Majority of Americans Now Feel Iraq War Wrong

[JKD COBRA]

It does nothing to show that the invasion was necessary, the best idea or even that it was not a ****-poor idea.

So I take it you've decided to abandon the whole Hussein-really-did-have-WMD-even-though-we-haven't-found-them-yet angle?


Why don't you just say that you and Team Bush are borrow-and-spend big-government liberals who're getting their foreign policy cues from Socialists and Trotskyites?

No I have not abandoned that angle.

But I am not a big government liberal. But you on the other hand, seem to talk like a liberal.

 

[getinvolved]

QUOTE: Simon W. Moon
" Of course it wasn't a preemptive war. That's my point. It was in fact a preventive war.

Question is, since it wasn't a preemptive war, why did Team Bush sell it as a preemptive war?"

Um...huh? Am I the only one confused??

 

[MSgt]

sarcasm or elitism?

Stronger minded to stay the course to completion than most.....elitism.

The world is full of right and wrong. Was it wrong to free Iraqis from Saddam?

 

[JKD COBRA]

Stronger minded to stay the course to completion than most.....elitism.

The world is full of right and wrong. Was it wrong to free Iraqis from Saddam?

According to the left, it was. Because the whole basis for this war was a lie. Bush lied to us about WMD's, therefore, we shouldnt be over there. Thats what they think.

 

[MSgt]

According to the left, it was. Because the whole basis for this war was a lie. Bush lied to us about WMD's, therefore, we shouldnt be over there. Thats what they think.

It allows them to grandstand. Very few will actually say that is was wrong to free Iraqis and to get rid of Saddam. They will instead blow smoke, because to admit such a thing would be counterproductive to their bashing and complaining.

Its a simple question....Was it wrong to free Iraqis from Saddam?

 

[Iriemon]

It allows them to grandstand. Very few will actually say that is was wrong to free Iraqis and to get rid of Saddam. They will instead blow smoke, because to admit such a thing would be counterproductive to their bashing and complaining.

Its a simple question....Was it wrong to free Iraqis from Saddam?

Ask the 30,000 or so who have been killed as a result of our invasion. And the many times more wounded or injured.

We would be better off if Sadam was still in power. The region is much more destabilized now.

The Iraqis have had 30 years to overthrow him if he was so distasteful to them. Let them decide their own government.

 

[JKD COBRA]

Ask the 30,000 or so who have been killed as a result of our invasion. And the many times more wounded or injured.

We would be better off if Sadam was still in power. The region is much more destabilized now.

The Iraqis have had 30 years to overthrow him if he was so distasteful to them. Let them decide their own government.

The problem with that is Iraq was harboring terrorists. So we can't sit here and wait for them to overthrow Saddam. When we are attacked by terrorists, we can't sit around and wait for another country to fix them problem when WE were attacked.

It allows them to grandstand. Very few will actually say that is was wrong to free Iraqis and to get rid of Saddam. They will instead blow smoke, because to admit such a thing would be counterproductive to their bashing and complaining

Exactly. Thats exactly why the libs only way of debating us is to discredit us and call us names. Because they can't tell people their true beliefs. They can't tell people what they really think because they would never win an election. So instead, they have to blow smoke. Which is why they are losing elections. The average person isn't stupid. They like to think they are. Just look at some of the signatures on this site. They think the average American is a stupid mindless person who can't think for himself.

Unfortunately for them, we aren't.

 

[MSgt]

Ask the 30,000 or so who have been killed as a result of our invasion. And the many times more wounded or injured.

We would be better off if Sadam was still in power. The region is much more destabilized now.

The Iraqis have had 30 years to overthrow him if he was so distasteful to them. Let them decide their own government.

That's cute. You must one of the many who think if we arrest some terrorists then the problem is solved.

You didn't answer the question...Was it wrong to free Iraqis from Saddam?

 

[Iriemon]

That's cute. You must one of the many who think if we arrest some terrorists then the problem is solved.

You didn't answer the question...Was it wrong to free Iraqis from Saddam?

IMO it was. We have set off the Iraqis in a civil war. 30,000 have died, countless more injured. We allowed hordes of ME terrorist to go in there and really mess the country up. Whatever the bitch about Hussein that didn't happen when he was in control. I doubt the average Iraqi will end up a lot "freer" by the time this shakes out, there is a good chance the country could end up with an extremist government that will be a lot less free than under Hussein. That is if the country doesn't break apart completely.

IMO it is not our job to go around and act as cop and invade every country with a government that is not up to our current standards. If that is our agenda there were lots of better places to start other than Iraq, including some in our own backyard. If the Iraqis wanted to be freer they should have overthrown Hussein's government like happened in many other places in the world. They had several chances to do it.

I am one of the many who does not think the war against terrorism will be one by occupying a country that had nothing to do with the attack against us, and that killing peoples brothers, sisters, mothers, dads, and kids is not the way we will defeat terrorism but will in fact worsen it.

 

[Iriemon]

The problem with that is Iraq was harboring terrorists. So we can't sit here and wait for them to overthrow Saddam. When we are attacked by terrorists, we can't sit around and wait for another country to fix them problem when WE were attacked.

Who? Which terrorists? Nidal? The guy who was found with three bullets in his head? Abbas, who the Israelis let pass freely thru the Middle East because he supported peace initiatives? The Kurdish Al-Queda branch that supposedly set up a base in Northern Iraq that Hussein did not control?

Name one terrorist attack where Iraq or Hussein was implicated as being involved with.

 

[JKD COBRA]

Didn't we have a civil war? I guess using the liberal thinking of today, this country should have given up. It would have never worked.

And your keep skipping over one part. We were attacked by terrorists. We didn't just wake up one day and say "hey, we need to free Iraq." We were attacked.

But unfortunately, I don't think there is hope for you. Because of this quote:

Ask the 30,000 or so who have been killed as a result of our invasion. And the many times more wounded or injured.

Now be honest, are you saying we invaded Iraq before 911 happened?

 

[Iriemon]

Didn't we have a civil war? I guess using the liberal thinking of today, this country should have given up. It would have never worked.

And your keep skipping over one part. We were attacked by terrorists. We didn't just wake up one day and say "hey, we need to free Iraq." We were attacked.

But unfortunately, I don't think there is hope for you. Because of this quote:

Now be honest, are you saying we invaded Iraq before 911 happened?

We were attacked. So? We were not attacked by Iraq.

Don't understand your last point. Why would you think I am saying that?

 

[Gibberish]

Very interesting read these past 7 pages. I really do not have anything to add to the conversation so I will just leave a qoute.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) on Bosnia.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

But I am not a big government liberal. But you on the other hand, seem to talk like a liberal.

If you'd like to continue to explore your peronal feelings for me, you're welcome to start a thread in The Basement.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

QUOTE: Simon W. Moon
" Of course it wasn't a preemptive war. That's my point. It was in fact a preventive war.

Question is, since it wasn't a preemptive war, why did Team Bush sell it as a preemptive war?"

Um...huh? Am I the only one confused??

What's confusing?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Stronger minded to stay the course to completion than most.....elitism.

The world is full of right and wrong. Was it wrong to free Iraqis from Saddam?

Was it wrong to sidetrack the War on Terror and turn Iraq into a training ground for al-Qaida?

The real question is,

"Was the way that we did it in the best interests of the US?"
​

 

[oldreliable67]

A few days ago, the WSJ had an excellent article recounting the events surrounding the actions of an Army Lt Col in Tal Afar. Tal Afar, as you may recall from the news, has been the scene of some pretty intense fighting. The following excerpt from the article gives you the flavor, but to fully appreciate it, go read the whole thing. It captures the essence of what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq.

"At an old British fort at the edge of town here, about a dozen sheiks gathered at 6 p.m. last Friday for a traditional Ramadan feast.

Some were Sunni. Some were Shiite. The results were predictable for a region in which months of violence and tit-for-tat assassinations and car bombs have created deep sectarian divides. A Sunni complained that masked Shiite informants were spreading lies about innocent Sunnis to Americans. "We have to get rid of these people who wear masks!" he yelled. The lead Shiite present stormed off to a corner to sit by himself.

But the session had a surprising ending. The shouting gave way to discussion, and the sheiks laid plans to form a local reconciliation committee composed of six Sunni and six Shiite representatives.

It was a small victory for the American military leader, Lt. Col. Chris Hickey, who arranged for the feast with just such a goal."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112925326708268413.html?mod=home_page_one_us

Just my opinion:

We cannot consider Iraq as a singularity. We must consider it in the context of not only the Middle East, but the entire Arab-Muslim world.

The battle in Iraq and the Middle East is about integrating their economies into the rest of the world. The old dictum of "Investment follows the flag" has now been changed to "Investment follows security". If we are successful - and certainly we are not there yet - a rising tide of economic well-being for Iraqis and others in the ME will cut the legs from underneath future Arab-Muslim recruiting efforts. It will facilitate the efforts of the more moderate Muslim clerics and help them gain converts to the more moderate view. It will offer Arab-Muslim youth an attractive alternative: a modern society, open and connected to the rest of the world, instead of a return to the dark days of insular religuous repression.

This is the essence of our purpose in Iraq: by facilitating reconciliation and communication, we pave the way for a representative form of government and thereby forestall creation of the radical fundamentalist Muslim caliphate first in Iraq, then across the Middle East.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"Was the way that we did it in the best interests of the US?"

"Was the way that we did it in the best interests of the US?"


I mean you can go on and on and on about what good we've done for Iraqis, etc, but the only pertinent question is what good have we done for the US. Idealism is fine and good in individuals; however, for nations, Realism is more fitting.

What's the US getting out of this costly venture? What are we buying w/ all this money, blood and lives?

We traded what was at most a marginal threat for an al-Qaida training ground in the heart of the ME.

And, you know, I'm happy for the Iraqis and all, but US foreign policy should be about what's good for the US.

Iraq was unlikely to attack the US directly or by proxy in the foreseeable future. Al-Qaida and Hussein had no operational nor collaborative ties. The threat from Iraq to the US was not anywhere the priority that Team Bush presented it as. Team Bush had every reason to know this the whole time they were pimping things like the Atta/Prague canard and Salman Pak, etc.

 

[Iriemon]

Just my opinion:

We cannot consider Iraq as a singularity. We must consider it in the context of not only the Middle East, but the entire Arab-Muslim world.

The battle in Iraq and the Middle East is about integrating their economies into the rest of the world. The old dictum of "Investment follows the flag" has now been changed to "Investment follows security". If we are successful - and certainly we are not there yet - a rising tide of economic well-being for Iraqis and others in the ME will cut the legs from underneath future Arab-Muslim recruiting efforts. It will facilitate the efforts of the more moderate Muslim clerics and help them gain converts to the more moderate view. It will offer Arab-Muslim youth an attractive alternative: a modern society, open and connected to the rest of the world, instead of a return to the dark days of insular religuous repression.

This is the essence of our purpose in Iraq: by facilitating reconciliation and communication, we pave the way for a representative form of government and thereby forestall creation of the radical fundamentalist Muslim caliphate first in Iraq, then across the Middle East.

Why would you consider Iraq as somehow representative of the Muslem world? That would be like using France as representative of the entire Western-Christian world. There are so many differences between the various countries -- it makes no sense to suppose that even if we are successful in setting up a pro-Western democracy, the rest of the Islamic world will follow. Or, to look at it another way, we have had a democratic pro-western Islamic country for decades -- Turkey. Why haven't the rest of the Islamic world followed Turkey's example? Why would you think it will follow Iraq's any more?

I appreciate that the goal you set out is a good hearted one. But if indeed our purpose in this invasion was not to preemptively strike a threat to our country but to take down a native government and install a pro-west government in the hopes that other countries will follow, this Administration 1) misrepresented its purpose to the American people and the world to a degree that is unforgivable, and 2) has so botched this effort that IMO it seems almost impossible to succeed.

You don't, IMO, install a pro-western government by invading a country based on errors or pretext, without an international or regional consensus, and then after all stated your reasons have proved false, displace the ruling people in favor of arming and giving power to previously displaced peoples, and think that everything is going to be hunky dory. Having totally lost credibility, the chance of convincing the people you mean to rule that you are doing so for beneficial reasons is extremely remote.

If this was the goal of the invasion, it represented a huge and IMO foolish risk. Whatever Hussein's faults, there have been much worse. He was relatively secular (his foreign minister was a Christian for heaven's sake!). He did have delusions of expansion, and was rightly disabused of that notion 15 years ago. He ruled with a tough hand, but I think we are seeing, after 30,000 Iraqi death our attempts to govern have caused, how tough it is to rule a fracticious country like Iraq.

Instead of Hussein, we have an extremely distabilized situation. We are arming the Kurds and the Shiites who gladly accept our aid as long as it gives them more power. The Sunnis will never accept our rule. It is a civil war, and throw in a few thousand fanatics from all over the ME who want to take shots at Americans and learn the terrorists trade on the job. There is a very good likelihood that the result of this ill-considered intervention will be a bloody civil war, with Iraq in the hands of extremists far worse than Hussein.

It was a stupid gamble to take. I honestly think the best we could do for that country is set a date we are leaving and leave, let them sort it out, and give reparations to whatever government comes out of it. If any.

But that will never happen because we don't admit mistakes. Nor will our leader.

 

[JKD COBRA]

We were attacked. So? We were not attacked by Iraq.

Don't understand your last point. Why would you think I am saying that?

We were attacked by terrorists. Iraq was harboring terrorists. There's your answer.

If you'd like to continue to explore your peronal feelings for me, you're welcome to start a thread in The Basement.

No need for that, its not important to me. I was only asking you a question. Besides, the basement is a place for name calling, why would I want to do that?

 

[Iriemon]

We were attacked by terrorists. Iraq was harboring terrorists. There's your answer.

No need for that, its not important to me. I was only asking you a question. Besides, the basement is a place for name calling, why would I want to do that?

For the record, the second quote you cited was not mine.

I have found that the evidence supporting my answer -- Iraq was harboring terrorists -- to be sketchy at best. About in the same league as the answer: Iraq had WMDs.

 

[oldreliable67]

Was it wrong to sidetrack the War on Terror and turn Iraq into a training ground for al-Qaida?

Much of what follows is paraphrased from Thomas Barnett's book, "Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating", which is the follow on to his "The Pentagon's New Map". Barnett's two books are very popular, not only in the Pentagon but in military circles worldwide. If you want a look at what senior decision-makers are reading, then these are required reading.

With apologies for the length of the post, here goes...

Iraq is a war within the global war on terrorism. What radical Islamic fundamentalists such as OBL seek is not merely a ‘disconnect’ from globalization’s creeping embrace of the Middle East's more traditional societies, but a reconnect to an idealized past they believe offers a better alternative-an Islamic definition of globalization that contrasts itself with the Western one. Barnett quotes terrorism expert Marc Sageman:

"The global Salafi jihad is a worldwide religious revivalist movement with the goal of reestablishing past Muslim glory in a great Islamist state stretching from Morocco to the Phillipines, eliminating present national boundaries. It preaches salafiyyah (from salaf, the Arabic word for “ancient one,” referring to the Prophet Mohammed), the restoration of authentic Islam, and advocates a strategy of violent jihad, resulting in an explosion of terror to wipe out what it regards as local political heresy. The global version of this movement advocates the defeat of the Western powers that prevent the establishment of a true Islamist state. Al-Qaeda is the vanguard of this movement, which includes many other terrorist groups that collaborate in their operations and share a large support base."

Ultimately, what OBL and the movement offer is civilizational apartheid.

To attack transnational terrorism and other forms of mass violence is naturally to increase their overall frequency in the short run. Sound counterintuitive? Not really. If you want to disarm the bad guys, you're asking them to give up that which makes them powerful, or what they believe gets them to their future caliphate.

So, it should have been no surprise that when the US took up the challenge of a global war on terrorism that terrorism would go up in frequency. To expect anything else is simply not logical.

In many ways, our efforts to shrink the Arab-Muslim terrorists world involve us in a number of implied races with the terrorist networks that plague so many societies there. We seek to create a bandwagon effect across the global economy, enlisting the support of our logical allies in this struggle. Conversely, our enemies seek to create bystanders by targeting our weakest links, or those industrialized states most vulnerable to their terrorist acts. We target rogue regimes that support transnational terrorism, while they target pre-globalized states (typically failed regimes) for sanctuary, thus triggering our interventions and subsequent nation-building efforts. We push toward a victory defined as eliminating all their secure havens, while the terrorists fight essentially a defensive war designed to motivate our retreat from their world and the establishment of civilizational apartheid. Our sense of progress comes in isolating and disabling their network nodes, and theirs come in expanding the reach of their operations and the robustness of the their networks.

They wage a calculated war of attrition designed to wear us down and sap our sense of purpose and moral cause. Because our enemy's success need not require their discrediting of globalization as a historical process, just the US. Because once the world's sole military superpower is convinced to abandon its military efforts to defeat the forces of terrorism, then the rest of the world's major powers will simply conlcude their separate peace arrangements as required with the various dictators who will continue to flourish in the Arab-Muslim terrorist world. The EU, China, India, and Japan will have no choice but to bargain for their continued access to key resources - especially energy. Over time, more of the terrorist-targeted Arab-Muslim world would succumb to instability and mass violence absent America's military presence, forcing great powers to increase their own military spending to secure-in a zero sum fashion-their desired level of connectivity and access to key sources of raw materials.

Thus, if the US fails in its current attempts to enlist the support of other great powers in a shrink the transnational terrorist Arab-Muslim strategy, we'll probably see those states try to carve out their own 'spheres of influence' there in much the same way that the US and the Soviet Union competed for allies in the Third World during the Cold War.

There is much, much more at stake here than just Iraq.

 

[JKD COBRA]

I have found that the evidence supporting my answer -- Iraq was harboring terrorists -- to be sketchy at best. About in the same league as the answer: Iraq had WMDs.

Wow, you know, that is a really good point. Since 'some' people, (a minority of people BTW) thought the information was 'sketchy' then we shouldn't worry about it.

You know, were not talking about ordering a pizza. When your in charge of a country, and you get information that million's upon million's of lives are at stake, you don't sit there and say "well, the information is sketchy" you don't wait to see what happens when your talking about terrorist attacks.

And for the record, the majority of the people in this country don't think the information is sketchy. You guys can complain all you want, but the bottom line is, you guys are in the minority. You may not like to think so. You may wish polls and approval ratings were the real elections, but they are not. You are in the minority. The majority of this country voted for Bush. A large majority. Kerry said this was the wrong war at the wrong time. And a large majority of this country still voted for Bush. You lost.

Bush is not running again. You guys are so stuck on hating him that your losing sight of things. All you do is bash him and try to discredit him. But I have news for you. He can't get re-elected. You guys need to stop trying to beat Bush. You already lost that battle. And if you don't move on, you will keep losing elections.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

We were attacked by terrorists. Iraq was harboring terrorists. There's your answer.

Except they weren't the terrorists that attacked us.
Now we're harboring the very same terrorists that Hussein was harboring, the Mojahedin-e Khalq.

No need for that, its not important to me. I was only asking you a question. Besides, the basement is a place for name calling, why would I want to do that?

My magic eight-ball is in the shop, so I have no idea why you do that.

 

[Iriemon]

Wow, you know, that is a really good point. Since 'some' people, (a minority of people BTW) thought the information was 'sketchy' then we shouldn't worry about it.

You know, were not talking about ordering a pizza. When your in charge of a country, and you get information that million's upon million's of lives are at stake, you don't sit there and say "well, the information is sketchy" you don't wait to see what happens when your talking about terrorist attacks.

You're right. I was using the word "sketchy" to be polite. Most of it that I have investigated is horsesh_t.

You guys can complain all you want, but the bottom line is, you guys are in the minority. ... You are in the minority. ... The majority of this country voted for Bush. A large majority.

This must be the news as reported on the rightwing websites.