What is so bad about invading Iraq ?

Question

somebody asked a question

asking : ' do you think it is ok for a dictator to be hosting the Olympics'

and i thought, he is a dictator to Tibet not his own people and he has power so there is no reason why he can't do what he wants, it is naive to think people in power will stop and say 'hey, what i'm doing is wrong'

who can blame GB for invading Iraq

they have the oil

we are running out. desperate times call for desperate measures

Answer 1

Your question kind of contradicts itself.  First of all, there's no single "dictator" in China, but it is a totalitarian regime.  Not just to Tibet.  Now, the Chinese aren't being ethnically cleansed out of existence, but I'd argue that the people who were steamrolled by tanks in Tiannamen square, and who get jailed and executed for any kind of dissent aren't saying "Hey, they're OUR leaders, so I'm not oppressed."

You also argue that anyone will do whatever they can get away with.  There are billions of people who prove that premise wrong every day.

Now, will an amoral person, like a sociopath, only consider what's good in their own narcissistic existence?  Possibly.  Just because someone might do it, and they might be able to get away with it, does that make it "good?"

What's bad about invading Iraq?  There was no reason to do it, it resulted in thousands of innocent people dying, it is bankrupting our nation and making it less secure...

I could go on, but I'd argue that those are all "bad" things.  Self-gratification for it's own sake isn't inherently good, and you haven't made that case.

You seem to be arguing that "good" or "bad" is dependent on whether you suffer consequences or not.  That's not the case.

Answer 2

How much did oil cost before the invasion?

How much does it cost now?

Duh.

Answer 3

"[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

Answer 4

well first off, its not good to be invading anybody for anything! it shouldnt be happening in the first place but since it has happened, yes it is bad becuase there was never a proper reason for invading iraq in the first place! it was always some clues and snippets of info that bushy leaked out so we could try and piece it together ourselves. the invasion in iraq is pointless and is costing us not just money but lives.

Answer 5

Its sort of like robbing a rich neighbour on the excuse that he will buy a gun to kill you.

Answer 6

Tho it was led by the US, the invasion was done after consultations and agreement of many UN countries.  It was the reason why others have sent complementary or token forces. US led the invasion in good faith and it was successful at least to remove a "dictator".   I am glad that there is a powerful country like America that has a tough-talking yet  beneficent President who can effectively warn would-be Saddam Husseins.  

Unfortunately, the invasion continue to wrought death and destruction after the actual shooting war,  a scenario that was probably  not anticipated.  

The war did not stop after Saddam Hussein's downfall.  The news remains so much to be desired what was happening prior to and after the actual capture of Saddam Hussein - the sadistic act of US-led coaltion soldiers at  Abu Gharib prison, the seemingly incessant roadside bombings that killed and maimed US soldiers and Iraqi civilians as well, the religious and tribal infightings, among other tales of destruction.  

What hurts more to the Americans and its allies is the death of their soldiers not to mention the millions of US taxpayer's money that is costing the foray.  

PS.  To me invasion has negative connotation. The US did not led its allies to invade or conquer Iraq; they "liberate" Iraq.  

Answer 7

Invading Iraq is not bad at all. GW Bush just did what he had to. I heard people complaining, as if the war made economy bad. it's NOT - economy tends to be good during wars. If you don't believe me, look at the GDP during Vietnam-war and WW2. It had steady positive growth! If today there was no such an Iraq war, the economy would be twice as bad.

Answer 8

Americans expected a quick and simple war, like the Gulf War. When it started dragging on and on and costing more and more money, it started to seem like a bad idea.

It turns out that Saddam's "argue with me and I'll kill you--painfully," policies, actually managed to keep the peace in Iraq.

There is a concept called sovereignty as well. Your country belongs to you, and no one else should invade it without provocation.

Part of the debate on Iraq is whether or not there was actual provocation.

Answer 9

If you believe in morality at all you have to have some standards to go by. The alternatives are anarchy, or totalitarian power.  When Japan used a preemptive strike against America we were offended and went to war about it.  When we went to war against Iraq no such questions were raised.  Now that another nation has replicated our aggression, we can see by our lack of response that indeed George Bush and Vladimir Putin are soulmates. Our representatives need to stop responding to special interests and start thinking about morality, not how to spin morality to suit their biggest campaign contributors.  If the good people of Germany had insisted to Hitler that preemptive strikes were immoral, ....

Answer 10

It's a waste of money and human life. People are losing fathers,brothers,uncles for oil and for imaginary weapons of mass destruction.Iraq isn't the only place to get oil you know.  

Answer 11

Why is being a dictator bad? Cesar became a dictator. Most countries are not republics. dictators have an advantage when it comes to war over republics. So asking if because you're a dictator than you can't host an Olympic game is a stupid question. You can be a good dictator you can also be a bad dictator.

Invading Iraq has to be one of the dumbest foreign policy debacles the usa has ever got ourselves into. It created world wide hatred, and made the arab regime spite us even more. Killed hundreds of thousands of people(when you consider the sanctions previously) and has not been very beneficial to the united states. We have spent our national treasure and have received nothing back. Including oil.

Answer 12

Are you so stupid?Did you not see how many people have been killed and maimed. And perhaps you like to see dead bodies and people suffering?? Does it need to be bad enough for you??? Is what you are asking? Did you lose any loved one`s in this or any other war? I personally feel for the human race when people cannot tell what is wrong the invasion?