Knowing what you know now, do you support Bush's decision to invade Iraq in '03?

Question

Things went from Victory -> This looks kinda bad -> This is really fricken bad, why in the h**l are people saying things aren't bad -> Less bad -> Even less bad but still a little worse than Israeli/Palestian conflict.

It's been a roller coaster for sure. So I'm just wondering what people think about Iraq now things aren't as bad.

Answer 1

Again and again our politions stick our nose where it really does not belong but we are there. When victory was declared we should have come home

Answer 2

It was his worst decision.  However, if he had hauled a$$ right after his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED speech, he would have looked a lot less inept than he does now that the lies have been exposed.

     \|||/

      (@@)

ooO_(_ )_Ooo________________________________

_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__...

___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____...

Democrats offer welfare

Republicans offer warfare

Democrats offer higher taxes

Republicans offer deficit spending

Libertarians offer none of the above

       \|||/

      (@@)

ooO_(_ )_Ooo________________________________

_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____|__...

___|____|_____|_____|_____|_____|_____...

Answer 3

I was one of those that didn't at the time. More so now.

Answer 4

Yes.  Skeptical at the beginning but support it now.

"Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

We could have not done anything about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.  We could have stayed home from Korea.  We could have sat out World War I and looked the other way in WW II, but the bottom line is that despots throughout history will keep advancing until someone has the guts to stop them.  Saddam's papers indicate he was waiting for the right time to re-start his nuclear program.  Sooner or later we would have had to pay the piper.

Answer 5

I never supported it. What's disgusting is that there are still people who support Bush and the choices he made regarding the invasion. Consider how many of Bush's military advisers quit because he was too stubborn to take their advice. As if Bush has any combat experience.

Answer 6

I didn't support it in the first place.

Answer 7

yes, only because Hussein wasn't cooperating with UN inspectors, we still had no idea what he had or didn't have WMDs aside.

Answer 8

Yes.

Of course I served in Iraq and saw what was really happening there instead of the spin the media gave you.

You did not get news.  You got DNC talking points.

Answer 9

I was against the invasion, but I support it now. We're now in a situation where we can't really get out. We're pretty much stuck there, and things are getting better, but we still have a way to go.

Iraq, however, is the least issue for me in this election. My main issue is the c**p economy. We need a president who will create more jobs, stimulate more economic growth by keeping our taxes low, and will solve our energy crisis. I'm crossing my fingers for McCain.

Answer 10

I was and am 100% for it. I guess we could've just maintained the no-fly zones for 100 years. Or we could've just let him slaughter the Kurds. Or we could've let him develop nuclear weapons like Obama will let Iran do. I served 8 years, but I was in because I wanted to serve my country, not to suck on the GI Bill teet.

P.S. Gimme 3-6 months of BS diplomacy like Bush did and 100s of thousands of square miles of sand and I could bury a million tons of WMDs that you'd never find. We should've skipped diplomacy in the first place. We see what three years of diplomacy in Iran has gotten us.

Answer 11

I was for the war, am still for the war. We NEED to be there until it is over and actually follow thru. How about asking the Iraqi people??? How about asking the Kurds - the ones that are left. Hussein USED weapons of mass distruction on the Kurds and on his own people killing hundreds of thousands over night!!!! a few times! He was worse than Hitler in many ways, we just didn't allow him to stay alive long enough and prove it.

Yes there is oil and it is a big part of it... but we also went in there to liberate the Iraqi people. And this is what we are doing.  

Answer 12

We should have never invaded Iraq and kept our focus on Afghanistan, where the terrorists are!

Answer 13

No, I didn't support it then and I don't support it now.  We should never have gone in there to begin with.  

Answer 14

Absolutely not.  There are 4 to 4.5 million Iraqis that are refugees (2.5 million in Iraq and 2.0 million in Syria and Jordan), we lost over 4,000 brave soldiers and over 30,000 more have been maimed, uncounted thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed and many more maimed or wounded, the country's infrastructure is still mostly in shambles and the Iraqi 'government' is controlled by people that have close connections to Iran.  It diverted our attention away from the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan where they have flourished since 2003.  As Republican Sen. Chuck Hagle stated, it was the worst strategic blunder in American history.  

Just because there is finally less violence occuring after all this time does not erase the facts about all the destruction it has caused, the billions of dollars wasted and the five plus years of quagmire.  Bush will be remembered all right and this will forever be his legacy.

Answer 15

I was against it at the beginning and I am still against it now.

You know who was also against the Iraq war.  George Bush Senior.

I am paraphrasing but in his memoirs, He said that the reason he didn't invade Iraq in the early 90's was that it would lead to an intractable situation from which there would be no easy exit.  Don't believe me look it up

Answer 16

Before Bush took office:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Bill Clinton, February 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Bill Clinton, February 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." - Madeline Albright, February 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, February 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, October 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), December 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, November 10, 1999

Answer 17

I was very confused about it after the 15th o 23rd manipulated reason was given. Kind of the way Bush has done everything so far. Manipulation is an ugly tool and we were simple people, so I guess we get what we have coming. Bush got us every way he could and there are still some out there who adore him and want 4 more years of the same.

Answer 18

Knowing what I knew then, I didn't support it....why would I start now?......because violence has gone from ridiculous to tolerable?....don't think so.....

Answer 19

I did not support it then and now it is evident to almost everyone that I was right.

Answer 20

i know you asked the question to get a honest answer but all you are going to get is answers from mis informed libs, it doesnt matter what anyone yahoo answers thinks, ask the father in baghdad who can finally take his family to the park

Answer 21

Based on all of the information we have now, it's pretty clear that it was an awful decision. The US invaded based on fabricated evidence, furthering a personal agenda of the Cheney / Bush government, who lied to the people about why they were invading Iraq.

It has cost the country trillions (that's right, with a "t") of dollars, the economy is a disaster, and the end benefit to the US has been what?

I will ALWAYS support the men in uniform, but the governments who send them into battle are sometimes wrong. This is one of those times.