Knowing what you know now, should the U.S. still have invaded Iraq? (1 Viewer)

[barfolemew]

I know this is a typical Tim Russert question. I would love to hear some differing opinions, so please elaborate on the yes or no answers.

 

[Jerry]

I know this is a typical Tim Russert question. I would love to hear some differing opinions, so please elaborate on the yes or no answers.

Based on what the world knew and supported doing then, it was the right thing to do at the time.

Monday-morning Quarterbacking it doesn't help the situation today.

I don't really care to get back into it now, though. Just dropping off my opinion.

 

[Goobieman]

I know this is a typical Tim Russert question. I would love to hear some differing opinions, so please elaborate on the yes or no answers.

No offense, but its a silly proposition to ask someone to review a decison, especially one that did not resuly in an outcome you expected, based on hindsight.

Its not too far removed from asking someone if they still beat their wife.

Given the information available at the time, the invasion of Iraq was certainly the right thing to do.

 

[niftydrifty]

I answered, "No, there wasn't an iminent threat or real danger from Saddam."

But I don't understand the "knowing what you now know" caveat. This was well known pre-invasion. Saddam was never a threat. But you didn't hear much about this from the MSM in early 2003.

Monday-morning Quarterbacking it doesn't help the situation today.

True, but that's not the issue. Here's the issue. We have a war now. We have a war now because Iraq was invaded. Iraq was invaded due to a massive intelligence failure. There was an intelligence failure because our leaders (executive and legislative) are incompetent. Our leaders are incompetent because they are chosen by a misinformed public. Our public is misinformed because of the media. The media misinform because they need to sensationalize news in order to make money.

Recognizing these problems, and wanting to do something about them isn't monday-morning quarterbacking.

I say we disregard the opinions of the all the leaders and pundits that got it so wrong in 2002/2003, pre-invasion. Let's fire, and ignore, all the monday-morning armchair generals that were so eager to invest in what was predicted to be a catastrophe, by anyone that knew anything about the Middle East.

THAT would help the situation.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I thought it was the wrong decision at the time. I've seen nothing since to convince me otherwise.

Of course... all the people who made the wrong decision then are trampling over each other in line to make the wrong decision now-- and render the lives and resources we've expended on Iraq a waste and opening up a real security threat where there was only phantoms.

 

[niftydrifty]

Given the information available at the time, the invasion of Iraq was certainly the right thing to do.

Regardless of any information available at any time, the invasion of Iraq was still the wrong thing to do.

What would be the first things your spouse would say if you were to drive home in a new car tonight?

"How much did it cost?"

"Can we afford it?"

Weighing the benefits versus the costs are what we do when we run our homes. But something nutty, something completely utterly against this conventional wisdom, takes place in our national discourse.

In 2003, we didn't hear much about costs versus benefits, from our leaders or from the media. It was all out there, but it was all thrown under the rug, or dismissed as being "unpatriotic," or what have you.

The situation would devolve into a Civil War. The occupation would go on endlessly and it would be very difficult to get out. The whole world would hate us. The invasion and aftermath would promote terrorism and inspire attacks on the USA. Saddam was not a threat to the US. All of this was said four years ago. All of it was virtually ignored.

 

[Jerry]

True, but that's not the issue. Here's the issue. We have a war now. We have a war now because Iraq was invaded. Iraq was invaded due to a massive intelligence failure. There was an intelligence failure because our leaders (executive and legislative) are incompetent. Our leaders are incompetent because they are chosen by a misinformed public. Our public is misinformed because of the media. The media misinform because they need to sensationalize news in order to make money.

Recognizing these problems, and wanting to do something about them isn't monday-morning quarterbacking.

I say we disregard the opinions of the all the leaders and pundits that got it so wrong in 2002/2003, pre-invasion. Let's fire, and ignore, all the monday-morning armchair generals that were so eager to invest in what was predicted to be a catastrophe, by anyone that knew anything about the Middle East.

THAT would help the situation.

Per the title of the thread, Monday-morning quarterbacking is exactly what this thread is all about. Maybe the war issue in general is not about morning-morning quarterbacking, but this thread is what I was speaking of, not the war issue in general.

The world agreed with our intelligence. In science we call that independent verification or pier review.

We have since acquired new information. Just as in science we adjust our theories accordingly, we will now adjust our actions and global policies accordingly.

Just as I care not about discussions of past theories which have since been changed when new information becomes available, so do I not care about beating similar dead horses like this thread.

As teacher says:
“Bush lied”
“Nu uhh”
“Yah huh”

More of the same.

 

[Jerry]

I thought it was the wrong decision at the time. I've seen nothing since to convince me otherwise.

Of course... all the people who made the wrong decision then are trampling over each other in line to make the wrong decision now-- and render the lives and resources we've expended on Iraq a waste and opening up a real security threat where there was only phantoms.

Where is the Iraqi oil were were told would help pay for this war?

Bad decision or not, I don’t really car about that now. I want the oil d***it!

 

[Jerry]

What would be the first things your spouse would say if you were to drive home in a new car tonight?

"How much did it cost?"

"Can we afford it?"

She wouldn't ask any questions if she knew what was good for her :mrgreen:

Ba-boom, psh

What do ya tell a woman with 2 black eyes?

Notin, she's allready been told twice!

Ba-doom, psh

 

[nort_12345]

going into iraq was the worst thing the bush adm. has done. saddam wasn't a threat. we should have been trying to confirm who was responsible for 9/11. and to anyone who says that it was a good idea going into iraq, think about the almost $1 trillion we spent, the hundreds of thousands of iraqis killed, and 2,000 us soldiers killed. and for what? if we pull out now (which would be the best thing to do) we will have accomplished nothing. but we should pull out know to prevent anymore deaths on either side or innocents. iraq is in a civil war and the us soldiers can't do anything about it.

 

[DeeJayH]

Regardless of any information available at any time, the invasion of Iraq was still the wrong thing to do.

What would be the first things your spouse would say if you were to drive home in a new car tonight?

"How much did it cost?"

"Can we afford it?"

Weighing the benefits versus the costs are what we do when we run our homes. But something nutty, something completely utterly against this conventional wisdom, takes place in our national discourse.

In 2003, we didn't hear much about costs versus benefits, from our leaders or from the media. It was all out there, but it was all thrown under the rug, or dismissed as being "unpatriotic," or what have you.

The situation would devolve into a Civil War. The occupation would go on endlessly and it would be very difficult to get out. The whole world would hate us. The invasion and aftermath would promote terrorism and inspire attacks on the USA. Saddam was not a threat to the US. All of this was said four years ago. All of it was virtually ignored.

cost is the last reason one should use for deciding whether or not to go to war
that is just retarded because it has nothing to do with why we go to war

 

[nort_12345]

cost is the last reason one should use for deciding whether or not to go to war
that is just retarded because it has nothing to do with why we go to war

but was it worth $1 trillion to get hundreds of thousands of people killed?

 

[FierceEnigma12z]

Considering that was not our objective, getting people killed, the answer to that is no.Unfortunately,people die in war.We didn't go there for no reason.Islamic terrorists are all over the mid-east, they are willing to hurt Americans to the very last one of them.Even if Saddam was not a major threat at the time, he would have eventually become some kind of threat.Maybe he did not approve of some of the terrorist organizations but the reality is there were terrorists there weather he liked it or not, he let it go on.All he was concerned with was how good his mustard gas worked testing it on his own citizens.We have to somehow stop the growing violence in the mid-east, unfortunately, leaving isn't going to accomplish such a thing.

 

[DeeJayH]

but was it worth $1 trillion to get hundreds of thousands of people killed?

it will be worth it if the looney left lets the military win
but they wont let the military do its job, so the war will be lost


and your hundreds of thousands is a crock of ****

 

[nort_12345]

it will be worth it if the looney left lets the military win
but they wont let the military do its job, so the war will be lost


and your hundreds of thousands is a crock of ****

yeah, the right are doing a ***** job and haven't gotten us anywhere

iraqi death count:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/

 

[aquapub]

going into iraq was the worst thing the bush adm. has done. saddam wasn't a threat. we should have been trying to confirm who was responsible for 9/11.

Yeah, God forbid we actually fight the enemy.

Liberals relentlessly, relentlessly undermined Afghanistan until the moment it could be used to undermine another military campaign. We KNEW who was responsible for 9/11, we took the Taliban out, and then we took out the genocidal terror-sponsor in Iraq...AFTER 15 years of expelled inspectors and failed diplomacy.

And, as if Saddam's attacks on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, his incessant launching of SCUDS at a nuclear power (Israel), his attempt to assassinate an American president, his pursuit of nuclear technology (before AND after Israel took out his first reactor), etc. wasn't enough to prove he was an unacceptable threat in a post 9/11 world, we found WMD in Iraq.

 

[Thales]

Knowing what we know now, I don't think pretty much anyone would have gone into Iraq. Sadam wasn't an immenent threat and our troops could be better used in other locations. Sadly we DIDN'T know what we know now, and the problem facing us is figuring out how to fix the massive problem of Iraq.

We can't just pull out of Iraq now - we all know that if we were to suddenly withdraw it would send the country into even more complete chaos. The government we've propped up for so long would find the rug pulled out from under it and last a few months. Then most of them would probably be executed...

The question is, "How many troops should we have in Iraq?"

We need to come up with some comprehensive military stragety by working TOGETHER, not arguing bitterly over two options and letting it deteriorate into an endless screaming contest. I plan to read the Baker report before I come to a conclusion about what must be done. The issue requires more deep thought than your average person would give it credit for.

 

[aquapub]

it will be worth it if the looney left lets the military win
but they wont let the military do its job, so the war will be lost

Liberals will, without a doubt, undo every component of the war on terror. If their stated positions would've been policy over the last 6 years, the Brooklyn Bridge bombing and the mid-Atlantic terror plot (just to name a couple)would've happened. The only thing keeping them from openly preaching the same hysterical, pro-terror idiocy as they have for years is the fact that they just barely scraped out a razor thin majority despite having scandals, an unpopular war, Republican president in his 6th year, and them pretending to be conservatives working for them.

 

[Jerry]

going into iraq was the worst thing the bush adm. has done. saddam wasn't a threat. we should have been trying to confirm who was responsible for 9/11. and to anyone who says that it was a good idea going into iraq, think about the almost $1 trillion we spent, the hundreds of thousands of iraqis killed, and 2,000 us soldiers killed. and for what? if we pull out now (which would be the best thing to do) we will have accomplished nothing. but we should pull out know to prevent anymore deaths on either side or innocents. iraq is in a civil war and the us soldiers can't do anything about it.

There is currently a 90% probability that I will be signing up to be one of those who serve in Iraq, when I finish my degree (eat your heart out, Jon Kerry), and should I fall, I do not want my name tarnished by anti-Bush folks by being nothing more than a number in their cut-and-past tripe.

Not in my name!

 

[nort_12345]

There is currently a 90% probability that I will be signing up to be one of those who serve in Iraq, when I finish my degree (eat your heart out, Jon Kerry), and should I fall, I do not want my name tarnished by anti-Bush folks by being nothing more than a number in their cut-and-past tripe.

Not in my name!

your name won't be tarnished. you will have been serving your country and i salute you for that. but not supporting the war is not the same as not supporting the troops.

 

[DeeJayH]

iraqi death count:
Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths - CNN.com

that has already been discussed and debunked
pure bullshit
but you just keep on suckling that poisoned teet

 

[nort_12345]

that has already been discussed and debunked
pure bullshit
but you just keep on suckling that poisoned teet

who said it was bs? how is it not true?

 

[Harshaw]

Kind of an overqualified poll question, isn't it?

Knowing what I know now, I shouldn't have slept with Ashley M. in college. But at the time it was a damn good idea, as few would have disagreed.

 

[Thales]

Kind of an overqualified poll question, isn't it?

Knowing what I know now, I shouldn't have slept with Ashley M. in college. But at the time it was a damn good idea, as few would have disagreed.

I have to say, this wins the "Analogy of the Week" award hands down. :rofl

And I agree - the question is really directed to be answered in one way.

 

[DeeJayH]

who said it was bs? how is it not true?

believe the thread is in Breaking News, maybe War in Iraq Forum

but why dont you just use common sense
calculate how many days we have been in Iraq and divide that number into the absurd undocumented number to come up with the Deaths/Day

where are all those bodies?
does it really seem plausible with the care and restraint the Coalition has exercised
maybe if we had carpet bombed the country into the stone age that number would be plausible
but it is not
atleast not to most reasonable people