I picked neutral. Something had to be done about Hussein, but I dont think war was the best option.

Yes. Saddam had not lived up to his end of the cease fire agreement. And there were provisions for military action if Saddam's Iraq did not live up to those resolutions. In this case, as Saddam failed to live up to those agreements, the action was legal and correct. And should have probably been taken sooner, perhaps by the previous administration.

Ahh the ole 20/20 hindsight

Shouldve's Couldve's and Wouldve's...He's dead..this is 2008...deal with the present.

History is written by conquers.

and only the dead have seen the end of war.

This is the present.
The question is completely relevant.

The question of whether is was right or wrong to go into Iraq...?

I remember a defiant Iraq of the so called UN resolutions.

Just when exactly is the rest of the world supposed to sit back and let an A-hole like that dictate terms to the greater part of the world.The UN has shown itself a toothless pussy cat and as such it is every country's right.."Right" to then exercise it's own best judgement...no matter the consequences that come from it....

Do nothing...that strategy is lame.

Again looking back things always look clearer but one must put himself back in that time along with the mindset and circumstances ...this reminds me of the thread of whether or not dropping the bombs on Japan was right.

You people love dirty stinky laundry.

Hey, I know a defiant Iran that's doing the same thing today and they are accused of having the ability to create more terrible weapons than Iraq supposedly had.

"Saddle up boys, we're having lunch in Tehran" wouldn't solve anything. It didn't work in Baghdad either...

Of course. With an ongoing war costing hundrerds of thousands of lives, it is correct to question if it was right to begin* it. A resolution to that question opens up the issue of what to do next.

*Naturally, there will be difference over the precise time the war began, and who started it. I am taking it to mean the initiation of large-scale military operations, Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This type of behaviour is not unique to Iraq. Remember that "with us or against us" stuff? That falls 100% under what you've just described. Decide for yourself whether its acceptable behaviour.

Of course it's a country's right to act without regard to consequence, that's what sovereignty is all about. It is a country's responsibility to act carefully, which means regard for consequence. It is also in a country's interest to consider what consequences will come from its actions.
There were and are more than two options.

Yes....

I agree, the official reasoning for the war was incorrect, but that does not hide the fact that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and it was right to remove him from power. I significant reason for the post-war troubles was the populations greed for power and the ridiculous way they follow these extremist clerics like flies around s**t! Yes, the USA made some major cock ups in their post-war plans but it does not hide the fact that a lot of the problems endured today are due to the population trying to "do their own thing". Perhaps they need a dictator to keep them in check? I don't know, but I think the world is a better place without a dictator like that.

"The only thing necessary for the survival of evil is for good men to do nothing". I'm sure you've all heard it before, but don't think I'm calling Bush and Blair good people, I can't stand the idiots, but its the fact that no one could really give a s**t about what other people in the world go through as long as they can live in their ignorant bliss!:nope: . Shame on them! I do believe however that some of Saddam's weapons went to Syria and/or Iran... they've interfered and meddled with Iraq's political landscape enough since the Bathist (sp?) regime was toppled to warrant the thought!

And no one think about saying "you should go there yourself, you would change your mind" kind of talk. My dads been to Iraq three times along with two other mates of mine, so I know what its like out there. I don't mean to be rude, but I've had it before and it makes my blood boil...

Yeah, I keep hoping the Chinese will come over here and "relieve George Bush of his Presidential duties"...;) It's all up to one's point of view. The following is just my opinion...

Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and was considered a heinous criminal (which he was). The problem was, Americans didn't care about the Kurds! It wasn't on the "national radar" with 9/11 so recently in the past. It wasn't until the Bush Administration came up with WMDs and al-Qaeda links implicating Iraq with 9/11 that Americans got "nervous".

Other than the Kurdish issue, how Sadadm ran his country was none of our "concern". He wasn't at war with any of our allies at the time and wasn't threatening to go to war. The BS about "humanitarian issues" is just that, BS! If the Bush Administration was so concerned about "humanitarian issues" there are a dozen other countries that would have qualified for invasion. Why Iraq?

How would Americans feel if the Chinese came over with a "shock and awe" strategy and ran Dubb-Ya to ground because they felt his War in Iraq was totally unjust and thought he should be held accountable for "crimes against humanity" in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

I think Americans wouldn't like it any better than the Iraqi's do with our occupation and the shambles we've help create there by bungling and mis-handling the war.

Killed by Iraqi's... I don't see any genocide being committed by the US, its an Iraqi vs Iraqi situation.

Your right about people not marching into North Korea to stop the wrong doing there... but thats the way the world works. In an ideal world the people with the power to do something would go an make things for the better. Send in forces to crush the chinese supplied genocide, march into North Korea to stop the systematic killing of thousands in concentration camps, KIDS are getting catarax FFS over here thats an illness of the elderly. The famine in NK wiped out 10% of its population while its leadership enjoys everything it would want, Kim Jong Il was the biggest customer for Conag (sp?) in the world at one point, yet he can't get simple food stuffs to his people. This is just a few examples of the important things the world is ignoring because it doesn't suit their political agenda's. To quote a certain person: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". Yes he was using it as backing for his political moves in the cold war... but the moral behind it remains the same. The world is ignoring the major issues and things that need doing because it would be hard, hard on their poll figures... it would seem that opinion polls are more important than thousands of human lives... :damn:

Because the Chinese would have their arses handed to them if they tried. :D The Chinese do not have the power or means to do anything beyond their shores.

But they could turn most if not all of the USA to dust if they wanted, but not by conventional means.

Maybe someone says. "True enough but it was the US that created the situation in the first place!" and so forth...
Bingo! And I couldn't agree with you more. IMO, Iraq was on "someone's" personal political agenda and when the "opportunity" arose, he seized it and the rest is being written as history...

A Chinese vs. American War would be devastating for the entire planet and I sincerly hope it never comes to that... I think we'd see it all, NBC out the wazzoo... And nobody but the cockroaches would win...:huh:

Doesn't even bare thinking about......Armageddon http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/7...maleqj9xl4.gif

Of course Iraq was on Bush's personal agenda. He wanted to finish the job his old man start but chickened out of! I don't agree with the way that the US put over the war in Iraq, but I'm glad they did it for other reasons, hence why I voted yes. I hope they stay there for a while, make sure that the situation somewhat stabilizes so it doesn't fall to pieces as soon as we jump ship. I just wish the rest of the world would get their act together, and for the UN to actually start teething instead of pussy footing around appeasing everyone who doesn't do their will because its a useless organization like the League of Nations at the moment. The world would be a better place (although perhaps after a time of unrest) after we rid ourselves of dictators etc where and whenever possible.