Should the USA have just gone in and bombed all of IRAQ vs. trying to be careful who or what we blow up?
553990
Throw out some flyer's from airplanes and helicopters, giving the innocent 30 days to leave...\n\nThen bomb them ALL!! Done & Over...
1099886
'fraid so. our brave american 'heros' will be slaughtered & for what? iraq was better off before we went in. saddams crimes are out of our juristiction. iraq had nothing to do with 911 nor did they have wmd. what they did have was oil that they were wanting to sell on the open market. rather than have the competition, its easier to bs the usa into stealing their oil & selling it to ourselves at inflated prices. so what if we sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives, profits are up. theyll probly reinstate the draft.
1179634
In my opinion the search for Bin Laden was justifiable after the tower attacks.  But going into Iraq to so called free the country and derstroy the weopons of mass destruction was bullshit.  The only reason we are in Iraq is for the oil.  Our occupation of Iraq should have been over a long time ago.  And increasing the budget to continue where we no longer belong is also bullshit.  Bush is running the country into the ground,  why don't we take care of our own country first before everyone else's.  We have people starving and living in the streets and he takes 8 billion dollars to keep our friends and family fighting his own personal war that his father didn't finish.  It is time for him to go!  We need someone who will take care of his own first.
159153
Well, they're smarter than the people who are using them.  Smart bombs may get the wrong target, but Bush got the whole wrong country.  Given that the people we're supposed to be fighting (as in the ones who attacked us) are primarily located in Afganstan and Saudi Arabia, but our genius leaders decided to bomb Iraq, I'd say smart bombs are are the smartest things in military command positions today.
580583
I would assume we would go after whomever attacked us!\nIt's funny...\nEveryone backed Bush after the attacks.  Now that it's been a long while, everyone wants to point fingers.\nDid we all forget the thousands of people who were crushed, burned, and leapt to their deaths?\nI personally have not...
1165654
Once we know who did it, I'm sure that no matter which administration were in power, they would take the appropriate retaliatory response proportional to the nature of the attack (at least I'd like to believe that but then again, look at the whack-jobs we elect).  \nI think even if the attacker was um, let's say, Finland.... if they used some terrible WMD, then we'd certainly retaliate by whatever means is necessary.\nIt's been said that Democrats (I'm an Independent) are soft on terrorism, but I'm sure Al Gore wouldn't have rolled over and played dead.  In fact, he probably would have concentrated on Afghanistan, Al Quaeda, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden.  Bush is doing a Hitler number, that is, fighting a war on 2 fronts.  \nYes, if we were attacked, even a president Pillsbury Dough Boy would retaliate, so we wouldn't lose face in the world.  But we're certainly losing STATURE by the way Charlie McCarthy is running things.
618507
United States is at war to defeat "terrorism." Unless you want your own busses and shops being exploded everday here in the U.S., then take my word that fighting in Iraq is for the best.\n\nBelieve me, someone had to take action in order to prevent more planes exploding, car bombs, or possible nuclear attacks.
1119142
No. We should allow a hostile country to develop any weapon they want, so they can attack us later on. Then we can sit back and bitch and moan about how Bush screwed it up. We should wait for the inneffectual UN to pass 20+ resolutions over the next 10-20 years. Then once they have the bomb and have attacked us we can be blamed for it, and rebuild their country better than it was before. All while they burn our flag and chant, "Death to America."
726502
We could pull out and let them dip into a civil war, or stay there and let our troops endure the war.  We should not have gone there in the first place, and if we felt we had no choice, we shouldn't have bombed them back to the stone age.\n\nAny way you look at it, the Iraqi's lose.
895556
Aaron-iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11. bush said that himself.\n\nwhat did they do?\nwell, 9/11, wait that wasnt true, wmds, wait that wasnt true either...(even though they did find a barn filled w/ a few hundred pounds of expolsives and ammo, but it only made the 10th page of the CT post)\n\nwell i guess you can argue oil, saddam(even though there are many worse dictators who get no attention)\n\nor that it was supposedly an easy takeover.
588488
xo_hippie_xo said it best- who could be for war?\n\nBut that's also just simplistic.\nI think we did the right thing by going in. I think we're doing the right thing with what we're doing now. No, we didn't find WMDs. But we didn't have to. What people seem to forget was that Saddam, who had a history of using chemical weapons, had to PROVE that he destroyed them all, not that we had to find them. That was one of several agreements Saddam made after the 1st Gulf War. He failed to do so, and to this day, we still don't know where several thousands of anthrax went. We certainly couldn't just take him at his word that it was all destroyed- he shelled Israel with several conventional munitions of a banned type that he also claimed were destroyed. \n\nThank God for people like m1a1mikegolf. He's absolutely correct with his assessment of the poll. Reminds me of a commentator who stated "only 23% of people in the US think we can win the war in Iraq. Other polls show that 99.99% of Americans have never been to Iraq."\n\n(I wonder how many can even find Iraq on the map...)\n\nSo, simplistic as it sounds, I guess I am `for' the war.
425044
No.  All Bush had to do was read one of his fathers essays to know why it was a bad idea.  Even Cheney was against invading Iraq before he was for it.  The war has created more terrorists and terrorism while not dealing with any of the sources of terrorism.\n\n"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."\n\n    * At the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991
821248
Could we defeat them? Yes we could. Do we currently have the balls to jump in a furball with them and stick it out to the win? No, we do not. Witness Iraq and all the mewling and whining even after it was carefully explained that it would be a long, expensive process.\n\nShould we? No. All we need do is show that we have the guts and determination to finish what we started in Iraq, they will back off.
602358
Illegal war or not, we have made a mess and we need to help clean it up and finish the job. There are people over there who need to be protected so that they can form a just and fair government of their choosing and to have a chance at a better life. \n\nShould we have gone in in the first place? maybe not. Where we lied to? It looks like it. Was Hussein a direct threat to us? That is debatable. Irregardless, we went in, screwed up the occupation and rebuilding and underestimated the opposition. We now have to fix it as best we can. It is like if I went into your neighborhood and spilled a load of toxic trash all over. If there is no one capable of cleaning it up, I should. I should not leave the mess for you to deal with.
1034475
well... it would also help if there were any of the terrorists that attacked us in iraq... \n\napparently they should be saying "fight the country that has nothing to do with terrorists over there, so we can give the actual terrorists that did attack us plenty of time to regroup and plan another attack on us over here"\n\nsacolunga: thank you for coping and pasting someone else's horribly bias history lesson... that really doesn't answer the question at all... \ntypical Republican, when you don't have an answer, just start throwing out a bunch of propaganda...
1019721
the us could have prevented the first 9-11 from happening, they knew before hand and chose to do nothing. So what makes anyone think they will do anything the next time something like this happens
211623
If you make a mistake, do you clean it up or do you let it be?\n\nWe created Iraq by giving him military support durning the Iraq-Iran war. \nWe also created Iran through giving a dictator our support to opress his people. \n\nWe are responsible for Saddam's military appetite and the Islamic government taking power in Iran. \n\nWe made a mess and we need to clean it up.\n\nCountry girl you are right, We were attacked by radical Islam on 9/11 and we are fighting radical Islam in Iraq. Yes they are connected!!!