I've been studying current political climates, including the Iraq War and War on Terror at university and I'm just curious what people's opinions are on this matter.

Do you agree with the war? Why or why not?

Apologies for the controversial topic, but I'm curious. Try to keep it civil .

I agree with it, because they -could- have had the ever popular WMDs. And lets face it: Saddam had to go. The world is a better place without him in power.

Many countries could have had the WMDs, and America and it's allies created the dictatorship regime Sadaam was in control of anyway.

There are also other similar regimes, such as Saudia Arabia which are actually considered close friends with America. Why? What makes their crimes different?

If a country takes a moral stand against the crimes of Sadaam - and I'm not arguing that he was innocent - then doesn't it have to take that stand against all similar criminals?

I disagree with it because the entire invasion was based on incorrect information. Not to mention now that the war is officially over, it's even worse then when Saddam was in control. And then there are the disgusting war crimes that happend there.

Saddam had to be removed yes, but this was not the way to do it. And lets not forget that America made Saddam, they gave Saddam all his weapons in the first place.

This war also had an interresting effects on economics, one some might consider the main reason for it in the first place.

On a another node, it always makes me chuckle when the VS, UK and France want other countries to dismantle WMDs while they don't do any effort to dismantle their own.

1) Not sure if you're correct in saying that "America and it's allies created the dictatorship regime Sadaam was in control of", but thats irrelavant. Either way, Saddam needed to go.

2) As long as other such regimes aren't threatening America and its allies, they aren't going to go too far in the priority list. Saddam was a threat. These other regimes aren't necisarily as much of a threat. A government's main duty is to look out for the interests of its own people. Not being attacked is obviously an interest of most countries.

3) Its unreasonable to hope that you can stop everyone who commits a crime. Heck, you can't even do that in your own country, and local criminals don't have armies backing them. As I said, top priority is looking out for yourself and allies. Taking a criminal out of power sweetens the pot, so to say.



"Look, we've given it lots of thought, and we're sorry to say we just don't like you. You're an ass and you kill far too many of your own people. We'd really prefer if you just stepped down, we don't really want to make a scene."

Hehe.

North Korea attacked an american ship, it's known that country is developing a nuclear device. It's international threat level was way higher then Iraq. Same for Iran.

what

Directly or indirectly, they did. Not as directly as they created the regime in Afghanistan, but the history is there if you want to look at it.



China is apparently a threat to America, why not take them on? That's fairly easy to answer - China has the worlds largest standing army and a war with them would certainly turn into a world war - but the ideas are there.

How was Sadaam a threat to America anyway? All the WMDs? His funding of 9/11? It's been proven that neither of those things were true.



That's fine, I understand that. I don't advocate America as a Global Police, so to speak, but how do you justify relationships between Western powers who are a part of the Coalition of Willing and other dictatorship and totalitariam regimes?

Patience, patience. We'll get to them.

I find it interesting that, at least in Australia, people generally agree that our PM fed us false information to take us to war, but generally don't think it's a big deal that he did so.

Is opinion similar in the US and the UK?

He could have let the UN take a peek in his factories to show he didn't have anything. He chose not to. I've even heard the idea suggested that Saddam thought he DID have WMDs, although I've only heard that a couple times so I have no idea how seriously the theory is taken.

Saddam....or Bush. Hmmm.

Among Democrats, the idea is tossed around. But I never listen to them. They just make up to try to make Dubya look bad, or so I've found.

Im personally against all wars but thats just something I feel.

Whether the war was right to happen or not it was based off several supposed lies. Propaganda has no doubt flown about in the U.S as well as Iraq. Hm..this kinda reminds me of when I was in Grade 8, just a year after 9/11 and we had to do a comic cover..this guy Ive known for a while drew a comic of a news station and Bush was doing the commentary I think and it goes on to say 'America is at war with thisplace thatplace overthere Iraq'

I cant remember what countries he used so I just kinda substituted it. Wish we'd gotten a picture of it heh. I know Canada has been kinda in and out of this war, we were in it at first until America shot down one of our aircrafts and killed a couple of our men, then we were in it again and then everything kinda got lost in the scandels and what not.

I don't disagree, he didn't exactly help his own cause. But a country and it's leader, regardless of the merit of that leader, desire and deserve autonomy. If Western democratic nations desire to take that autonomy away for reasons X and Y (the reasoning has changed so much over the few short years that I'll not even bother with listing any) then they need to justify their decisions.

Also, do you really think a country like Iraq could even afford the giant stockpiles of WMDs it was suggested to have? I even heard it thrown about in Australia that they had a missle they could have attacked us with from their own country. That's a very long way to launch a missle. Australia doesn't have that kind of technology as far as I'm aware, I doubt a generally impoverished nation would.

I live in Belgium, though I know several british tv broadcasters had heavy critism, there was a major investigation against the guy that fed the information.

Many Europeans consider Bush a mass murderer that is worse then Saddam.

And Iraq was letting weapon inspectors in. However I wonder would America let UN weapon inspectors in to check their top secret military facilities without a diplomatic struggle? I would wager they'd use their veto and say no

It happens on all sides . Politics + media = sensationalism.



What was the result of the investigation?



I think that's a bit extreme. You'd have to take that label and apply it to nearly every country and their leader during war times.

I would to any country that uses cluster and dirty bombs.

edit: however I'd like to point out I don't think Bush is the massmurder here, I doubt he is able to make the carefull manipulations and planning that where needed for it.

edit2: How did I miss that result question? I believe it lead to a lot of speculation on part of military intelligence and no hard evidence. Though I suspect you'll get more accurate data if you search british newspapers or can obtain the UK's parlement records.

Saddam Hussein is a son of a , and if I ever meet him, I'm going to him in the head.

*dons flame retardant clothing*
No. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, but I'd consider his son Uday (Third iron maiden ftw) far more of a threat than he is. America just decided that they'd like to grab him, after arming him, and in essence, creating him, in 2002. Hell, he even threw his borders back open, and the most dangerous thing found in the war was a set of empty chemical-launch rockets which had never even held anything more malign than barbecque sauce.