was going to Iraq a good idea?

[Was going to Iraq by the usa a good idea?]

Was going to Iraq by the usa a good idea?

yes

 6 (54.5%)

no

 5 (45.5%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[fortook]

Hmmm.  The phrase- "Apples and Oranges" in English is an analogy for "different".  WWII and the Iraq invasion are different, almost in their respective entirety.  I'm not going to bother to explain the obvious and go into why they are vastly different, vastly. But, yes a war is still a war and their are guns, pants, boots, shirts, helmets, death, etc involved.  So in loose terms they were virtually the same war.

In short: was going to Iraq a bad idea? Yes, it was.  Absolutely.  Rationalize it all you want with loose WWII comparisons, it was politically, economically, humanely, and all around a foolish and reckless thing to do.

[LincolnLover]

Anyone expect to go into Iran soon?

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

so, we just ignore the fact that the Kurds in north mesopoetamia are empowered and in control of their own land and free from a genocidal tyrant?  Sorry, aye can't do it. Saving people from being murdered and thrown into mass graves is NOT a bad idea. 

Some Ww2 isolationists still believe that saving gypsies and jews from a genocidal tyrant was a bad idea as well.  So, you have company.
 

Hmmm.  The phrase- "Apples and Oranges" in English is an analogy for "different".  WWII and the Iraq invasion are different, almost in their respective entirety.  I'm not going to bother to explain the obvious and go into why they are vastly different, vastly. But, yes a war is still a war and their are guns, pants, boots, shirts, helmets, death, etc involved.  So in loose terms they were virtually the same war.

In short: was going to Iraq a bad idea? Yes, it was.  Absolutely.  Rationalize it all you want with loose WWII comparisons, it was politically, economically, humanely, and all around a foolish and reckless thing to do.

[! B L U E WAR R I O R..!]

Anyone expect to go into Iran soon?

Welcome to www.war. And silicon virus weapons.

[LincolnLover]

I kind of expect the "pullout" dates of Afrgan and Iraq to be just enough time to take a breath and roll into Iran.

[fortook]

Historically, while we in the U.S. are very militaristic, the population will only tolerate two wars per generation.  The gov is still powerful enough to invade Iran if they choose, but the political fallout would be enormous.  I'm sure the politicians know that.  We are still trying to recover from the last two wars.  An Iran invasion would be political suicide.

Saving people, by killing people sounds like crusade thinking to me.  Or the undue reaching for ANY reason to justify the Iraq invasion.  First it was WMDs, then it was humanitarianism.  These justifications a too fluid and, well, desperate for me to buy.  If humanitarianism was the goal, why mention WMDs.  If no WMDs were found, the goal was a lie.  Quick Cheny, find a new goal- ok, ok, we invaded  Iraq to save Iraqis- even if such desperate appeals are obviously bunk, they work with huge numbers of the population.

[Julie Fern]

blueidiot just like wars.

[LincolnLover]

People always forget that we DID find WMD. Saddam went on tv bragging about the ones that could hit Israel and the Kurds despite the rules imposed upon him. That alone was enough.

[fortook]

Lol, had the U.S. found WMDs, the humanitarianism argument would never been needed or used.  No WMDs were found by American or UN investigators. I don't think they even had chemical weapons anymore.

[Julie Fern]

People always forget that we DID find WMD. Saddam went on tv bragging about the ones that could hit Israel and the Kurds despite the rules imposed upon him. That alone was enough.

nonsense.