what do you think about america's attack on iraq?
362201
I think we screwed it up royally .... Correction ... I think our government screwed it up royally!  That's what happens when a war is run by bureaucrats!  I guess they didn't learn their lesson in Vietnam!
404038
I think the U.S. should never have entered Iraq in the first place. The only reason we are there is because Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.It is simply a personal vendetta.
190812
Persoly i thought if there were gonna invade iraq, it would be a good choice, elimating a dicactor, and injecting liberalism to the islamic area, despite other bad motives (oil) \ni am astounded at how iraq is stil unstable, and how the u.s is turned into the occupational forces
1115240
Absolutely not.  Going to war should be a last resort, not an offensive attack on a country who may possibly attack us someday.  In my opinion, all the spin about Iraq having WMDs was a smoke screen and an excuse to invade them to retaliate for the bad blood between Sadam and Bush Sr.  And if I read or hear one more person stating that we're at war over September 11, I'm going to vomit.  Why is it so hard to comprehend that Bin Laden, the Taliban and al Quaida were responsible for the 9/11 attacks - not Sadam or the Iraqis?  They are not one in the same.  They are not even from the same countries.  They have a religion in common.  But many ignorant people who lump them together do so because they eat up what they are told by the government and the media.  God bless the day people will make an effort to inform themselves and form their own thoughts...
1161249
Thanks for your well informed and written question. The US should never have bolstered its way into Iraq in the first place. It was ill founded, against World opinion and the UN's wishes. Hans Blix was pleading with Bush for more time to complete his search for WMD's which have since never been found, this war was entirely unnecessary. I'm afraid it's typical of conservative political forces around the World. They railroad and treat their respective electorates with contempt and are divisive and uncaring. Bush is the worst of them all and should be impeached and tried as a war criminal. Our leaders here in Australia are almost as bad and are falling over themselves to get into bed with Bush and his one eyed crazy policies. Democracy in both our countries is the casualty and coming under increasing threat from are almost fascist leaders. I am sorry about the American soldiers and I am surprised that there isn't more of a back lash in the US over this unwarranted sacrifice of good people for nothing. Regards Jules.
459823
The BUSH Crime Family Administration Couldn't Have Done A Better Job Of Turning Iraq Into America's Most Expensive And  Dangerous Enemy If It Had Genuinely Had That As Its Goal. . . .\n\n Amount appropriated by the US Congress for Iraq operations so far:  $218 billion\n\nNumber of global terrorist attacks reported by the State Dept in 2004: 651\n\nRank of Iraq among all nations as a training ground for terrorists:  FIRST\n\nChances of a WMD attack in the next 10 years, according to leading arms experts:  70%\n \nEstimated # of insurgents in Iraq (Nov. 2003);  5,000\n\nEstimated # of insurgents in Iraq (Oct. 2005):  20,000\n\nNumber of US service members killed in Iraq:  2144+\n\nNumber killed since Bush announced the end of major combat:  2005+ \n\nWMDs found in Iraq:  0 \n\nMore than two thirds of Americans think Bush is mishandling events in Iraq and almost a third believe civil war in the country is imminent, according to a  Harris poll.            http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031806C.shtml \n\n(Above Stats Compiled Late 2005)\n\nBRING The TROOPS HOME NOW!!!\n\nSTOP SPILLING AMERICAN BLOOD And SPENDING AMERICAN TREASURE!\n\nAn IMMEDIATE Withdrawal Would Leave That Country To Itself As It Has Been For THOUSANDS Of Years Before This Country Invaded It\n\nLet Them Kill Themselves, They DONT NEED Or WANT Our Help\n\nOur Armed Forces Could Be Utilized To \n           "SECURE OUR NATIONS BORDERS"\n\nMany Would Say That If We Withdraw Now, The "TERRORISTS" Have Won... NOT SO\n\nIf We Withdraw NOW, And Practice The "HOMELAND SECURITY" That Has Been Ineffectively Shoved Down Our Throats Since 9/11 .. Then I Say WE HAVE WON\n\nIf We Withdraw NOW And Stop Spending American Dollars To Fight A Cause That Has NO DIRECT AFFECT ON OUR NATION...\nThen I Say WE HAVE WON\n\nThere Are People In Our Nation That Cant Afford To EAT\n\nhttp://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/03/28/MNGIRHUTNA1.DTL\n\nAnd I KNOW There Are Those That Will Say That About Other Nations As Well .. But Youve Heard It Before\n\n           "CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME"\n\nInstead Of Using FEDERAL FUNDS To Feed The Folks At Home\nGW Insists On Using American Treasure To Have American Blood Spilled In Another Nation For People That \n       DO NOT WANT US THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE\n\nEND THE OCCUPATION IN IRAQ\n\nIMPEACH BUSH NOW
204519
america is just successful to kill the people of iraq not combine i have been living very close to iraq and it is possible to see the real terrorism that the americans do.only reason is the oil thats it...those americans can do anything in favour of them thats why they will take the most interest of people,people like OSAMA.\n\npeace out of here
231660
TO crazyjimsmith: "Well lets see, the country will crumble into disarray. There will be more killing." -- um yeah, there is usually turmoil when someone invades you and dacapitates your government.  You americans don't undersdand anything about world. Most Americans have never been outside the US.  I was astonished when i found out...  Your point of view is from your couch through fox news.\n\n"Sharia law will be introduced so women will lose all their rights." - will it? how do you know? Is that the same knowledge that got US in Iraq in the first place? If sharia will be introduced, can't you see? It is part of their culture. Americans can never accept anything or anyone different, only because you do not understand it. When Iraqis are ready they will revolt. When you invade, all things aside, their first priority is to get rid of you.\n\n"Democracy will be destroyed, there will be a flood of refugees because people will flee the country." -- Democracy will be destroyed? Is there a democracy there now? Or is there a puppet government established by the United States.  Do you think most Iraqis wish to be occupied? Of course not, therefore they will not want a government that is cooperating with the United States.\n\n"Iran (Iraq's neighbour)" <-- the dumb audience needed a clarification that Iran is somewhere in middle east as well.\n\n"... will try to exert even more influence, as they are already meddling in Iraq's affairs. There will be mass killings." -- Okay there will be mass killing? because Iran will be meddling in Iraq's affairs, right? Oh wait... what is the United States meddling in again? But of couse "we" can meddle but we can't let "them" meddle because there a going to be mass killings...\n\n"Will the United Nations help? The United Nations cannot be relied on to organise a tea party. Have a look at what the UN did in Yugoslavia and East Timor" -- I'm looking and i'm liking much more that what i'm seeing on the news everyday.\n\n"You're a school student and you have to do this for home work don't you? How did I know?" <-- oh man, oh man that a was a tough one.  I'm sure noone else could have guessed that one\n\n"Because your teacher is an imbecile" <-- chances are... but so are you.\n\nTo the Questioner:\nThere are some benefits from withdrawing troops from Iraq. There are downsides as well. There will be civil war when troops withdraw. However, troops are only a timer for that conflict. Administration's policy is to build a Iraqi force to keep order, but when Americans withdraw this force will be loyal to their clan not to Iraq. Iraq is not a nation, it's a country, but it's not a nation. It's a country that Brits and French put together on a map, and that Saddam held together by terror.  Now the benefits would be:\n1. troop safety\n2. more volunteers for the military\n3. stop having a reason for the world to hate the US\n4. National Guard could be used for guarding the nation's borders (national guard -- guarding the nation see the relationship there?)\n5. Quit speding money that you don't have for god sakes. Debt what debt? here's my other credit card!\n6. Focus attention on things that need to be done at home\nand so on and so on
716945
I do understand that you are not the ones responsible for America's actions in Iraq, Americans. I am from Egypt and I of course don't agree on the war from the begining, it was like a breach to the Iraqi Sovreingity rights...ridding the Country from Saddam's governemnt is something that people Iraq had to do, and does not require the help of anyother country; in other words, it is an internal affair; and what America did is an interference in the internal affairs of Iraq. It Also caused much damage to both sides, Americans lost lots of soldiers there in vien and it consumed alot of money that could have been used in a better way. Also Iraq now is in a state of disturbance, and I don't see that the American forces are able to control the situation there. Gureilla warfare is not easy to handle...so, since they already did what they wanted, they got rid of Saddam, and established a new government too, they should leave and leave it to the new governement to take care of it, because they already fail to sustain a stable climate there. If they insist to stay, then that can be nothing but occupation, which is of course something that is unacceptable...right?
59351
In reading the responses, it's obvious that many are parroting the stories fed to them by the liberal media. I'd recommend they take a moment to research the facts and think for themselves.\n\nIraq did invade a neigboring sovereign nation, Kuwait. Yes, this is a global economy and a global village - it would impact us and present more instability in the region. One responder indicated that it did not concern us and dictators should be able to run wild unless it touches our soil. We could ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist like we did with Germany; of course, the whole world was sucked into a global conflict before we responded. \n\nWhen we deployed troops in Iraq, they had the 4th largest army in the world. It was proven he had weapons of mass destruction (chemical and the desire to develop a nuclear capability); he used them on his own people. The US crushed those forces and the UN imposed sanctions. During this time, other UN countries diverted funds from the Oil for Food program so that Iraq could attempt to rebuild a military. During the decade that followed the first Gulf War, numerous UN mandates were ignored and Iraq still fired on US aircraft (the war was never over... a cease-fire was enacted to give Iraq time to comply with UN terms).\n\nPart of these terms were WMDs be destroyed and the UN inspectors be allowed to confirm this. Inspectors were not given access as agreed. This in itself was grounds for military action. However, with that said, there have been materials found to produce biological and chemical weapons as well as indicators a nuclear program had commenced. Weapons using Sarin nerve gas (one artillery round is capable of killing 1000's of people in populated areas) and stockpiles of mustard gas have been found; the destruction potential of these weapons alone is massive enough to warrant action.\n\nWe can't be foolish enough to think Iraq couldn't touch us because they don't have a large airforce; ask the families of the 9/11 victions. \n\nIn retrospect, if Saddam had complied with the UN terms and allowed inspectors to participate in the WMD destruction process, this could have been avoided. Bush made the decision to liberate Iraq based upon the information at hand; the Senate Intelligence Committee (the same democrats condemning him now) reached the same conclusion based on the same intelligence.\n\nNow...  back to the question at hand. If the US had not taken action, and Saddam had attacked ANOTHER neighbor then the fault would lie squarely with Iraq and the UN. This would mean that UN failed to enforce sanctions and the terms imposed. However, since many of those UN nations were working backroom arms deals, they weren't interested in safeguarding the region. The US and *26* other nations stepped in and did what the UN said it would do (over a dozen different times).  Of course, the left would love to blame President Bush if he moved troops in or if he did not. ;-)
1171313
I can't believe some of the responses you're getting, dude! \n\nThere are some replies above this one that think attacking Iraq was necessary. First - I am all in favor of the post-9/11 response to Afghanistan, specifically, the Taliban that helped Osama. Unfortunately, Osama was originally trained by the CIA to cause terror vs. the USSR back in the day, but we'll forget that for now.\n\nDoesn't anyone recall when Bush paraded his whole team out and they were certain they knew where the WMDs were, etc. etc.? Did Saddam need to be stopped? Well, yeh, but he (and the whole country) was contained and crippled. There were humanitarian organizations calling for blockades to be lifted, it was crushing the country.\n\nI honestly don't know why people aren't more outraged about it. I think racism and crusade nostalgia play into it. I think they just don't care. It sets an example in a somewhat positive way, that is, it shows other nations that the USA is irrational, therefore, stay away. Unfortunately, I think acting firmly rational and strong can have the same effect. \n\nOh, yeah. I guess people are ok with attacking Iraq because it helped bring down oil prices. \n\nWhoops.
108861
Well--it's nice to know you've got an open mind.  I'm sure it's easy for you to think all liberals feel as you suggest, since you likely feel the exact opposite.\n\nFirst, let's try and keep Iraq and terrorism separate.  I think it may be the single biggest bill of goods Americans have been sold by the administration.  I am 100% behind our nation's effort to fight terrorism, provided we do it in a way that upholds the best traditions of our nation.  We simply cannot sink to the level of others just because "that's the way the game is played".  We cannot break laws and trample on people's rights just because it's easier that way.\n\nAs for Iraq, it seems obvious to me that our invasion had NOTHING to do with terrorism.  Unfortunately, we're in a mess there that we created.  Am I glad Saddam is out?  Of course.  Do I think a democratically-elected government in Iraq is important?  Darn right.  Am I proud we were able to bring it about?  Sure.  But America cannot just decide that a nation isn't operating the way we'd like and then invade it because it's the right thing to do.  It's just like the whole NSA spying business. I doubt there is a single American who doesn't believe they should be checking out suspicious individuals.  But bypassing legal DUE PROCESS for any reason is not the way we do it here--at least it shouldn't be.  It's no wonder Republicans in Congress are starting to back away from Bush on this.\n\nIt looks to me we are stuck in Iraq until we can make it safe enough to leave.  Despite many American's anger at our presence there, you will likely find grudging support for a logical exit.  I'm proud of the young men and women who are there putting their lives on the line--and many losing them--in service of our nation.  I just pray that their sacrifices haven't been in vain.
1063281
The USA has to wake up and give a call to fellow Americans to be patriotic and must do everything to imbibe this cause.  Also, they should slowly curtail their activities in interfering other countries business as otherwise they will have their hands full. Look at Iraq - Tiger by the tail, More than 2500 Soldiers killed and still do not know what to do next.  Long drawn battle without actually in war.  The President says it is a mistake.  How will you compensate the lives of 2500 fellow American soldiers.
13816
I think that Iraq was on Mr. Bush's mind the day he took office.  On day one he put a target on Saddam's head and was ready to use any excuse to finish his daddy's job.\n\nHis father, however, knew the consequeces of a march on Bahgdad.  That is why we stopped short of Saddam in 91, we had a clean victory and Sr. quit while he was ahead.\n\nJr., however, wanted blood.  He was convinced that Saddam would one day become the next great tyrant.  Like Johnson in 64, Bush was ready to pounce at the first sign of any agression.  The perfect reason to declare open-ended war fell into his lap on an early september monday morning.\n\nIt has been reported that just hours after the planes hit Bush was heard asking his advisors if Iraq was involved.  He was asking very leading questions of his advisors, including donald rumsfeld, who both wanted to pin 9/11 on Saddam before the towers even hit the ground.\n\nBut some would say they were smart, they went for the easy win first.  They needed to prove to the public that America could lead a successful nation-building war.  Of course I wouldn't call Afghanistan rebuilt when 95% of their economy is from the sale of opiates (I am against prohibition, but Bush isn't).  Even today, after the supposed elections and overthrow of the taliban, the only way an afghan woman can make any kind of living is to work in the opium fields.\n\nWe all saw the buildup for war.  He and his messengers (condie, rumsfeld, right wing puppet congressmen) had us all believing that we were about to be nuked.  The sad thing is that the public at large bought right into it.  I must say he even got me wondering just what Mr. Saddam had up his sleeve.  I suppose that's why I was rather exited to watch the war on tv, I just wanted to see what this guy had.  I watched the sabre rattling in the weeks leading up to 'shock and awe'.  It was entertaining to watch these two morons square off.  I thought Saddam would have had more of a back bone though.  I expected to see a tienemen square scecne in Bahgdad, but right away I could tell once we entered the capitol that something was wrong.\n\nIf Bush had been right, I have no doubt that Saddam would have used those weapons on American soldiers.  But they never existed.  Just like the second attack at the gulf of Tonkin.  It never happened.  LBJ however did not lie himself, rather his advisors lied to him.  True, Johnson was willing and ready to pounce should a tit-for-tat oppertunity present itself.  He believed the second attack on a stranded US cruiser was just such an oppertunity.  His advisors knew of his willingness to decalre war and fed him intel that would lead him in that direction.  LBJ wanted to look strong on defence and strong against communism going into a tough 1964 election.  He knew that he would be judged to the standard of 'what would JFK have done?' in the public eye.  Once he had blindly acceped the attack as truth and declared war, it wasn't long before the conflict spiraled out of his control.  "For all I know, they're shooting at whales" Johnson said the next year about the war that was now out of his control.\n\nThe rhetoric leading upto Iraq was different.  The intel was 'misread' by everyone in the aministration, so either everyone is lieing or everyone is that dumb.  I think they were seeing what they wanted to see.  As soon as any intel came accross that would give a glimmer of hope to uniting the country behind a war surfaced, they took it as fact because they wanted to.  It suited their political end.\n\nI believe that this intel was also pressured out of the cia and nsa from the white house.  Bush pushed so hard for 'actionable intel' that people eventually told him what he wanted to hear.  This still continues as they try to quell the uprising.  The president is so desperate for information on both insurgents and al-queida (sp?) that he is willing to turn his back on the rest of
703916
The Iraqis didn't destroy the American military; there have only been just 2837 US military killed since 9-11.  Compare that with 400,000 US dead in WW II and you can see that Iraq is basically nothing more than a 'training exercise' to keep military tactics, strategies and reflexes honed.\n\nAnd yes....duh...America is still the one and only superpower.
66960
Things that make you think a little about Iraq.\n> There were 39 combat related killings in January 2005. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January 2005. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.. \n> When some one says that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following: \n a. FDR led us into World War II. \n b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From \n 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ..an average of  112,500 per year. \n c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ..an \naverage of 18,334 per year. \n d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. \n e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From \n1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost an average of 5,800 per year. \n f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a  platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.  \n g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled; al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. \n> \nThe Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation. \n We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. \nIt took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. \n It took less time to take Iraq than it took to ount the votes in Florida!!!! \n> If you can read this, thank a teacher. \n> If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.
924531
A good effect! Maybe with him out of the way the americans can finally get the terrorists to understand that were only trying to help their country. Plus without the main terrorist alive iraq might not try to terrorize america again. Sorry if this is worded wrond, Im only 13.