say a damn thing when he used it on Iran, in fact we effectively kept the UN from sanctioning him by using our veto powers!\n\nIt's ok for us! Just no one else!
1067765
You know.... this whole WMD debate is really just flat silly.  We KNOW they had WMD's for two very obvous reasons.  \n\n1)  He used them to gas hundreds of Kurds in '88.  He killed hundred of people!!  It's not propaganda, it's not right wing rhetoric, it's not some strange fruit cakes unsubstantiated editorial..  It's a fact!!\n\n2)  The other reason we know, though a little less welcome in the media is that WE SOLD THEM TO IRAQ!!  Durring the Iran Iraq war, we backed Saddam.  Makes sense after Iran overran our embassy and held captive our diplomats back in '79 for us to back their oposition.  The enemy of our enemy is our friend kind of thing.  Just as we trained and equiped Afgani "freedom fighters" durring the soviet invation, we trained and equiped Iraq durring the Iran Iraq war.  We know they had WMD's then, because we have the reciepts.  It's a plain, unwelcome fact.  Made sense at the time, but there it is.  \n\nClinton may or may not have had data on WMD's in Iraq in '98, but I really don't see how it matters, they were there.  The WMD's are most likely either burried in the desert, or in Seria now.
880124
Wow...how generous of you :-)  anyway...When the USS Cole was bombed before 9/11, we knew then who was behind the attack.  We also knew they were planning something against the USA.  So, when 9/11 happened, we had every right to go into Afghanistan and where ever else to get Bin Laden and his terrorists.  Our government had intelligent info about all this and THEY knew Bin Laden did NOT conspire with Saddam.  I agree Saddam is a very evil man, but invading Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.  The Iraq situation is going to turn out worse than Vietnam.  Bush was so concerned with plotting against his daddy's enemy (before 9/11, he already had plans to invade Iraq, he just needed a reason to do so) it seems he has forgotten the real reason our soldiers are in the middle east.\nSo, 5 years later...where is the man responsible for killing our Americans on our soil?
1090762
Yes, I think so. I’ll give you a few reasons, but first let me give you a little history. I don’t know how old you are, but you may recall that Saddam Hussein had a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction during the first Gulf War. In fact, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he actually used these weapons in battle. That’s where the whole WMD scare came from.\n\nThe United Nations ordered Saddam to stop the invasion, but he refused and eventually the U.N came to Kuwait’s defense. Saddam’s troops were beaten back to Iraq, all the way to Baghdad. But rather than invade Baghdad and remove Saddam from office, the U.N. called a cease-fire on the condition that Saddam give up his WMDs and not re-invade Kuwait. Saddam agreed to these terms, and so the Gulf War ended.\n\nIn 1992, Clinton was elected and over the next two terms he discovered just how dangerous Saddam was. For starters, Saddam broke the condition that the cease-fire was based on. U.N weapons inspectors were repeatedly blocked as they attempted to verify that the weapons had been destroyed. When the inspectors went to a location where they thought WMDs might be stored, Saddam basically told them to wait at the front door. Satellite images taken while the U.N. weapons inspectors were forced to wait show convoys of military trucks slipping out the back door. It’s not clear whether there were WMDs in these trucks, or if he was just trying to make everyone think there were. But either way, everyone thought he still had WMDs. \n\nIn 1998, Saddam raised the stakes even higher by completely kicking the U.N weapons inspectors out of the country. He no longer made them wait at the front door; he didn’t let them come into the country at all. This was a clear violation of the agreement that he made that the Gulf War cease-fire was based on, and President Clinton didn’t like that one bit. In that same year, he ordered the U.S Air Force and Navy to bomb Iraq, because Saddam refused to let the weapons inspectors back in. That softened Saddam up a bit, and he finally agreed to let the U.N weapons inspectors back in. Clinton told Saddam that if he tried anything like that again, the U.S could bomb him without warning.\n\nWhat’s sad is that at the time, Republicans accused Clinton of trying to distract the U.S from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, instead of crediting him for doing what was in the best interest of security – both for our country and other countries around the world. Why would Republicans do this? Anytime you credit the opposing political party for doing something well, you increase the chances that they will be re-elected, which obviously reduces your own party’s power.\n\nAfter Clinton left office, Saddam started playing the “wait at the front door” game again. Bush now had to make a decision as to how to deal with Saddam, and since we were already “next door” in Afghanistan it made sense to remove Saddam from office. Saddam was still playing games to make the world think that he had WMDs, and that coupled with the genocide that Saddam committed were two darn good reasons for invading the country.\n\nIt turns out that we never found WMDs; Saddam was only bluffing, but we did find mass graves of people that Saddam murdered. If anyone ever opposed him, Saddam had him or her killed and dumped into a pit. This is why there was enormous support for the war right when Saddam was removed from office. He was a mass murderer, and a huge majority of Iraqis were thrilled to have him removed from power because they could not do it themselves. They ran out into the streets and danced and celebrated. \n\nSince then a lot of support has eroded because of the ongoing war. Even though the original invasion was justified, “war is hell” and people start to get tired of all of the bloodshed. \n\nThe majority of the insurgents are Saddam loyalists - Sunnis that are no longer enjoying the power that they had for several decades. Sunnis only make up about 20
958769
Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Nothing. And no he was not a good man. But then, how many 'good men' are running countries all over the world anyway. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq, Saddam's actions were a part of the culture. There is NO connection except that the Bush administration used 9/11, AlQuaeda, Osama, and Saddam?? as an excuse to visit havoc upon that country. In addiiton to which, in now uncovered (Freedom of Information) documents, the US had been looking for an excuse to invade, to remove Saddam and take over Iraq's oil reserves since Bush Sr. If the people of the UInited States had read, listened and demanded more, everyone would have been aware of this plan; and that includes our sorry representation in the House and Senate.\nSo Saddam has been sentenced to be hanged. So what.!!There's an appeal process which will likely keep him alive for at least another year. Actually not many people in the US give a rats azz about Saddam anyway.  They are more concerned with our troops and why the heck they are there anyway. Even the troops are beginning to ask questions. Those that is, who haven't been brainwashed.\nThe republicans will win or lose based upon what the voters want. Actually I am not too hopped up on voting anyway. If the Dems win, all I can say is that I hope they win by LARGE margins. If not, the Repubs will do everything in their power to keep the races OPEN ....
1168693
it's not wise at all....to martin s on top, i really appreciate what u guys did in iraq to help the pple. however, why did the US invade iraq in the first place? on ground that they are havin WMD, isn't it? However, in my own understanding (correct me if im worng), the UN didn't agree to use military force, the US went in themselves..and for the saddam issues...whatever or however tyrant he maybe, it's still his country's problems...why did the US wanted to interfere??? u said Iraq has lotsa terrorist training camps all around in iraq, there're so many training camps around in the world, indonesia, afganistan adn so much more in the middle east, can the US really eradicate all?? I think the reasons behind it is still the availabilty of iraq's oil..why, weapons of mass destruction, well, North korea and iran had admitted to owning them, but the US didn't attack them...and iraq, US claims there're WMD, where the hell are the evidence??
1076845
No , by invading Iraq he made it easy s for the terrorist to gain a foothold there  They have been able to get some Iraqis to join them and make them stronger . Sure we are fighting them over there . They are still killing Americans and that is what they want to do . When they turn their attention back to the US they will find many ways to come into this country and do their damage . \nWe had better wake up and tighten  up all the loose ends . \nBy the way Congress did clear it for Bush to invade , but it wasn't their idea to go , Bush pushed for it and they went along  , because he said it had to be done . Bush gave Congress the reason's  to go , and they were all wrong !!!!!
252476
Saddam was not taken out in Desert Storm.  The U.N. went in to monitor his illegal activities, and he was rebellious and uncooperative.  That finally led to the second conflict, which was of course easily won.  Now our troops are staying there until their government can become strong enough to protect themselves from all the terrorists and insurgents who are running around the middle east looking for a country to take over.
602358
Illegal war or not, we have made a mess and we need to help clean it up and finish the job. There are people over there who need to be protected so that they can form a just and fair government of their choosing and to have a chance at a better life. \n\nShould we have gone in in the first place? maybe not. Where we lied to? It looks like it. Was Hussein a direct threat to us? That is debatable. Irregardless, we went in, screwed up the occupation and rebuilding and underestimated the opposition. We now have to fix it as best we can. It is like if I went into your neighborhood and spilled a load of toxic trash all over. If there is no one capable of cleaning it up, I should. I should not leave the mess for you to deal with.
909937
While I would like to believe that it's because we are good, moral people trying to do the right thing, that isn't why we didn't kill Saddam.\n\nCapturing him and putting him on trial helps us with the "hearts and minds" aspect of the war.  If we put a bullet in his brain, it would certainly be him getting what he deserves, but he would also become a martyr.  Since we aren't the home team in Iraq, the Baathists, insurgents, and outside forces with anti-US leanings would have a field day creating propoganda accusing the US of all kinds of terrible things.  Since we claimed the moral high ground, it becomes tougher to convince people otherwise.\n\nSecondly, by involving the Iraqis in the death sentence of Saddam, we are trying to help them take ownership of the changes going on in their country.  If we kill Saddam, then he is a casualty of war.  If they sentence him to death, the people have launched a sort of democratic coup.  Perhaps because Iraqis sentenced their own former leader, they will feel more pride/duty concerning the new direction of the country.\n\nHope that helps!