I voted no. It was longer than WWII and did nothing but hurt American interests. We can depose dictators without bombs. Saddam was a terrible person and needed to go, but we could have waited for a movement like what happened in Libya and funnel our support to rebels. Saddam's regime would have disappeared eventually.
Perhaps it would have been if we had done it right. We shall see how it all turns out, but right now I am guessing no. Had it been done right, the answer would be unequivically yes.
Get informed: UNICEF foreign adoption policy is killing orphans and the US gives $132 million to UNICEF every year. Stop the madness.
For the best news and commentary on the 2012 election from the GOP perspective, visit www.whitehouse12.com.
However, we cannot depose dictators without bombs when they are kissing a veto wielding, UN members ass. That would be France, btw.
Further, it was not longer than WWII when you add the 60 plus years of "occupation" of Germany and Japan.
Don't forget invading Iraq was a preemptive strike. Iraq was simply argued to be a threat. Yeah, Iraq did some ****ed up things... nobody enjoyed hearing Bush screaming and stomping his feet that war must be declared because of a gruesome history of genocide and torture. Nobody was defending a right to commit genocide when we were opposing the invasion of Iraq. We just never thought the war made sense and the costs were too high. The only reason much of the public liked the idea of it, was because they public didn't like Saddam Hussein and because of our history. It was a war based on emotional propaganda. There were too few questions asked and too little thinking about the consequences.
78 people voted yes, it was worth it. I have been reading the thread and haven't seen a single argument presented as to how America is better off as a result of the war. Did I miss something here?