Thread: Do you think that the war in Iraq is right? Do you think we should still be there?

Do I think the war is right and should we still be there? Yes on both points. While the reasons for going there in the first place may not have been true, a lot of good has been done overall. I agree that terror should be fought aganist and that its possible to win aganist it. Wether Bush is going the right way about doing that is a different thing entirely however.

I'll admit that the prior is a bit wishy-washy and I just don't feel like giving a yes or no answer to it. To the second, I'll give a big yes. We cannot remove ourselves from Iraq at this time. Doing so would damn the whole country to bloody conflict, yes worse than it is at present. Building a fair and just government from the ground up takes time, longer than a couple years. We have to be in it for the long haul if there is any hope of the country remaining democratic.

As terrible as it is for the soldiers fighting it, and as easy as it is for me to sit comfortably at home and say it, we can't just up and leave on a dime.

No i do not think the war in Iraq is right and no u guys should'nt still be there but u dot really have a choice now seeing as that if u were to leave now, whatever problems occur in that country from now on the U.S would be held accountable for them and u would expected to fix.

Haven’t we had this debate before? Seriously, it seems we have one of these every week.

I think the war was the right thing to do and we defiantly need to stay until the job is done.

If you follow the other argument that the war was unjust and that we shouldn't have done it...where does that lead us? The logical conclusion is that we would have to allow Sadam Hussain out of custody and allow him to be come president of Iraq again (after all we should restore things to the proper order). But is there anyone who seriously feels we should return Sadam as President of Iraq? I don't know a single political figure that says we should do that, even though they are screaming about how unjust the war is.

Why? Because morally they knew it was the right thing to do (as they themselves proved when congress gave approval for the war in the first place). So why not just say so? Politics. They hate Bush so badly they are willing to do the very thing they are accusing him of. Nearly every prominate democrat said as late as 2003 that Sadam was a threat and that he was seeking WMD's. Now they are lying through their teeth and insisting that "Bush did it alone" and without their approval. This is simply not true. If there is anyone lying here it's prominate Democrats who are playing politics for self gain.

After all, they had access to the exact same intelligence that Bush had. If they were 'fooled' into believing Bush then they shouldn’t be voted back into office. They obviously don't have the intelligence to make their own decisions. I prefer to give them more credit then that and choose to believe that our elected leaders are not so easily swayed.

its not worth it people died and its enough...bush is the worst leader ever..he should get kicked out of the white house that cheating little fake..he thinks he is all cool cause of his dad,he is just they're mto cover up what he did on 9/11 he allowed the attacks on the towers..he were friends with the bin laddens..why did we only stay in afgainistan with a lot of people for a little..cause he was setting the frame on a guy who had a bad history..cause of bush we could die any secoond that fool..he is in for money..not for trust..he is a scandel and should go to jail

well i think that the war in Irak was just a waste of money,soldiers and time. Bush knew that Irak didn't have nuclear weapons of mass destructions but he invaded Irak anyways. His escusses were nuclear weapons, a team of inspectors were there before he invaded Irak, the inspector didn't find any weapons of mass destructions so why the hell he invaded Irak. What if saddam hussein is find not guilty of having weapons of mass destructions, what will happen with the reputation of america, we are going be seing as bad people that just think of invading other's people country. Our children's grandchildren will have to pay the debt that this country faces now thanks to our president.

<sigh>

How many times must this be covered.

dnangel141;
Not to be rude, but when you make a coherent statement that actually involves facts instead of a Michael Moore hit peice, I'll be happy to debate the leadership merrits of GW Bush with you.

ketaro;
The UN reports themselves said that Sadam was not forthcomming with any info and had repeatedly denied them entry to facilities for days upon end...only to allow them to finally come in and 'inspect' the facilities. It has been assumed by many that Sadam hid the weapons or moved them before allowing the inspection to take place. You can't find what isn't there. The question was...was it ever there in the first place and what happened to it if it was? We know it was there becuase he used WMD's on his own people and on enemy troops in the first gulf war. That is fact. The question is...what did he do with it? If he destoryed them as he was supposed to, he never offered any concrete proof of it. The burden of proof was his by UN mandate. All Bush did was enforce a mandate that the UN didn't want to. Why? The UN Oil for food scandel would be an excellent place to start looking for those answers.

Second, I remember very clearly WHY GW Bush stated an invasion of Iraq was nessessary. Bush said many times that Sadam had not been forthcomming with info, a fact the UN knew very well. It was up to Sadam to prove to the world that he DID NOT have WMD's, not the world needing to prove to Sadam that he did. That was the UN's resolution, not Bush's. The UN had a number of resolutions out on Iraq telling Sadam to come clean. He never did. He was defiant to the day that he was removed from office.

GW Bush waited 14 Months before launching the invasion. 14 months is more then enough time for Sadam to open the doors and allow inspectors free access to Iraq. He did not.

The free world had every beleif that Iraq had WMD's or were seeking the capability. That has been proven by quote after quote from world leaders. But now, everyone conviently forgets that they ever said such things and decideds it's all Bush's fault because they don't like him. It's a bunch of hypocrites who want power so badly they are willing to lie about it. The hypocritical thing is that they are lying about GW Bush lying about the war.