What are your thoughts about the US invansion of Iraq?
399537
The attack was unjustified.  There are dozens of dictators and regimes all around the world which commit the same or worse atrocities than Saddam and we haven’t invaded their countries.  Bush fed the American public and the world false information (lies) to justify the attack.  Halliburton and General Electric are making billions in non-competitive over inflated contracts which the Bush and Cheney dynasties will reap the benefits of for decades to come.
521529
Ive seen the loose change video. I still support the USA. I admit I must play devils advocate to both sides. I don't believe either. Not the "official story", or "loose change."\nI believe its more likely a combination of the two. Somewhere in between both side's agenda. I think that the government probably has a pretty legitimate reason for falsifying some of the information, but doesn't do well in the cover up department. While much of the rest is just over-speculation driven by conspiracy theorists. \nI think that the war in Iraq is good for our military, but bad for that region. I think that it was implemented under the guise of the search for WMD, but was actually for military position for the long time troublesome Iran & palestine. \n\nTo win a war you need 2 things for certain, power and position. The USA has the power, but lacked the position.\nIraq is that position. Seems clear to me. I do not feel sorry for those who serve the military, they made that choice full well knowing what the outcome could be. I do feel sorry for the Iraqies though, but believe still that the aftermath could be truly liberating for their population. \nOnly time will tell. \nThe only thing that is certain is that the US Federal Government is overwhelmingly corrupt. \nWe have a broken system at home. Therefore we should think incredibly hard about pusshing our system onto other nations.
1168808
I am with you all the way. Some positive things are happening in Iraq and some progress is being made...but at a terrible cost of coalition and iraqi lives.\nThis war was a mistake, but no one in the white house will admit that they screwed up, so they say "We must stay the course" which is just another way of saying, "if we pull out now, it will be admitting that it was all a mistake, so let's KEEP making the mistake and maybe we will come out smelling like a rose."\n(Which isn't going to happem)
1153386
It is my opinion that we should start allowing the Iraqi Army to take control (Of course when ready).  NATO has been a great help in the Global War on Terrorism, by taking a majority of a sector in Afganistan.  Coalition Forces are in Iraq, still to this day... The Republic of Georgia, Britain, Japan, Korea, the list goes on.... You go to remember, it a team effort there in Iraq... though I can't wait for the day we can hand the reigns over to the Iraqi Security Forces and go home to the family.
14666
If you want my honest opinion the US is in too deep to pull out in the near future.  I don't think we should have invaded Iraq at all.  If we had wanted to take care of Saddam we should have done it back during the Gulf War but George Bush Sr. was too much of a...yeah anyway, the future of Iraq is occupation by US led coalition forces.
377386
I'm embarassed.\n\nFirst of all--we lied to start a war that was not provoked against us.  It was actually nice having one country in the world that didn't kiss our butts and tell us what we wanted to hear.  I am in favor of free speech.  I believe Saddam Hussein became a target because he spoke too boldly against us.\n\nSecond of all--the rape of Baghdad was extremely disgusting.  By rape, I mean the archeological treasures of several millenia went on sale on ebay overnight.  It's a loss for the entire world.\n\nThirdly--the dismissal of the Iraqi army *insured* civil war.  Having no army leaves the state--democratically reformed or not--incapable of defending itself.  Why did we want this?  What were we thinking?  What is the goal here?\n\nFourthly--our fates are shared.  There is a connection.  To the extent that Iraq will be entrenched in civil war, America will be there as well.  The conservatives can't seem to back away from this war--such is their leadership, and they love their leaders dearly.  The liberals want to take responsibility for the wrong we have done.  America will be in Iraq for quite a while.\n\nIt's pretty sad, actually.  I hope Iraq pulls through, but it will never, ever be the same.
941603
Yes I think we will, We are now in the breach of WW3, for all those who don't believe me. Believe me its true, I am in Iraq right now, all this is is the beginning of World War 3 and we can't even see it with our own eyes. Africa is starting to heat up, North Korea shooting missiles, Iran shooting missiles, Syria wanting to over run Iraq why we are in here. This is all on the breach of another major war. And we Americans don't have enough troop to handle it compared to all the other countries millions of millions of troops that are belonging to their army. Thats why I think we need more troops to sign up. Just my opinion, nothing serious.
757206
It's one option being looked at. My own view is that the war was a mistake in the first place, but having invaded, we now have a moral responsibility to the people of Iraq to leave them a stable government with a chance at lasting peace. I hate that people are dying there, and wish it could all stop today, but it won't, no matter what we do. And if sending more troops now will give Iraq a better chance of having long term peace, I think we should do it. I don't know what the best answer is, but hopefully if we put the decision making process in the hands of people who are open to ideas rather than political hacks (a la Rumsfeld) we can come up with something.
770445
I think this is a difficult question to answer. The long-term outcome of the war is far from decided (though admittedly it looks rather bleak at the moment). Probably all of the above would be the best answer to the question. The Bush Administration greatly miscalculated Iraqi support for an invasion (I think they called it 'liberation') and subsequent occupation of their country. They also seemed unprepared for the seemingly obvious turn of events that terrorist organizations, both from within Iraq and internationally would take interest in engaging the US military in a foreign country where neighboring states might be sympathetic to their cause. As such, they underestimated the amount of time we might have to stay there to ensure security.\n\nThe generals deserve a share of the blame for misconduct of the overall war effort. "Shock and awe", while a brilliant blitz-style "fast-war" attack which greatly sped our arrival into Baghdad, wound up severing much of the Iraq's infrastructure, leading to dissatisfied and angry locals. Unpreparedness for an unconventional non-state-entity war led to an unnecessary loss of American and Iraqi lives. Also, initially preventing any members of the army and police under Saddam's era from joining the new Iraqi army and police force was a grave blunder which set back a real security time table by months. And for not preventing certain war attrocities committed by American soldiers (horrible, horrible PR for a war which you really didn't gain consent of the majority of the invaded-population for).\n\nLast (but not least), the Iraqi people deserve some share of the blame. After being liberated from a tyrant, many celebrated. But a loud, violent bunch decided not to, and rather than help their country instead plunged it into chaos. Their actions (particularly now with factional war...sunnis killing shiites killing kurds killing...) are literally tearing the country apart, making it harder for us and the newly trained Iraqi army and police to do their jobs.
1103897
Our guys stood & still stand between it. Not so much an Iraqi civil war as a muslim civil war between sunnis & shites that al queada wanted to start all around US troops so we'd take the casualties & they could twist everyone onto the common foe/invader. Look at plans like Sen. Biden's which rips us out of there & encourages (literally) Iraq to break up into enthnic states. Then ask yourself what would happen with kurddish populations in Turkey, Syria, Jordan; what would happen with Arab countries assistance to the Sunni state dominated by al Queada; Iranian & Hammas support to the Shia state. It all makes for regional civil war (not to mention $200 oil) which we'll just have to go back & settle at a higher price. No offense to the honorable gentleman or whomever may agree with him, but how can a serious leader actually come up with such a retarded idea & propose it as the policy of the US - you don't like the war so your solution is to surrender & come home for six months before you have to go back & get even more of our guys killed then if you'd stayed & won? What the hell?
631752
From one point it was an altruistic move by Bush to liberate Iraqi peopel. The present administration is altruistic in mitives than ever. But the way it does it really sucks.\nSecond, gaining control over oil prices since US needs energy resources fro its further development and domination in the world. The point US Strategy for 21st century makes is that Americans will never let any country to rise at the same hegemony level it has acquired.\nThird, there were miscalculations in US intelligence circles. Look what happened to CIA chiefs.\nSummarizing - the goal behind US invasion in Iraq is complex and very misguiding, but at all it is objectively considered as a political failure of Bush Administration.
1029399
its definitely time but there's a problem...Iraq is in a state of chaos that is worse now than ever...militant groups have gained supporters and are fighting stronger than ever...the u.s. went in there and tore Iraq apart...we currently are doing more damage than good, as most of the funds that are suppose to be going toward rebuilding the towns and home of citizens are being used to supply our troops with food and more ammunition...the government is established and is capable of running itself, and Iraq now has its own police force and armed forces....we should pull out and let the country begin to run itself...
262358
Oh Well, this is a tough one. \n\nAlthough I would like to believe that the current Iraqi situation could sustain itself, I must be realistic in my assesment of the situation. I believe that Iraq will fall apart due to the collapse and absence of a powerful cental government. Saddam was tough, but he held the country together. I think we're gonna end up having to deal with THREE NEW Iraqi states (Northern Kurds, Central Sunnis and Southern Shiites) and I just don't like the sound of that, why deal with three when we there was only one?\n\nBesides, the Shiites in the South will most likely control the larger sum of Iraq's Oil cause that's where it's concentrated. \n\nI still believe, contrary to popular belief, that Saddam could have been dealt with differently, either through micro surgery, or through hard-core diplomacy until he crumbled on his own, this all out invasion is just costing us ridiculous ammounts of money and rubbing our global reputation in the dirt. \n\nThe world is changing, we're loosing favour with hundreds of millions of people, and I just don't want that for my country, a country that I love.
774561
But we're colonizing Iraq right now, we can't pull out and admit we were wrong to occupy it in the first place. Blatant ignorance of all the facts and avoidance of the consequence by throwing our weight around is the American way! We've been there since we hired Saddam and helped put him in power, it's just that now our presence is a lot more obvious and oppressive toward the Iraqi ppl. THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY SUPPORT THE TROOPS IN IRAQ IS TO BRING THEM HOME! THOSE IDIOTS WHO RIDICULE THE SOLDIERS DEPLOYED NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN! THEY ARE HEROES BY EVERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD! THE FACT THAT WASHINGTON LIES TO THEM AND SAYS THEY'RE HELPING TO ESTABLISH DEMOCRACY SHOULD ONLY GO TO SHOW YOU WHO THE REAL TERRORISTS ARE... POLITICIANS WHO DON'T HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO CARRY OUT THEIR OWN EVIL AGENDA IN IRAQ, THE PRESIDENT AND ALL HIS MEN WHO CONTINUE TO REAP THE MONETARY AND POLITICAL BENEFITS OF THE SENSELESS SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS ON BOTH SIDES! THE DIPLOMATS ALL OVER THE WORLD WHO HAVE THE POWER TO STOP IT, OR AT LEAST THE AUTHORITY TO DISCONTINUE SUPPORTING IT, BUT DON'T BECAUSE THEY TOO CAN PROFIT FROM PRETENDING THEY'RE POWERLESS BUT ALLOWING IT AND AIDING IT'S CONTINUATION!!!! GOD BLESS THE SOLDIERS WHO ONLY DID WHAT THEIR HEARTS TOLD THEM WAS RIGHT... WHOSE ONLY CRIME WAS FOOLISHLY BELIEVING THERE WAS STILL INTEGRITY IN AMERICA...
1139307
First of all we did not take over Iraq.  Iraq has its own government (Thanks to the USA) and they make their own rules and laws. We are their to keep the county from falling apart.  You are right about it not being about 9/11, it is for other reasons.  Iraq is the country the took over another country when it invaded Kuwit in the early 90's.  After we kicked them out they have broken over 20 UN resolutions which were put on them by the whole wrold not just the USA.  They consistaly shot missiles at our planes which were patroling their airspace (if thats not an act of war then I dont know what is).  They have used WMD's and would refuse to let weapons inspector into there country. Us going into Iraq was voted on by our congress and by the UN secerity counsle, both of which agreed that Saddam needed to go.  And for your "Bush is a oil hungry Mad-man" comment.  We have not taken one drop of oil from the Iraqi people that oil belongs to them. If you want proof of that just look at the gas prices.
996804
First off, funny reading all those ignorant answers.\n\nSaddam was installed to power by US and everything was fine until Saddam wanted independence from Washington and dissended with the oil cartel because we wanted to get paid for oil in euros rather than dollars. \nFor some reason a couple of decades AFTER the alleged crimes, Bush overthrows Saddam and gets him charged. Of course, whatever Saddam did was internal affairs, US had no right to intervene, no one asked them, Iraq never threatened US, just wanted to be left alone to handle its affairs.\nAlmost nobody in Iraq was actually against Saddam, under his dictatorship Iraq new such economic development that 1 liter of pump oil was less than a liter of Coke.\nAnother thing that most people forget to mention is that the -innocents- killed were suspects in a foiled attempt to overthrow Saddam. Seems that instead of raising against the decision of the dictator, the people of Iraq agreed with the reprimand and kep quiet.\nDuring the history of mankind, each regime that became too opressive was overthrown from inside, when its people decided things went bad. If Saddam's call was bad, he should've been deposed by his own people and tried, not by foreign intervention.\n\nOf course, everything becomes ok if some guy declares it's a war going on. Wait a minute, I'm sorry, but Bush declared a 'war on terrorism'. The sides in the war are the US and terrorists, whatever that means by Bush's standards. Iraqi civilians aren't civilians of the terrorists side, nor has US formally declared war on Iraq. In fact, they are the ones who are supposed to be 'eliberated'. I guess that being killed by depleted uranium bombs does count in a twisted way as 'liberation'.\n\nFrankly I would expect from a force that claims enough moral superiority to decide who's bad and who's good and intervene to correct those wrongs to be able to procted the innocent.\nMoreover, I double those expectations when the intervention comes from such a high-tech army like that of the US.\nWhere is that super-class intel that should ensure only terrorists are tageted? Where are those high-tech guided bombs that can hit within a meter of its intended target? Where are those super-precise guns that Discovery channle keeps praising?\n\nThere are way too many mistakes in the war, way too many intentional and unintentional attacks against civilians, way too many civilian targets bombed to believe that US isn't in fact terrorizing the people of Iraq.
1055735
Whe the Iraqi government takes over Iraq.  We pulled out of Somalia prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were before we went in.  We pulled out of Vietnam prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were when we went in.  There is no time limit for war.