Nope. It was baseless then and has proven to be a bad decision and a waste of truckloads (mostly Iraqis) of lives and money.

I actually have an answer for this one.

Have you ever started off a task so long and ardous you knew you might stop it at any time?


For example, my girlfriend decided to watch "1,000 movies you should watch before you die."

You inevitably start off with all the movies you WANT to see anyway, because who knows if you'll complete the list.

Even assuming George Bush's goal was "Freedom for all, yee haw" you gotta figure he knew he wasn't going to be able to invade EVERY country with a dictatorship.

So he started with the one he wanted to invade most.

Because it'd show up his dad, or for his dad for invasion purposes or whatever reason.

Assuming "Freedom for all, yee haw" is the drive. Why wouldn't you start with a country that is placed within one of the most important areas in the world, had attacked other local foreign powers and could thus disrupt the whole region, had used chemical weapons against the kurds and was already restricted by sanctions and a no fly zone protecting Kurdistan?

There are plenty of reasons why Iraq could have been chosen and we certainly weren't going to attack a country like China which is too important and very powerful or a country that has little significance, why not when choosing a state, attack a pariah state thats already been weakened by past conflict and sanctions?

North korea would fit all those criteria... minus the "gassing the kurds" but you could add things like "kidnapping foreign nationals."

Plus they were close to nukes, which they now have.

Heck, a lot of countries fit that description.

Did Bush Lie?  I was under the impression that he really believed their were mass Destruction weapons;.and what has been won exactly?  Is life now thx to democracy better than it was before?  I know media doesn't mention Iraq anymore...but the situation in Iraq is not that good....For everyone who lives in Iraq;..  Mass killing, bomb attacks, rocket attacks are daily situations;..For example yesterday =

Attackers kill 53 in organized raid in Iraq

Uniformed attackers driving military trucks and armed with a car bomb, guns, grenades and suicide belts blasted their way Tuesday into a provincial government headquarters in this northern city, killing at least 53 people in a highly organized raid, according to witnesses and local officials.

53 deads but the 'Western Media' barely mentioned it..because we are used to the idea that their are bomb attacks, mass killing everday in Iraq...

I am British, so I guess I should kinda have the right to vote too, I don't agree with the invasion of the Iraq, and at the time I did not give a shit. But seriously, US intevention just causes a global shit storm that eventually ends in genocide of some sort, democracy or not, if those people really wanted democracy they would have been up in arms about it. I am torn between the Libyan involvement, on one hand the Rebels would have just been torn to shit by Gadafi forces and there would have been a mass genocide, on the other this stinks of perfect set up to have the slice of the usual oil pie. I know many will begin quoting that Iraq/Afghanista/Libya are not even a massive exporters of oil to the west, but that doesn't that the government can't just steal it other ways, under the table.

[Insert a conspiracy picture]

nope and nope. Hussein was a bad leader. But there are lots of bad leaders or worse...

Also, whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction is bleh. You create dumb incidents like what McCarthy did. The witch hunt sorta thing by accusing countries of having nuclear weapons.

And anyways, the U.S. has nukes. And were the only country to ever drop them on another.

So on that basis. I'd be most afraid of the U.S. OMGZ.

I supported it. Saddam Hussein was the hitler of the middle east. Gasing thousands of kurds and sending children into mine fields.. Whether or not there was WMD's or not (the iraqi responsible for that intel recently admitted to lying to the CIA because he said he wanted saddam overthrown, so there weren't anyway), the intentions were still good: to overthrow a fascist and for the common defense of america (for what we thought at the time).

But the only thing that the war has done to me has made me hate helping muslims. Either they seem to bitch when you don't help them or they will whine and start exploding themselves when you do. Same goes for europe with the bitching part. You don't want us to police the world? That's fine with us, let's see how many more genocides happen. *cough* africa *cough*

When I said won I meant that the Iraqi army is now capable of fighting insurgents and defending itself. The Iraqi Government is self sufficient and unless the parties decide to attack one another militarily then the Government is here to stay.

As for is Iraq better now that its a democracy. Depends on who you ask I've met a Christian family that fled Iraq the lady said Al-Qaeda and local muslim militia are trying to whipe Christianity off the face off Iraq. They are targetting Christian's constantly. In that case no Iraq is not better. But I also met someone who was Shiite and he said now that Saddam is gone the Shiite's are finally being treated as equals with Sunni's. Also look at Kurdistan in the North it is prospering like heck thanks to the oil fields and international support, also their is very little violence in the Kurdish parts of Iraq.

Honestly these attacks being carried out are horrible, 50 killed is unacceptable. However Suddam killed way more people on a regular basis. His religious police and Baathist police killed anyone who discented. I'm not sure Iraq is worse off then they were under Saddam, these al-qaeda attacks are publicized and spread like wild fire, but we didn't hear about half the stuff that Saddam did.

I think in all honesty Iraq can't be that much worse off. The only difference is with Saddam his Government secretly killed people and even publically did sometimes. But now Al-Qaeda is publically killing people and constantly terrorising the people.

Would I want to live in Iraq during either time, hell no. But I sure think now is far better for Shiite's, Kurds and the majority of the Iraqi people. But worse for Sunni's and Christian's.

I wouldn't say Bush outright lied. The information before him said WMDs were in Iraq, but it turned out to be faulty intelligence from questionable sources. Now, I would still criticize him for setting up his administration is such a way that made it more likely that such misinformation would happen. As other users have also mentioned, Bush hardly went into the Iraq situation with an open-mind. He gave Iraq an inordinate amount of attention and considered it a bigger threat than it actually was, even prior to 9/11. To sum up, no, he did not flat-out lie. He did not know the truth and then lie to the public. He was misinformed about the issue, but a lot of this misinformation was a result of his own actions and decisions.