It was correct for USA to go to war in Iraq in 2003?

On average, everyone strongly disagrees with significant nonconsensus between 263 voters.


Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

It was correct for USA to go to war in Iraq in 2003

You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.

Reasons To Disagree

There were no weapons of mass destruction. The UN said there were no WMD. Iraq has never been a threat to USA. There are far worse dictators in the world than Sudam Hussain, and there are far worse attrocities, eg Sudan, Zimbabwae, etc. Note, The turkish are as bad to the Kurds as Iraq ever was, and US supplied the weapons for both of those agressors. So many innocent civilians are dying in Iraq because the USA invaded that country. There was no reason so great as to cause this pain and suffering to both Iraqi's or the soldiers who have died there.

31 July 2005

No UN mandate

10 February 2006

Try as you might to justify this unjust war, it is illegal and just plain wrong! Freedom might come with a price but who is paying that price? Not the murderers that invade other countries

12 March 2006

Illegal, immoral, and with a rationale that had no basis in fact.

12 April 2006

Saddam was Uncle Sam's henchman in the Middle East until he invaded Kuwait in 1990. The US supported him throughout the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and supplied him with both weapons and intelligence. It sought to minimize his gassing of the Kurds at the time the atrocities were committed. The US position is, as usual, totally hypocritical.

11 August 2006

Absoluetly not!

10 January 2007

There would be more rational justification for invading the USA and taking down its current government. They have been responsible for far more deaths and suffering than Saddam ever caused, they are internationally aggressive and a real and present danger to the rest of the world, they are flagrantly abusing both national and international law . . . . and talk about weapons of mass destruction!! Of course the USA was both ethically and legally wrong to invade Iraq.

16 March 2007

It was a disaster!

14 June 2007

Saddam needed to be removed, but remaining the country "for its own good'was bull, nothing has come of it but more pain and suffering, incorrectly labelled as HELP

15 October 2007

In hindsight of course not. It was pretty obvious in 2003 too - a general who said he would need many more troops (a few hundred thousand; I can't remember the exact number - maybe 400,000) to secure peace in Iraq was sacked. Bush & co were simply much too keen to get their war on. There were also conflicting intelligence reports and the UN said they'd found no evidence of WMD, and if I remember correctly, they wanted to continue to placate the U.S.

21 December 2007

America didnt save europe from the nazi in ww2. They did stuff all but look out for their own ass. I dont see any reason iraq needed to be invaded. Sadam couldve been taken down by a special forces team. Or a missle. Or poisoned. Not by a full scale invasion that is still active till this day.

30 June 2010

It was wrong. They lied. What about Zimbabwe, Burma, Tibet, Darfur, ....? No oil.

10 October 2010


Reasons To Agree

Whilst the reasons for invading Iraq were somewhat flimsy, it is time the world stood up to evil dictators and not tolerate the atrocities they commit against the citizens they have control over. Whilst it was not known exactly whether or not Saddam Hussein was stokpiling WMD, there is no question that he has used them in the past to devastating effect against the Kurds. Freedom always comes at a price. Just as the world had to oppose Hitler, at great cost, so too we must resist other dictators who commit murder with impunity with the aim of remaining in power.

30 August 2005

Iraq was in repeatedly in breach of it's UN Security Council Resolutions for over a decade. Namely, supporting terrorism, refusing to verify WMD had been destroyed, not having missiles with a range over 150km. The only part of the Resolution it didn't break was WMD! Ordinary Iraqis were suffering at the hands of UN indecision as a embargo on all goods, except basic medicines and food was being enforced by the UN. It is estimated by some of the groups that opposed the war in Iraq that 2 million people died as a result of the embargo. As the UN was not willing to resolve the situations (or more accurately, unable to because of diplomatic standoffs) the US, Britain and others finally acted to ensure Iraq was both no longer a threat in the region (and therefore a threat to the US and Britain's interests) and no longer supported terrorism. Now Iraq begin to redevelop it's resources to benefit all Iraqis.

22 October 2005

saddam needed to be taken down, people need democracy!

27 March 2006

A thousand Iraqis are returning to Iraq per day. America has obviously done something right and it's time that the media admitted that fact.

10 December 2007

they deserved it

7 May 2008

When your country is attacked, and your people die, it's time for any great leader to strike back, America was right in saving europe from Nazi Germany in WW2, it was right in fighting communism and the poor quality of life it creates, and it was right in trying to make the western world a safer place.

4 November 2008

they have now proven no wepons of mass distruction they have stopped sadam so now its time for them to leave irac to heal

18 February 2010

Reasons for Remain Neutral

No reasons have yet been given to remain neutral.

My View

You can make your comments once you have voted.

You need to register a voting profile or login before you can vote.

Back to all voting categories or
Back to "World Politics - Iraq"

This website is sponsored by Website World. Click here to find out more.