Before the war...

[conserv.pat15]

Before we went into Iraq, were you for the war? This question is mainly for the liberals.

 

[Kandahar]

Absolutely not. At the time, it was one of the stupidest things any president has ever done. And it remains one of the stupidest things any president has ever done.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Absolutely not. At the time, it was one of the stupidest things any president has ever done. And it remains one of the stupidest things any president has ever done.

Why was it stupid? Also, are you saying it was stupid and unjustified... Or just stupid?

 

[Kandahar]

Why was it stupid? Also, are you saying it was stupid and unjustified... Or just stupid?

Well, "unjustified" is fairly subjective because it depends entirely on what one's definition of a "just war" is. In my opinion, it was not justified, because Iraq did not pose a serious threat to the United States or any of our allies. And while brutal, Iraq didn't qualify as an urgent humanitarian crisis the way that, say, Darfur does.

But it was most definitely stupid. You don't commit over 100,000 troops to an Arab state with a long history of tribalism and expect them to suddenly become a functional democracy. You don't eliminate the only counterbalance to Iranian hegemony in the region. You don't focus all of your efforts onto a marginally important country, while ignoring REAL developing threats like Iran. And you don't turn a steady supply of oil into a free-for-all unless you absolutely have to.

Then the way it was implemented was horrible. After the invasion, we should've kept the Baath army intact and turned the keys to Iraq over to Ahmed Chalabi and Iyad Allawi to rule the country however they saw fit.

 

[RightOfCenter]

Even at fourteen Iraq seemed like an excuse for our inability to find OBL. Keeping WMD's out of the hands of terrorists did seem like a goal worth achieving though.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

I was young and impressionable four years ago... I thought, yay, lets go get Osama and his little friend Saddam too- I just knew what the newspaper told me. Ah, lost innocence...:roll:

 

[conserv.pat15]

Well, "unjustified" is fairly subjective because it depends entirely on what one's definition of a "just war" is. In my opinion, it was not justified, because Iraq did not pose a serious threat to the United States or any of our allies. And while brutal, Iraq didn't qualify as an urgent humanitarian crisis the way that, say, Darfur does.

But it was most definitely stupid. You don't commit over 100,000 troops to an Arab state with a long history of tribalism and expect them to suddenly become a functional democracy. You don't eliminate the only counterbalance to Iranian hegemony in the region. You don't focus all of your efforts onto a marginally important country, while ignoring REAL developing threats like Iran. And you don't turn a steady supply of oil into a free-for-all unless you absolutely have to.

Then the way it was implemented was horrible. After the invasion, we should've kept the Baath army intact and turned the keys to Iraq over to Ahmed Chalabi and Iyad Allawi to rule the country however they saw fit.

While I think this war was definately justified, I also believe it was a smart move in the greater context of the War on Terror.

 

[disneydude]

Absolutely not. I have always been against this war because even IF you believed that WMD existed and THAT was the rationale for going to war, I always felt that we should have continued to work with the UN sanctions and try to find a diplomatic solution. There was no URGENCY that justified a departure from the War Powers Act that allowed George Bush to act in the manner in which he did.

There was ample evidence before we ever went to war that Cheney and Rumsfield were using 9/11 as an excuse to forward an agenda that they had been trying to pursue for decades prior to 911.

 

[disneydude]

While I think this war was definately justified, I also believe it was a smart move in the greater context of the War on Terror.

How was the war a smart move in the greater context of the war on terror. Rumsfields war has made us weaker in that regard. Additionally, we took our eye off the real targets in the war on terror in order to pursue Rumsfield and Cheney's Iraq agenda which had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks that our nation had recently taken. How do you equate this as a smart move in the war on terror. Objectively....it seems like a rather stupid move in that direction.

 

[Billo_Really]

This is the most cowardly war ever fought in history!

The Most Cowardly War in History
By Arundhati Roy World Tribunal on Iraq Friday 24 June 2005

Opening Statement of Arundhati Roy on behalf of the jury
of conscience of the world tribunal of Iraq.

Istanbul, Turkey - This is the culminating session of the World Tribunal on Iraq. It is of particular significance that it is being held here in Turkey where the United States used Turkish air bases to launch numerous bombing missions to degrade Iraqs defenses before the March 2003 invasion and has sought and continues to seek political support from the Turkish government, which it regards as an ally. All this was done in the face of enormous popular opposition by the Turkish people. As a spokesperson for the jury of conscience, it would make me uneasy if I did not mention that the government of India is also, like the government of Turkey, positioning itself as a ally of the United States in its economic policies and the so-called War on Terror.

...one of the most cowardly wars ever fought in history, a war in which international institutions were used to force a country to disarm and then stood by while it was attacked with a greater array of weapons than has ever been used in the history of war.

The assault on Iraq is an assault on all of us: on our dignity, our intelligence, and our future.

We are a nation based on the rule of law. A nation that is supposed to come from the moral high ground. There is nothing moral about scapegoating a country that results in a half million of their citizens dying as a result of unprovoked armed aggression.

 

[tryreading]

Before we went into Iraq, were you for the war? This question is mainly for the liberals.

I'm not all that liberal (except on personal rights, where I'm 100% liberal), but just wanted to say I was against the war since before it started. The contrived justifications and intelligence seemed obvious to me at the time. Anyway, we had already defeated Iraq in 1991, and had it under our control. There was no need to re-invade. It was a mistake and a misguided shameful deadly farce.

 

[DeeJayH]

Absolutely not. I have always been against this war because even IF you believed that WMD existed and THAT was the rationale for going to war, I always felt that we should have continued to work with the UN sanctions and try to find a diplomatic solution. There was no URGENCY that justified a departure from the War Powers Act that allowed George Bush to act in the manner in which he did.

There was ample evidence before we ever went to war that Cheney and Rumsfield were using 9/11 as an excuse to forward an agenda that they had been trying to pursue for decades prior to 911.

funny how liberals have such selective memories
as if WMDs were the only reason Bush gave to go to war with Iraq :roll:

 

[DeeJayH]

I was, but my excuse is that I was 18, and someone needed to put the ****ing liberals who made up almost the entirity of my high school's faculty in their damn place! I think the war going so wrong only further proves how dumb they were, I mean hell, they were right, and they still had to resort to calling me names when I'd argue with them! And I convinced a whole class full of girls at a near by catholic school to change from anti to pro-war.

In short, I blame it on growing up around people who just assumed whatever Bush was doing was evil, and thus never had a logical reason for anything they believed.

whoa whoa whoa
liberals will go nuts when they read someone try to imply, god forbid come straight out and say, a schools faculty is overweighted by Liberals
that is just a neocon lie and right wing hysteria :doh

 

[Kandahar]

funny how liberals have such selective memories
as if WMDs were the only reason Bush gave to go to war with Iraq :roll:

That was the only reason he constantly pushed. He might've occasionally mentioned other reasons the way he might've mentioned that Saddam was a doodoo-head, but for the most part, the other justifications came AFTER the war started and the American people realized the WMD claims were bogus.

 

[Kandahar]

whoa whoa whoa
liberals will go nuts when they read someone try to imply, god forbid come straight out and say, a schools faculty is overweighted by Liberals
that is just a neocon lie and right wing hysteria :doh

Most universities probably ARE staffed heavily with liberals. What of it? Why is that necessarily a bad thing? What makes you think that their political views have much influence on their students? Even if they do, again, why is this necessarily a bad thing? Have you considered the possible REASONS the faculty leans in one political direction more than the other?

 

[DeeJayH]

Most universities probably ARE staffed heavily with liberals. What of it? Why is that necessarily a bad thing? What makes you think that their political views have much influence on their students? Even if they do, again, why is this necessarily a bad thing? Have you considered the possible REASONS the faculty leans in one political direction more than the other?

because they live in the theoretical
and in a perfect world, I would adopt alot more liberal ideals
but i dont because i find them in conflict with how the real world is

 

[Gardener]

No, I was not for the war.

I wanted us to commit to fighting terrorism, instead.

 

[Doremus Jessup]

Hell no. During the lead up, I looked around at what people were saying, the MSM were all pushing, talk radio people (in my market) were pushing, a sh!t ton of people were pushing, and I thought "What is the rush? We got Iraq on lock, what are they gonna do?" I've paid attention enough to realize that the "smoking gun" wasn't really gonna "come in the form of a mushroom cloud." So, I questioned some more and found more evidence against what everyone was saying. I saw Scott Ritter give a speech, and read about computer simulations of the war, in which a retired general played the part of the Iraqis and won every time.

To top it all off, I was walking to class one evening and one of the local AM stations had a PA set up in the quad for a war rally. This broad was on the mic and yelled: "We gotta go to Iraq and defend our freedoms." It was then that I truly realized how stupid my fellow citizens can be. It was really f@ckin' sad that these people had no clue and were all skeetin' to send their sons and daughters to the desert over sh!t they didn't even know the truth about. :-( :hm

 

[tryreading]

Hell no. During the lead up, I looked around at what people were saying, the MSM were all pushing, talk radio people (in my market) were pushing, a sh!t ton of people were pushing, and I thought "What is the rush? We got Iraq on lock, what are they gonna do?" I've paid attention enough to realize that the "smoking gun" wasn't really gonna "come in the form of a mushroom cloud." So, I questioned some more and found more evidence against what everyone was saying. I saw Scott Ritter give a speech, and read about computer simulations of the war, in which a retired general played the part of the Iraqis and won every time.

To top it all off, I was walking to class one evening and one of the local AM stations had a PA set up in the quad for a war rally. This broad was on the mic and yelled: "We gotta go to Iraq and defend our freedoms." It was then that I truly realized how stupid my fellow citizens can be. It was really f@ckin' sad that these people had no clue and were all skeetin' to send their sons and daughters to the desert over sh!t they didn't even know the truth about. :-( :hm

I agree. I saw it as kind of a mass hysteria at the time. How could it have been so easy to pursue an unnecessary elective war with a country that couldn't fly a biplane unless we approved it? And the situation just gets worse because each time we get new information about the reasoning for the war, we find out the original intelligence was either wrong or deliberately fabricated.

 

[RightOfCenter]

This is the most cowardly war ever fought in history!

We are a nation based on the rule of law. A nation that is supposed to come from the moral high ground. There is nothing moral about scapegoating a country that results in a half million of their citizens dying as a result of unprovoked armed aggression.

There's no such thing as a cowardly war bud. If using so called "cowardly" tactics helps more of our soldiers return home alive, I'm all for it.

 

[rivrrat]

Initially, I was for it. I say that with shame now. I argued vehemently for the war on several debate forums. What happened on 9/11 was more than just "news coverage" to me, it was very personal. And that emotional response was used successfully by the current adminstration to garner my support for the war. I thought we were going there for the right reasons. I believed we were... I *wanted* to believe we were. I wanted justice... vengence... and trusted that the government was telling the truth to the American people (and the world).

I was wrong. I couldn't have been more wrong. I allowed my emotions to be used against my own logic. I didn't research enough initially, I didn't pay enough attention. It was only later that I became decidedly against the war. After I found out that my government lied to me... that they intentionally used my emotions (and the emotions of millions) for support for the war. They counted on us not thinking it through... they counted on us wanting justice at any cost. They counted on our emotions ruling our decisions. And, they made a good bet. They were right.. I will give them that.

Now, I detest the Bush Administration for what they did, and for manipulating me and so many others. And I'm ashamed for allowing myself to be manipulated.

 

[conserv.pat15]

I was wrong. I couldn't have been more wrong. I allowed my emotions to be used against my own logic. I didn't research enough initially, I didn't pay enough attention. It was only later that I became decidedly against the war. After I found out that my government lied to me... that they intentionally used my emotions (and the emotions of millions) for support for the war. They counted on us not thinking it through... they counted on us wanting justice at any cost. They counted on our emotions ruling our decisions. And, they made a good bet. They were right.. I will give them that.

Who lied and what was the lie?

 

[Duke]

Before we went into Iraq, were you for the war? This question is mainly for the liberals.

I was with Howard Zinn on this one:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0819-01.htm

The Case Against War on Iraq
by Howard Zinn

THE BUSH administration's plan for preemptive war against Iraq so flagrantly violates both international law and common morality that we need a real national debate.

The discussion should begin with the recognition that an attack on Iraq would constitute an attack on the Charter of the United Nations, since the United States would then be in violation of several provisions, beginning with Article 1, Section 4, which states: ''All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state... ''

But let us suppose that international law should not stand in the way when extraordinary circumstances demand immediate violent action. Such circumstances would exist if there were, in the language of our own Supreme Court, a ''clear and present danger'' represented by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.

There are facts and there are conjectures about Iraq. The facts: This regime is unquestionably tyrannical; it invaded a neighboring country 12 years ago; it used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels 15 years ago. The conjectures: Iraq may have biological and chemical weapons today. It may possibly be on the way to developing one nuclear weapon.

But none of these facts or conjectures, even if true, make Iraq a clear and present danger. The fact that Iraq is a tyranny would not, in itself, constitute grounds for preemptive war. There are many tyrannies in the world, some kept in power by the United States. Saudi Arabia is only one example. That Iraq has cruelly attacked its Kurdish minority can hardly be a justification for war. After all, the United States remained silent, and indeed was a supporter of the Iraqi regime, when it committed that act. Turkey killed thousands of its Kurds, using US weapons.

Furthermore, other nations which killed hundreds of thousands of their own people (Indonesia, Guatemala) not only were not threatened with war, but received weapons from the United States.

Iraq's history of invading Kuwait is matched by other countries, among them the United States, which has invaded Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, and Panama. True, Iraq may possess, may be developing ''weapons of mass destruction.'' But surely the possession of such weapons, if not used, does not constitute a clear and present danger justifying war.

Other nations have such weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India have nuclear weapons and have come close to using them. And what country has by far the largest store of weapons of mass destruction in the world? And has used them with deadly consequences to millions of people: in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Southeast Asia?

There is the issue of weapons inspection. Iraq insists on certain conditions before it will allow inspections to resume. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year that ''inspectors have to go back in under our terms, under no one else's terms.'' One might ask if the United States would ever allow its biological, chemical, and nuclear facilities to be inspected, under any terms. Is there one moral standard for Iraq and another for the United States?

Before Sept. 11 there was not the present excited talk about a strike on Iraq. Why would that event change the situation? There is no evidence of any connection between Iraq and that act of terrorism. Is it possible that the Bush administration is using the fear created by Sept. 11 to build support for a war on Iraq that otherwise has no legitimate justification?

The talk of war has raised the question of American casualties, and rightly so. Are the lives of our young people to be expended in the dubious expectation that the demise of Saddam will bring democracy to Iraq? And what of the inevitable death of thousands of Iraqis, - all of them made doubly victims - first of Saddam, then of Bush? Shall we add a new death toll to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (the figures are from the UN) who have died since the application of sanctions?

A war against Iraq has no logical connection to the tragic events of Sept. 11. Rather than diminishing terrorism, such an attack would further inflame anger against the United States and may well lead to more terrorist attacks. We have a right to wonder if the motive for war is not stopping terrorism but expanding US power and controlling Mideast oil.

A preemptive war against Iraq, legally impermissible, morally unpardonable, would be a cause for shame to future generations. Let the debate begin, not just in Congress, but throughout the nation.

Duke

 

[Hatuey]

Who lied and what was the lie?

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush

Radio address, October 5, 2002

OAK RIDGE — President Bush delivered a 35-minute talk today that defended the administration's campaign against terror in the Mideast and elsewhere.

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," he said.

Bush admits no WMDs found, defends Iraq invasion

....Strike one?

-----------------

 

[rivrrat]

Who lied and what was the lie?

"[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

These were the kickers for me. I was led to believe that Iraq/Saddam had something to do with what happened on 9/11.




"We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

"We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

"Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.