Knowing everything you do now, would you support an invasion of Iraq?

[bgwah]

It's 2002-2003, but you know everything you do now. Would you support the invasion of Iraq?

[Lunar]

I opposed it when I thought Saddam had WMDs an the country would be easy to occupy, so it's even easier to oppose it now when it's dragged on, no WMDs, our our world reputation is shattered  

I think Saddam didn't pose an imminent or prolonged threat against the United States' security, only our geopolitical interests.  The entire policy of preemptive war seriously disturbs me.

[หมูเด้ง]

I would oppose it. I would consider a proxy war using the Kurds, though. If Saddam was as weak as he was, it wouldn't take much to destabilize the country using the Kurds. I would also support this alternative of war on the idea that Turkey has become more hostile of late and that we could use an Independent Kurdistan as a bargaining chip. Also, the Badr and Sadr brigades gaining traction in a destabilized Iraq could give the other Arab states more of a reason to support our containment of Iran.

[??????????]

Yep. I think the reasons given earlier were more then enough.

[Daniel Adams]

Yes I would. It was only a matter of time before Saddam convinced his European allies, which is exactly what they were, to lift sanctions. Once that happened, Saddam could easily resume his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs and have WMDs ready within a few months. The prospect of both Iraq and Iran with nuclear weapons is nightmarish.

Also, Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism. We may argue about his links with al-Qaeda in particular, but the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that Saddam supported several anti-American and anti-Semitic terrorist groups. We are locked a war with Islamofascist terror in general, not only against al-Qaeda.

The benefits of the invasion are becoming increasingly clear. Iraq is well on its way to becoming a successful democracy capable of protecting its own people; Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds are becoming reconciled; and al-Qaeda has suffered an enormous defeat, not only militarily, but also morally. Their mistakes in Iraq have ruined their credibility in the Arab World.

[JSojourner]

I opposed it when I thought Saddam had WMDs an the country would be easy to occupy, so it's even easier to oppose it now when it's dragged on, no WMDs, our our world reputation is shattered  

I think Saddam didn't pose an imminent or prolonged threat against the United States' security, only our geopolitical interests.  The entire policy of preemptive war seriously disturbs me.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[หมูเด้ง]

Actually, what is interesting about the "surge" is that there may be tactics that are far superior to preemptive war in dealing with aggressive dictators. For example, something out of Reagan's or Carter's book would include proxy wars. Clinton kind of bridged the gap between Reagan's strategies and W's strategies, with his air campaigns that helped Albanian rebels gain their freedom. What we need is to reborrow Reagan's strategies, but have better policies for making allies.

[Franzl]

I opposed it then, so I'd definitely oppose it now.

[Jake]

I could listen to an argument in favor. The grand strategy wasn't really that flawed; an even vaguely democratic Iraq allied with the United States is a massive advantage for us in the region and the plan to acquire such an ally was solid. The way the plan was implemented was atrocious however. With a better first six months, we could've been at the point we are now five years ago.

[Keystone Phil]

Yes, I would but I'd be a bit more skeptical and obviously more careful when it came to troop levels and such.

I still believe that this mission was worth it in the long run.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, as it has always been. Too bad that a majority of Senate Democrats, and a large number of House Democrats thought that it was a good idea. I was really pissed when that resolution was passed.

[phk]

I could listen to an argument in favor. The grand strategy wasn't really that flawed; an even vaguely democratic Iraq allied with the United States is a massive advantage for us in the region and the plan to acquire such an ally was solid. The way the plan was implemented was atrocious however. With a better first six months, we could've been at the point we are now five years ago.

[AkSaber]

No freaking way!!

I think it's obvious that after 5 and a half years, this war had absolutely nothing to do with fighting terrorism or enhancing national security. It was about manipulating the worldwide price of oil to further the interests of U.S. and Mid East oil firms. But what pisses me off the most is how the military has been treated. Ever since that Hussein statue was torn down in Baghdad, our government basically bound our military's hands and wouldn't let them find the insurgents beat the sh**t out of those murdering animals. Our soldiers were being murdered on a daily basis and not a damn thing was done to stop it. The Democrats had to win big in the midterms to make the President finally do something.

Ugh.... I can't tell you how ashamed and disgusted I am that I ever supported this war.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I would have supported wiping Iraq and Afghanistan off the map (and Syria while we're nearby) via air and not sending our brave troops in to be stuck in such a difficult situation for so many years at the cost of so many of their lives and their injuries.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Of course not (normal).

[Chief Justice PiT]

     Definitely not. In hindsight, taking out Hussein was a terrible waste of time. We need the armed forces at the ready to invade any country on a moment's notice. Invading countries for no good reason obstructs the readiness of the armed forces.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Though I was only 17 at the time, I was always a bit squeamish about the war in Iraq.  I remember a lot of local resort owners were hurt at the time because people were freaking out and canceling their reservations "because of the war"...

It's not something we should take lightly...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I opposed it from the beginning, based largely on geo-political reasons.

That was before horiffic mis-management.

The administration wrapped themselves in the flag, they used images of 9/11 and exploited a terrified nation - to support a War that had nothing to do with it.

Worst of all, those who opposed it were called unpatriotic... that f**king "have you forgotten" song.

[AkSaber]

Worst of all, those who opposed it were called unpatriotic... that f**king "have you forgotten" song.

Yeah, but that was the genius of it. They show images of September 11th, then say we're doing this because of that, and anyone who opposed it became an unpatriotic terrorist lover.

[Sbane]

Worst of all, those who opposed it were called unpatriotic... that f**king "have you forgotten" song.

Yeah, but that was the genius of it. They show images of September 11th, then say we're doing this because of that, and anyone who opposed it became an unpatriotic terrorist lover.

And considering how united the country was after 9/11......ugh just thinking about it makes me angry. Simple Rovian tactics really, it's one thing to use it in a campaign but in governance? Disgusting.

[Nym90]

No.

The money and lives would've been far, far better utilized elsewhere (health care, education, transportation infrastructure, etc.)

[tik 🪀✨]

I did not support it then and so, of course, would even more strongly not support it now.

All I can do at this point, however, is hope that somehow Iraq becomes a pluralistic free democracy and maintains it. It is a good ending to a horrible story and by no means justifies any of it. It's an absolute disgrace.

[Eraserhead]

I opposed it then, so I'd definitely oppose it now.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

No then and now. And I support an immediate and unconditional pullout of all troops immediately.

[Хahar 🤔]

I opposed it then, so I'd definitely oppose it now.