Debate Do you think Bush was right to invade Iraq?

i think that he did more good than evil by invading Iraq. Even if there aren't any weapons of mass destruction there, Saddam was quite the monster. Anyone think otherwise?

 

i do think that Saddam needed to be reprimanded, but i dont think it was George W. Bush had the right to do it. to be honest, i dont like Bush

 

i really hope you are being ironic here..

 

I think Saddam deserved it. he isn't called the Butcher of Baghdad for nothing.

 

Bush didn't even get rid of them... he just chased them over the border into Pakistan. I have relatives in Pakistan and India... and I have Asian TV.... so I have an alternate source of information... Britan does a pretty good job, too... but still, the media is crap. If Bush was gonna play hero, he should have atleast done what he set out to do. Because of it, more people are dying now, in Pakistan, India, even China.

According to Bush, "liberation" is random bombings and useless killings. Afterwards, he just let everyone in the jails in Iraq out. Sure, many of those people were wrongly put in jail, due to political views, but oppressed people aren't all innocent people.

Not to mention all those Americans who were killed in friendly fire because they weren't properly trained.

So, I don't support Saddam, but then again, if someone is going to stop him, do it right.

 

well i just think that the entire reason he actually invaded was to finish what his father couldn't. he didn't have to invade. we could have left. and what's worse is the fact that he's planning on invading another country. there is something wrong with this man. he's not as tough and big as he trys to make himself.

 

ok for starters I think you need to cut out the spamming crap, as for bush "liberating" iraq, well...

I think they started out the conflict very badly, they basically just sat back and fired a crapload of missiles and bombs at places where civillians could be killed, although technology has improved and they can target accurately, you never know if some kid is gonna run out of nowhere straight into a target zone and get himself blown up, but they didnt care about that, they just bombed the **** out of Iraq for days, while sitting back safe in their ships. If they really wanted to save the Iraqi people they would just roll in their themselves straight off the bat, risking their lives to save the lives of the Iraqi people.
so, lets just say, it might be a good idea to liberate iraq, if for the right reasons, it seems to me right now they are just after tht oil, yes i might sound like one of those hippies protesting in the middle of the road but its probably true.

ok basically I think Saddams regime should be taken down, and maybe if they went about it the right away they could have him by now.
But they should be much more careful with the Iraqi people and their needs

 

I think it was right to invade Iraq, whether or not weapons of mass destruction are found.

I'm just really appalled by the way the military is handeling the occupation of Al Bagdad and it's neighboring cities. They need to get the trained peacekeeping forces there and return the 7th, 3rd and 18th army divisions back to their home bases. Those three were designed, equipped and trained to fight the Soviet Union, China, or any type of large land battle. They don't know how to do peacekeeping.

Oh well *shrugs*, thats the military for you.

 

I think it was 2 things.

1.To get the ppl to think of something else besides the economy and...
2.To fnnaly give saddam a kick in the ***.

 

I support the war on Iraq. Yes, Bush is not the greatest of presidents, and certainly has a lot of skewed views. Plus he's downright dumb in a lot of ways. However, just because I don't like the man, doesn't mean I have to hate the plan, as it were.

Saddam was a far, far more evil man than Bush is, and although there WERE more casualties than anyone would have wanted in the war, Saddam would have killed at least 6 times more people than we did, given another year of reign.

Nuclear/Biological weapons or not, the US intervening was probably the best thing for the Iraqi's that could have happened. Had they risen up in revolt, how many would have died? You can't just say 'well, that's them, not us', and say that an American soldier's life is worth more than an Iraqi commoner's.

- Ark

 

To put it in a nice and short way, George W Bush just wants to rule the world finding all possible excuses he can muster, whether it is valid or invalid.

That's what I see...

Next step... Korea.

 

KOREA? if he dare touches my birthplace he's going to get what's coming to him. but i still don't think bush is right

 

no doubt, and IMO i think hes gonna somehow go after canada, and he'd have to go through britain to do that ("he" being USA)

doesnt matter who the president is, its the corrupt right-hand men that are pulling the strings, they are the real monsters

 

Please back that up with some kind of rational reason for the US to take such action.

- Ark

 

I know I'm just a kid, and no one will probably take me seriously here, but I would like to add my two cents.

I'm not a huge fan of Bush or Saddam, and I do believe Saddam should be taken care of in some form. Yet, Bush did it all wrong, his plan comes off to me as "Hey lets shoot at random stuff and hope we hit Saddam!" Now, we've pushed him into innocent neighboring contries and made another problem.

Well thats this worthless 14 yearolds 2 cents.

 

Yeah, I understand Saddam would've killed more people than we did in one year, but if he was gonna do it, he should've done it the right way.

Did you notice, btw, that "Operation Iraqi Liberation" teh name of teh plan, is an acronym for "OIL"? Coincidence?

You know how you said Saddam would kill more people in a year? Well, now that Bush drove him into otehr countries, he's killing over twice as much as he would've.

I can never go back to India now. I never got to see my home country. My family there was murdered by them. Some old grudge they had against our family.

 

Actually, deprived of his military, Saddam lacks the ability to kill very many people at all, and seeing as to how he has to keep a low profile or the US will most certainly find him, he's not gonna be much of a threat to anyone.

Also, Muffin, don't get down on yourself for being a kid. However, I would suggest a little more research into the war. The US military did a very precise operation, with less casualties and more effect than any other war waged in human history. The only problem is that Saddam wasn't where the US thought he was, so he was able to escape.

- Ark

 

Escaped convicts... doesn't this link back to Bin Laden. Still a possible threat to the world (especially America). Wouldn't you say that the Iraqi war is a failed operation in terms of not achieving their primary objective? that is... arresting Saddam. This goes the same for the war against terrorism in Afghanistan.