Was the war in Iraq worth it?

Question

Let us extrapolate a little bit, and assume that an end to the insurrection in Iraq is near at hand... that a military victory is within sight. All of which seems plausible. Three questions:

Firstly, in your opinion, what will the US have gained from that war? (I am not asking what the Iraqis did or didn't gain -- just the US.)

Secondly, based on your answer to that, if in 2003 you had known that would be the outcome, would that have been enough to earn your support for the war at the time?

Finally, would your second answer be any different, if you had known in 2003 that there were no WMD, that Al Qaeda was not present in Iraq, that Iraqi oil revenues would not pay for our expenses, and that the war would carry on this long and cost this much in terms of lives and spending?

Answer 1

I believe that the US stopped what could have been more national conflicts, and without the US preventing Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath party, the Middle East would be at war. If you would have told me that this would have been the outcome of the war 5 years ago, I would have agreed to invade Iraq. It's not a matter of loving president Bush, or hating hime. It's a matter of giving other humans a chance at life.

Answer 2

Although the media maintained virtual silence once things started going our way, the public has come to recognaize the military success.

The war was worth it because

1) we helped establish a stable government in Iraq that is hostile to terrorists and respectful fo the U.S.A. and legitimate order of the world

2) We eliminated a vicious anti-American regime and aborthed any future plans they might have had for developing nuclear weapons.

3) We intimidated Libya to give up its suprisingly advance nuclear program

4) If the recent National Intelligence Estimate is to be believed, Iran happened to give up its nuclear program just at the moment that a few hundred thousand American troops occupied Baghdad--we're keeping a close eye on them.

There is the debit side to this too though:

1) 4,000 dead American troops

30,000 injured--600 amputees and traumatic brain injuries.

2) Many more Iraqis have been killed.

3) The financial cost of the war will run above $1 trillion

4) We've driven thousands of Muslims into the radical ranks

Now, let us extrapolate. If we never would have entered into the war in Iraq, would terrorists consider us weak and hit us over and over again... like they did with Clinton!  We have not had another terrorist attact on our soil for seven years.  'nough said.

Answer 3

First of all, I refuse to put a price on Freedom, so yes it was worth it.

When the smoke clears and all is said and done, Iraq is a free Democracy, Then what have we gained? A friend in a very unstable area. Perhaps an allie for world peace. An Allie against international terrorism.

Finally, Freedom isn't free and though the loss of even one troop brings sorrow to these old sergeants eyes, we paid very little for the freedom that we have given to the Iraqi people.

Answer 4

Wrong or Right we are in it till the end !

Second   ?   if the did have weapons of mass destruction would it have being smarter to wait for them to detonate one off in the middle of Manhattan on a sunny day ????    No !!!!

(

If there is a threat you take them the h**l out !

As For the War we are in it So Support your Troop and Fly Your Flag !!!

Answer 5

Depends on who you ask.

Answer 6

No.

Bush lied and our soldiers were killed and maimed in this war that never needed to be fought.  Also about 1 million Iraqis,most of whom had only committed the sin of having had the misfortune of being born in Iraq were killed.  Also, 4-5 million Iraqis...those with any money at all...left the country and have become refuges.

Bottom line is that we shrunk Iraq's population from about 31 million to about 25 million.  The 25 million left in Iraq do not have clean drinking water, sufficient food or electricity.  Cholera is in their drinking water for c**p's sake.

It seems incredible to me that even a third of Americans still support Pres. Bush.  Ignorance knows no bounds, I guess.

Answer 7

First off go ASK the now Free Iraqis.

Why do you believe the NEWS MEDIA that's only purpose is to make money for their company's medium?? You are not told everything by the military because the world can not handle the whole truth.

@dded : Lack of the Military verifying or denying the retrieval of WMDs to the world does not mean none were found. The world had proof ( WMDs are NOT JUST Nuclear in nature They include Biological, chemical, conventional explosives), Saddam's gassing of the Kurds was proof of WMDs!

Vet-USAF

Answer 8

1 There was never going to be any gain in Iraq it wasn't about gain

2 NO

3 The WMD was a lie al qaeda was a lie what surprises me is Bush and Big d**k diden't plant any WMD over there so if the middle east diden't have any oil under it would we be over there giving the Iraq's there freedom

I don't think so  

Answer 9

your first question- we gained respect from iraq, we gained power over stopping terrorist groups in the country. We gained a lot.

2nd question- it would have been enough for my support, especially since we are restoring peace and the government there.

3rd question-no, because we would still be doing something productive helping iraq...

but who cares what i think...im just a sophomore student giving out is opinion

Answer 10

yes

Answer 11

No, but we did it for our President Bush's LEGACY, we would sacrifice anything for GOD'S President, our Messiah!

Answer 12

Yes.

As wars go, this one was pretty cheap in both lives and $cost (based on past wars adjusted for inflation). For example, in Viet Nam, we lost about 4000/month (dead). In 1967 we had 474,000 troops.

The U.S. should be better off having a 'friendly' government and a military foothold in the middle east compared to having a Sadam Hussen in power. Iran is a threat, and has been a threat for many years - since Jimmy Carter was in office.

Iran's oil production is increasing greatly since the 'surge' has reduced violence, and as a result, they will be called upon to pay for much more of the rebuilding efforts. They will not be a poor country like Afganistan.

We paid for the right to keep a military presents in that country. Just as we have militarty in all the other wars. We have troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.

As to why we invaded Irag . . . At the end of the Gulf war, we had the choice to over throw Sadam at that time, but the hang-wringing liberals said that too many have been killed, so we called it off - after only 100 hours. Another 100 hours and we wouldn't be fighting over there today. Then the U.S. did an absolutely horrific job of negotiating the peace. As a result, Sadam did not keep the peace agreement - shooting at our planes in the  no-fly zone, etc. If an ant is nibbling at your leg, there comes a point when it's time to squish it. All the stuff about war on terror, WMD's etc. were wishful thinking. Bush 'W' wanted to finish what his daddy didn't, and personally, I think that was a good idea. Bush senior should have finished the job years ago.

So, in conclusion

1) yes it was worth it

2) we gained a foothold in a region that is festering danger to the world, and to U.S. interests

3) Yes, regardless of teh WMD, Al Qaeda, and Iraqi Oil .

Answer 13

  The first is simple I reallty do not care what the US gained or will gain; some things are necessary and done for the well being of some one other then yourself.  Staying in the Marines for twenty years was not necessarily good for me-I have a bad knee, lost a wife, and was hated by many of the people I was protecting while doing it, much of what was promised (free health care and dental care) was taken away while I was serving and lived near the poverty level most of my career 70-90 so I did not do that for me I did it because it was necessary and made it better for others.

Second-Nothing more then what was offered then, I still support it for the legal reasons it was done and feel that if Iraq becomes a stable government then it will have been worth it.

Third-The main reason was that Saddam Hussein did not allow UN weapons inspectors in to verify what he was claiming and that was a violation of the cease fire from the first Gulf War and legal as well as moral justification for war.  none were found which means he was either lying and managed to get his stockpiles to other countries (he had used and was known to have chemical weapons so he did have them)  or he was telling the truth and tweaking the UN's and America's nose by refusing to let it be verified-he bluffed and got cleaned out.

Answer 14

It is way too soon to answer these questions, try back in 10 to 20 years!

Answer 15

Oh but sir you don't understand! there were scary terrorists out there that had those "weapons of mass destruction", I don't know how but they hid them just in time!