Was the New Iraq War a good War to enter or was it a way to take the heat off of BusH?
963712
Politically, it obviously wasn't a very good move, but other than that?  People seem to have forgotten the satellite images-they were hauling something...could this have been the WMD that was gone before the war was started?  Aside from that, though, we went in by using the UN resolutions as justification.  These **NUMEROUS** resolutions did not state that we could attack if Iraq has WMD, they put the burden of proof on Saddam-he had to prove that he didn't have WMD; that he had destroyed the KNOWN WMD from the 1st Gulf War.  He couldn't account for the WMD, therefore, we went in to uphold our side of the resolutions.
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.
141610
Did he start this war ? And don't natter about 9/11.  We know there was no connection concerning Iraq.
59675
During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, the first President Bush decided not to invade Iraq.  He later explained that overthrowing the Iraqi government would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq."  He also said if we did invade Iraq, "We're going to be an occupying power — America in an Arab land — with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous."\n\nPresident George H.W. Bush was right.  That's why the Iraq policy has been a disaster.
1112740
I don't think the war should have happened to begin with. Yeah getting Saddam was a plus but so far it's been the only positive of going there. Now here we are a couple years later and we're still fighting. Saddam was a bad guy I'm not going to deny that but we didn't go over there to remove him from power. We were supposed to find WMD's and regardless of what you hear, no WMD's were found. Yes there was some mustard gas found but it was over 15 years old and it wouldn't have done anything. Now we're stuck in a terrible situation. We totally destroyed a country and now we're going to be there for a long time trying to rebuild what we tore down. We need to get out of there.
54857
It's Iraq, and the oil is important, but only to control militaries and sustain ours to enforce the economy. This is one of the "benefits" and or motives of invading Iraq however, we invaded Iraq because Hussein sported the idea of Arab nationalism which would have created a middle eastern european union and challenge our economy and therefore our idea of security. Is this right no, but I can see how some politicians could see this as noble. Also our economy is one of scales. Meaning that the more that is produced the cheaper it is too make a product. In the era of soft money it is feasible and happening that contrators need perpetual war to sustain themselves and hence our economy.
568452
I think the war in Iraq is a failure of the Bush adminastration. Iraqi's are engaged in a civil war and we are in the middle of it. Only way out is to get out and let them settle for themselves. I always wondered how many repugs were acturally fighting in the war. Now I know. It is a shame.
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.
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...
257171
I knew it was going to be a mess before we went in there. The problem is politics. If we leave now it will strengthen the resolve of terrorists. It's psychological warfare, and unfortunately the weapons used are human lives. Its a no win situation. We have to find the lesser of two evils and run with it. I personally feel we have, but I feel we could be doing more to prepare the Iraqis to take care of their own.
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
627589
I think we won't really know the impact of the war in Iraq for years down the road.  I sort of think of it like this:  People tried to ignore and appease Hitler.  In the end it cost 6 million Jewish people thier lives.  Perhaps if someone had taken a stronger stand earlier on it could have been avoided.  Maybe going in to Iraq earlier instead of waiting for something catasrophic to occur will save more people in the long run.  In that respect, maybe Bush is enlightened compared to the average guy on the street.
1018754
Badly, very badly.\n\nAll three sides, the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites will fight like dogs, and eventually the United States will not be able to stop it. Those Iraqi troops we trained will also come back to haunt us too. This is a bad situation, and all the weapons in the US arsenal will not be able to solve it.\n\nOn the upside, I think it would have happened one way or the other, contrary to liberal public opinion....sad situation, time for us to leave!
300332
I suspected Greasy was trying to line up statements justifying the invasion of Iraq, but he claims he's not and added a negative for the chaotic democracy, that if you speak out you're more likely to be assassinated.  I'm still pointing out that the analogy to Iraq--intended or not--is not accurate.  The forces of democracy also face a military occupation that is widely detested, and infiltration by violent radical foreigners, and you're in danger of sliding into poverty because the economy is falling apart.\n\nIf I pretend this isn't a question about Iraq but a generic country, I'd take the chaotic democracy because most countries aren't as dysfunctional as Iraq is now, and in a fluid situation there is more hope for improvement than in a static situation such as a powerful dictator in total control.  Russia had chaotic democracy for a while and regressed to something like a Latin American pseudo-democracy, but I'd rather have lived through that than Stalin's or Brezhnev's regimes.\n\nI will still point out that the US has a shameful record of trading freedom for supposed security after 9/11.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would be disturbed to see a president repeal large chunks of it by fiat.  Anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 and now dares to lecture the Iraqis about how they should value freedom over security is profoundly hypocritical or uninformed.
412719
The War was not "Legal", if any war could be justified in Law. Saddam was an Evil Dictator, but there are plenty of those in the World, some of the Allied to the USA (Hello Saudi Arabia!) There were no WMD's, but Loads of Oil, and no one seemed to have a clue what to do After we got rid of old Saddam. I think the Western powers did all they could to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but I also believe that the USA and Britain went to war to secure a strategic resource, and for no other reason. 9/1 had nothing to do with Iraq, and that is a given. I think depending on the outcome History will judge the war as a naked show of aggression against a foreign power, with good or bad results. We will see.
934853
Most people agree that the Bush administration was unwilling to seem as though they were changing their minds about the war in Iraq so close to the election, but that the decision was probably made a long time ago for Rumsfeld to leave. If you'll remember, there was talk several weeks ago that Bush was looking into the idea that perhaps the path that we were taking in Iraq wasn't the right one, but almost as quickly, Bush went right back to "stay the course". It appears they did not want to seem weak or appear to be "flip-flopping", to use their phrasing. But in reality, they've finally figured out that the war isn't working and the majority of the people in the US know it.
365170
A very bad idea as follows:\n\n1) No connection of Iraq to Al Quaeda and no wmd's therefore Iraq was not a national threat.\n\n2) Bush did not have UN inspectors finish the job and did not follow the resolution agreement.\n\n3) First U.S. war that we attacked a country before being attacked. Lost a lot of our credibility with our allies.\n\n4) Financially crippling to the United States. Tried to do war on the cheap, under manned and under equipped with no exit strategy. Continue with tax cuts and no draft even though the war is costing billions of dollars. This is the second war the U.S. has not raised taxes, the first was Vietnam (at least that had a draft).\n\n5) Outsourced to "Private Companies" support logistics, security and intelligence gathering which resulted in no bid contracts and the torture scandals. \n\nHaving said all of this, the only good this war can bring is the ousting of a dictator and a theocracy (democracy in this region of the world would imply woman were equal and religion stayed out of politics).