Do you think Bush & allies made the right decision sending troops to Iraq?
928100
The CIA and the NIS were instructed by the Bush Administration to find evidence to confirm Saddam had Nuclear and Biological weapons Programs actively in use. The CIA and NIS new from the outset that they would find it impossible to do this, because they had no intelligence what-so- ever to give to the Bush administration who were demanding  proof. They managed, between them to supply Bush & Cheney a report that was`nt worth the paper it was printed on. These agencies said at the time, and have continued to admit, to this day. Saddam had NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. NONE !! The US and the UK went to war for NOTHING, It takes ONE BULLET TO ASSASINATE A TYRANT, NOT 650 000 DEAD PEOPLE. IT IS AN ILLEGAL WAR, pure and simple. If anyone would care to argue the point with me I`ll open up my e.mail for discussion, and supply ANY evidence they wish to examine.\nAnd don`t give me any crap about violating UN sanctions, they were devised specifically to entrap the Hussein regime, thus ensuring he had absolutly no choice but to violate them. \nI believe that now the US and UK have tested the water, as it were. They have set a precedent where by, you don`t actually need a viable excuse for invading another country and killing it`s people, they have devised their own set of rules. Astonishing and terrifying and truly barbaric.
1024143
In the past we would be attacked (i.e. 1st World Trade Center attack, Marine barracks in Beirut, Blackhawk downing in Somalia, Embassy attacks, etc.) and our response has been little to non-existent. On 911 we were attacked and this President has done something. It was a very tough decision but he made it. The path has become rough, many who supported him have changed their minds and no longer support him, but he has stayed the course. I do believe both the president and the troops deserve my support. They are doing what has not been done for a long time. Fighting the enemy, if you believe we should have gone to war with Iraq or not Al Queda is in Iraq today, and our men and women are fighting them. Al Queda attacked the USA and I agree with the president that we should hunt them down, wherever they may be.
879747
Given that Bush has agreed to a speedy withdraw, I think its going to be a combo of Go Long and Home.\n\nHome -  a huge number of troops will finally come home.\nLong - I believe there will be US presence for a long time.  One is to help transition(there would be even more chaos w/o US forces).  Secondly, establish a US base like Okinawa, Frankfurt and many others around the world.\n\nI would've voted not to go there in the first place.  Since we're in this mess, I would have to vote for the Home (withdraw large numbers and keep some there until Iraq is able to manage things).
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.
1071597
Mr Clinton stated that the reason he was sending troops was because Milosevic was committing genocide.  He was right and it was stopped.  Mr. Bush claimed he was sending troops because Saddam had WMD's, was starting a nuclear weapon program, had ties to AL Quada and was involved in 9-11.  All those things were wrong and now thousands of people are dead and the killing continues.  If Mr. Bush would have stated he was sending troops because Saddam was committing genocide, then he would have been right, also.  That's the difference: being right vrs. being wrong.
398869
At this point of time, it does not seem as if Bush has any plans of completely pulling out the troops.  It still isn't completely understood by many people why troops were even sent in the first place.  The US has its values and beliefs, and Iraq has theirs.  Can you expect them to just give in?  If troops invaded the US to try to change our beliefs of government and living, would we give in?  Not a chance! We would fight as long as we had to, and if they pulled back, we would most likely invade their country as some sort of revenge.  I believe that George Bush will keep troops in Iraq as long as it takes for Iraq to give in to exactly what Bush is hoping.  If he gets elected out of office, if another of the same party is put into office, I still don't think troops will be taken out of Iraq.  Even if they are taken out by a change of party in the offices, the damage will already be done.  Do you suppose that their won't be anyone left in Iraq that doesn't plan to attack back?  The people in Iraq bomb US ports there now, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to bring it here as well, especially if we take all the targets out of their country.  I believe its only the beginning to what will be a very long battle.
294907
Absolutely not. Saddam may well have been a tyrant, despot and  an egotistical maniac as well as a bully but the UN should have got him out when he sent troops into Kuwait in the 90's and there was truly an international coalition against him. They had the moral high ground then and a mandate from the UN which made Operations Desert Sheild and Desert Storm legal under International Law plus there were many arab nations involved.\n\nThis time things are different. The so called coalition is made up of mainly American and British forces with a few small contingents from some countries, the majority had no wish or desire to become involved. The case for invasion this time was flimsy at worst and a complete pack of lies at best.\n\nUN inspectors found no evidence of chemical weapons let alone weapons of mass destruction yet at the UN members were shown "spy satellite photo's" of mobile chemical trucks and production facilities. Strange how the inspectors never found any of it. When America and Britain put forward a resolution calling for the invasion of Iraq most of the UN voted it down, the US and UK virtually thumbed their noses at the UN and went ahead with the invasion anyway.\n\nSo now we have a situation where the "liberators" are now the occupiers, insurgents are all over the country, American and British soldiers are being attacked daily, suicide bomings are becoming more and more frequent, kidnappings of Westerners and Muslims is increasing, the new Iraqi Government is virtually paralised by internal squabbling, the American trained Iraqi Security Forces are bareley holding their own and the whole country is sliding ever more closer to civil war and anarchy. Yet both Britain and America maintain that things are getting better.\n\nReally where??.
893793
If you believe Bush, which I don't, we won the same year we started.  What's going on now is peace and nation building.  What happened in Nam, and I was on active duty during the last three years, I retired at 20 years after Desert Storm, was that the Republicans, Nixon and Ford, caved as a result of public pressure and discontent with the body count.  Since Bush dodged service, I think has no understanding of that, and has set us up for the same result.  I will point out that our troops have done a lot of good for the Iraqis, I think our service people are the best of our best, my own daughter and her husband are on active duty.  Yes, I think a lot of us know the invasion was a mistake, I said so from day one, right now the question is how to fix it, and that is not something we will be able to do in a hurry.  Sad, but fact of life.
1184240
If I might ask, when exactly did anyone tell us to leave? Please give me a reference to a speceific report or news broadcast that says so.\n\nOk here is a quote from the article you were talking about, thank you! It was from Jalal Talabani as you stated who was the Iraqi President until the first election.\n\n"'We think that America has the full right to move some forces from Iraq to their country because I think we can replace them [with] our forces," Talabani said. "In my opinion, at least from 40,000 to 50,000 American troops can be [withdrawn] by the end of this year.'\n\n"That assessment differs dramatically from those offered by Bush and by U.S. military commanders in Iraq.\n\n"Bush has carefully avoided setting a timetable for reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, currently about 140,000, and the Pentagon plans to maintain or slightly increase the force level in anticipation of an Oct. 15 referendum on Iraq's new constitution. White House officials say that Bush's strategy for eventually withdrawing troops hinges on Iraqis' approving the constitution and holding successful elections in December."\n\nYou are not wrong that he talked about some troops leaving. But it was not a matter of telling the U.S. to get out. Of course you knew that I would find an inaccuracy as you said in your message to me. But that doesn't mean you can't admit being slightly wrong and that maybe you can learn something, or you can just ignore me and forget about it.\n\nHere is the explanation. Talabani was making a suggestion that we COULD relieve our forces, not that we should, nor was he making a demand. He was going to replace them with American trained Iraqi forces anyway. So that wouldn't really change a thing. President Bush and he agreed that there should not be a rush or timetable placed on the matter and that they could make a decision about that when the time came. He said at that time that it would be well after the election. We are at that point and now we are close to pulling out that many troops.\n\nIt was a suggestion. We would like to leave just as bad as they would like us to not be occupying them any longer, but Abass said that he is afraid that if we leave too early, his peace efforts with the Palestinians, Isreal and the Hamas would cause the new Iraqi government to crumble.\n\nHopefully we will pull out soon!
919504
Bush and his cronies should come to the final decision that it is best to get out of Iraq. Each day we remain there only makes the situation worse. Unfortunately Bush does not seem to realize this. I'm not saying to bring them all home at once. What I am saying is to bring them home gradually, maybe even 500 at a time. We're not wanted there. We already have enough enemies. Bush should forget about Iraq's oil because the entire Middle East now knows that oil was our primary reason for invading Iraq. They only see themselves as next. GET OUT BUSH.
886627
I truly believed that we went into Iraq because the intelligence information said that wmd's were present and we wanted to stop it.  Also, I think the threat to our oil supply was an issue (unstated).  Additionally, we just had to hit someone, after 9/11.\n\nBy going into Iraq, we have bought some peace time on our soil.  We have disrupted the Islamic terrorists by our presence in the area and by capturing/killing some leaders of the movement.  We also have a base camp in the middle of this messy part of the world and will probably keep it, even if most troops withdraw.\n\nIf we had not gone into Iraq, I think that we would have had more terrorist acts in the US by now.  History will have to determine if it was worthwhile or not.  \n\nGood question.
300961
NO!!!  It was agreed by the allies to the friendly arab states in the region that allied special forces would not go into Bagdad itself-during Gulf War I.  However, British Special Air Service and US NAVY SEALS troops where in the city as snipers and where ready to take Saddam out-which would have brought about the necessary regime change.  But the troops were told to pull out and to not carry out the assassination otherwise it would effect the diplomatic relationships-which would have also effected the oil supplies.\n\nSo the allies had to go in and do it properly this time instead.
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.
511314
Iraq was full of waring tribes before we got there.  It's like Spainish troops invading America during our civil war, picking a side and fighting for that side.  What business would it be of Spain??  Especially if they sided with the "wrong" side.  Not saying we are, just that we don't have the right to be the world police, especially under unfounded circumstances.  It's too late now, and now we [the troops directly] gotta deal with it.  Poor decision making skills.\n\nThe answer to your question.... Iraq would be basically in the same situation they've been in for years.  Maybe with a different outlook though.  However, the US would be blamed for all of it, cause "no one" really seemed to care about what was going on in Iraq (for Iraq) before we invaded.  Part of it is our fault..... but hey... I didn't vote for Bush... twice.
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.
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
1015674
I feel our president is on track with Iraq.  It's a touch and go situation right now but from what I have seen and read I feel we are on track.  If it were possible I would like to see Iraqi troops and police taking over more responsibility of there country and maybe help them more than we have to accomplish this goal.  We know they want there freedom, are willing to die for it and hope we can help them achieve there goals.  So other than that there is not much I would or would try to change.  I have faith in our military and our president's actions.\n\nGood question.