Was the Coalition right to put boots on the ground in Iraq?
491757
no we shouldnt have done it by air, then we would have probs on our own soil.  how would we have gotten saddam to trial by air??  how would we have stabilized their country by air??
229094
We so badly screwed the pooch in Iraq that questions about planning scenereos are irrelevant.  It was amaturishly planned, poorly executed, and totlly unjustified.\nA campaign in Iran can only go far worse. They have had plenty of time to obsreve and study the US military operations in order to prepare for an offensive.\n\nAt home, support for the Iraq War wains even further as this country dissolves into civil sectarian war. \n\nI am thnking short of sabre ratteling, there is little the US can do about Iran, except make matters worse by making belocose statements in the UN.  It seems more like we have idiological  neanderthals instead of NEOCONS behind the scenes, only I think neanderthals would act with more intelligence.
626669
Hell No on both counts\nThey signed up to defend our country.  They did not choose where or how.\nAnd it is not the Iraqies defending thier country, it is insurgents causing problems for the Iraqies that are trying to creat a government and move the country forward
121203
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23, obviously receiving a limited amount of support from Democrats, and must be considered an overall unsupportive vote when compared to the "war vote" for the Second World War and other more poplularly supported conflicts. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.\n\nThe Resolution cited several factors to justify a war:\n\n    * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire\n    * Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"\n    * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"\n    * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"\n    * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War\n    * Iraq's alleged connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda\n    * Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States\n\n\nThere were numerous valid reasons to finish the job in Iraq... the main one being (in spite of Clinton's non action) the violations of the terms of cease fire that ended the hostilities of "Desert Storm"\n\nI am 37
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.
1046829
Forever.  The army is already building PERMANENT bases in Iraq.  And to the statement that the Iraqi government is doing well because they are making decisions?  Anyone can make decisions, it's enforcing them that is tricky part and the government has no influence outside of the green zone.
740097
Your example would work better if Russia or England or China was the invader, but it's a valid point.\n\nPeople blame the Iraqi insurgents for fighting in a civil war, against a govt they didn't elect which was established when an enemy country unilaterally invaded and deposed the ruling govt. Whether we like them or not, it's fair to ask if they have reasonable grounds for defending their country against hostile occupying forces.
410230
I'm not an Iraqian, but I have spoke to a few military personal, and have seen answers on here from some. (All of whom have been deployed to Iraq). Their collective thoughts on it is that, yes, the majority DO want the coalition there. The media, however, doesn't portray this as such. \nI'm sure there will always be some out there who disagree, which is okay.
247478
We fought in Afghanistan to capture Osama and friends. That was a justifiable reaction to 9-11.\nThe Iraq war was not then and is not now justifiable.\n\nI should add that the UN resolution did not authorize the U.S. to invade Iraq. Note this from a most conservative analyst, David Pyne, writing in "The American Partisan" before the war: \n"On Nov. 8, under heavy pressure from the United States, the UN Security Council passed a new resolution against Iraq mandating that it disarm itself of any remaining WMD capabilities or face 'serious consequences.' However, many of the nations that agreed to the new resolution were quick to point out that the resolution did not give the US authority to attack Iraq. The US has stated in response that it would use the resolution as authority to invade Iraq if it became evident that Iraq had failed to comply with the will of the United Nations. Iraq has since accepted the new UN resolution and agreed to allow inspectors to resume their inspections without conditions."\n\nSurely people can do better than this to justify the war! Inspections were being allowed, and inspectors publicly stated they found no WMDs, but of course we scoffed at their conclusions and unilaterally interpreted "serious consequences" as giving us the right to invade.
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.
799361
One of the biggest factor that most people aren't aware of is that in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwaiit they weren't going to stop there.  They had plans on continuing the invasion and invading Saudi Arabia as well.  That is the only reason Saudi decided to let troops occupy Saudi soil during Desert Shield.  Because we swooped in and held Iraq at bay as well as using patriots to stop the scud missles directed at Saudi governement relations were good.  Although many Saudi citizens did not like our forces on their soil, they wanted the US to leave after Iraq was driven out of Kuwaiit.  They were afraid US troops would influence their country.  Saudi was very strict on what troops could bring into their country.  No bibles, alcohol, etc.
213908
I think it was historically very necessary , though a lot of mistakes followed the wonderful destruction of Saddam and his cowered group who run away filled with fear hiding underground . The people there in Iraq deserves much of this sacrifice , keeping in mind , most of their misery was due to bad USA attitude in supporting Saddam and other\nprimitive regimens in arab world , without this support ,Iraqis possioly could at previous time get rid of this devil
1129718
The President can send troop into a situation for 90 days without Congressional approval. However, as the vote was put after the events of 9/11 he was given the authority to pursue what course he chose. He chose to target Iraq.
911623
is blair right to start a war in iraq?\nis blair right to start a career in being a presidant\nis blair right to start a career at all?\nis blair right at all?
959569
If you want the true answer to this, check out this recent poll by Bin Laden's favorite network, Aljazeera.  When asked, "Is Iraq right to extend the presence of the US forces for another year?", 59% said "No".  When asked, "Should the US 'cut and run' from Iraq?", 63% answered "Yes."  I don't think there is any debate as to which party supports these goals.
231950
New Zealand did not support the American military intervention in Iraq. Currently, I understand, there are a number of NZ Defence Force personnel deployed as a Light Engineer Group to South-east Iraq to undertake humanitarian and reconstruction tasks consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1483 and working alongside a UK engineer unit.
99595
The US government will not build a private corporation in Iraq. However, there is a strong liklihood that some sort of freiegn Wal*Mart and McDonald's will be built in Iraq.  Both already have a presence in other Mid East nations. If the security of Irawq gets better and the economy improves, then the Capitalistic American way would require that they be built in Iraq.