The 2003 war in Iraq - does anybody still fully support it?

[vortexring 0]

Like gun laws, issues concerning Iraq are always coming up on SC. It's sometimes quite apparant what side of the fence people stand through their posts. But not always.

I figured it could be quite interesting to read where exactly a random group of peoples ( posters on SC) opinion on the matter now lies. Especially where their opinion may have changed and why.

It would also be useful if any arguements and rants over opinions were kept back until later. I think people might prefer not to post an opinion if they feel it's likely to agitate everyone. (Seriously!)

At one point I thought I was beginning to see a slight trend of war supporters, people who were anti-war, and people who didn't really have a clue, and therefore, no particular opinion. The trend of these opinions seemed to relate to personal education and social standing.

However, I'm not trying to imply some healthy poll results here would provide any confirmation regarding this trend.

So if you make an effort to post your vote and opinion, thanks.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[vortexring 0]

10 votes - and not a single explanation of the reasons why.

Horrifying - are people avoiding posting an explanation through fear of being ranted at? Or proven 'wrong?' ( how could you be? It's your opinion )

What's up then?

I'd be delighted to read people's general reasons for their vote. If it's simply because you have a gut feeling Bush is a wanker or a genius strategist, then say so!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,489]

I did not support the invasion of Iraq, for two reasons, first, the justification for it. The whole "Saddam has resurrected his WMD program" never sat right with me. From the start it just sounded like the most convenient excuse to do something they were determined to do regardless. People say you can't blame the administration for faulty intelligence but I do think they made it perfectly clear what they wanted to hear.

Second, Afghanistan. The job in Afghanistan was not finished, but it certainly seemed like progress was being made. I think the opportunity was there in Afghanistan to really build a new, stable (relatively speaking) government and a country that could stand on its own two feet. The invasion of Iraq both shifted manpower and priorities away from Afghanistan, and mobilised huge numbers of new insurgents and guerrilla fighters that spilled over into Afghanistan. Now instead of a model democracy (optimistic I know) in the middle east we've got the situations we do in, say, Helmand and other provinces which have slipped back into a state of all out war.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[niu 0]

The agressor is always wrong.

[joedirt 0]

"The trend of these opinions seemed to relate to personal education and social standing."

I'm curious as to what you think that is, and how you come to your conclusion.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Second, Afghanistan. The job in Afghanistan was not finished, but it certainly seemed like progress was being made. I think the opportunity was there in Afghanistan to really build a new, stable (relatively speaking) government and a country that could stand on its own two feet

In the western world, we must come to the reality that the religion of Islam has an "us against them" mentality, and anyone who doesn't bow to their philosophy is the enemy.
Islam is like one of those little hand exercise balls that when you squeeze it , it moves and pops out somewhere else.

We could have put 500,000 troops into Afghanastan, and when they realized that they were overpowered, they would have simply folded their tents and moved somewhere else.

How many 'random' tube or train bombings are we [speaking as a collective] going to endure before the light comes on and we realize that this is a war of ideaology.

We have two teams on the field. We think that it's a game of flag football and approach it as such. We just don't realize that the other team is playing tackle.
Once the other team realizes that we have figured out the rules, they'll finally say that the game is over.

Afghanastan, Iraq, Iran, Darfur. It really doesn't matter where the front is until we figure out what the rules of the game are.

At some point in the near future, if the secularists in Iran can't figure out how to get rid of their Little Hitler, we will have to carpet bomb Tehran just to make a point.

Japan got the point.

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

At some point in the near future, if the secularists in Iran can't figure out how to get rid of their Little Hitler, we will have to carpet bomb Tehran just to make a point.

Japan got the point.

Japan was a nation state under the control of a sole ruler with the power to declare surrender.

Radical Islam is not a nation state and it is not controlled by Ahmadinejad.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

How many 'random' tube or train bombings are we [speaking as a collective] going to endure before the light comes on and we realize that this is a war of ideaology.

this is exactly right!

It is a war of ideology. The War against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. At that time, it was clear to the world what we were doing. Even countries that don't like the USA still denounced the attacks of 9-11. So we were right to go in there & get Osama's gang of thugs and their Taliban supporters.

In the war of ideology at that point, the lines were CLEARLY drawn.

Unfortunately Bush muddied the waters when he started a SECOND war: a war of aggression in Iraq.

At that point in the war of ideology, he handed Osama bin Laden a victory.

Instead of the USA & allies actions being a justified response to a criminal act, now we were initiating our own war.

It was almost as if we were being controlled by Islamic extremists. Hell they didn't like Saddam Hussein anyway, and our action in Iraq served to "validate" their asshole ideology.

In the war of ideology, it is sickening how the Bush administration has been played like a fucking violin.

Bush has dragged America's name through the mud.

And Al Quaeda never had a better recruiter than George W. Bush.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[steveorino 7]

Bingo!

Let's admit Iraq was a mistake -- pull out -- let them have at it. (yes, we screwed up by being there, but our presence isn't going to help anymore IMHO)

Put those men in Afghanistan -- find OBL and leave

steveOrino

[pirana 0]

Obviously somebody does, but I don't now and never did.

I remember being totally appalled when it became apparent that this administration was determined to attack. Talk about blatantly going after a target of opportunity.

There is no graceful exit now. To think that we can impose a peace on that situation is ludicrous. However long we stay, the day we leave, the place comes apart like a deck of cards in a tornado.

That will be the ultimate moment of shame for this administration as they ponder the cost and the wasted lives. Thing is though, somewhere in their twisted little imperialistic brains they will probably convince themselves it was worth it.

There may be one possible effective ending - partition. The silly random lines drawn in the sand by the imperial powers did not take into consideration the needs of anybody but said imperial powers. But then again, how do you undo that given that now the local powers that be have vested interests and could probably never come to agreement even amongst themselves?

Which comes full circle to the fundamental issue of the conflicts within the region, and within Islam, even if we had never went there.

I do believe the situation may have progressed to the point where there truly is no effective solution. That sometimes happens when you make a big enough initial mistake and allow it to propogate for too long.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

In the western world, we must come to the reality that the religion of Islam has an "us against them" mentality and anyone who doesn't bow to their philosophy is the enemy.

No it doesn’t you clearly know nothing about this subject.

Quote

We could have put 500,000 troops into Afghanastan, and when they realized that they were overpowered, they would have simply folded their tents and moved somewhere else.

Like Saudi Arabia? One of the most fundamental states in the world that has received tens of millions of dollars in US aid and weapons?

Quote

Afghanastan, Iraq, Iran, Darfur. It really doesn't matter where the front is until we figure out what the rules of the game are.

Well there is no conflict in Iran and the other three have nothing to do with western aimed jihad.

Quote

At some point in the near future, if the secularists in Iran can't figure out how to get rid of their Little Hitler, we will have to carpet bomb Tehran just to make a point.

You will have to carpet bomb Tehran and then you will have to cry about

Quote

’random’

train bombings, again.

Quote

Japan got the point.

Yes after crimes against humanity they did.

Quote

It is a war of ideology. The War against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

Al-Qaeda didn’t govern Afghanistan.

Quote

So we were right to go in there & get Osama's gang of thugs and their Taliban supporters.

You broke international laws, came close to starving millions of innocent people and killed 3 times as many civilians in the first week than what died 9-11.

Quote

In the war of ideology at that point, the lines were CLEARLY drawn.

No they weren’t.

Quote

Unfortunately Bush muddied the waters when he started a SECOND war: a war of aggression in Iraq.

Afghanistan is also a war of aggression.

[wmw999 2,446]

Quote

Let's admit Iraq was a mistake -- pull out -- let them have at it. (yes, we screwed up by being there, but our presence isn't going to help anymore IMHO)

Put those men in Afghanistan -- find OBL and leave

You broke it, you bought it (figurative "you"). If we just pull out, we do need to provide them with some reparations. Really. We fucked up (or started processes that fucked up) their country pretty solidly.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Let's admit Iraq was a mistake -- pull out -- let them have at it. (yes, we screwed up by being there, but our presence isn't going to help anymore IMHO)

Put those men in Afghanistan -- find OBL and leave

You broke it, you bought it (figurative "you"). If we just pull out, we do need to provide them with some reparations. Really. We fucked up (or started processes that fucked up) their country pretty solidly.

Wendy W.

Money to rebuild, just as we did Japan & Germany -- no more soldiers IMHO

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Afghanistan is also a war of aggression.

BS!

steveOrino

[billvon 2,991]

>Al-Qaeda didn’t govern Afghanistan.

No, but the Taliban sheltered Al-Qaeda. Had the Taliban given them the boot on Sept 12th 2001, then we would have had no national-security justification to attack the Taliban. However, they continued to protect the people who attacked us, and thus put themselves squarely in the crossfire.

[Royd 0]

Japan was a nation state under the control of a sole ruler with the power to declare surrender.

Quote

Radical Islam is not a nation state and it is not controlled by Ahmadinejad

He is a radical Islamist.

Over the next few years, we will probably have to meet this menace headon on a number of fronts.

Let's hope London is one of them.

[Royd 0]

this is a war of ideaology.

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

Quote

this is exactly right!

It is a war of ideology. The War against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

In today's world, a war of ideology knows no borders.

Sadly, the day will come, mostly because Islam will not police itself, that anyone with a hint of a connection will be veiwed with suspicion.

[wmw999 2,446]

Quote

Over the next few years, we will probably have to meet this menace headon on a number of fronts.

Let's hope London is one of them.

Is that just kind of a big "fuck you for not agreeing with me" to the British, or a "just as long as it's not close to me" or what exactly? Hoping that someone else suffers violence is a pretty repellent thing to do.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GQ_jumper 4]

Afghanistan is also a war of aggression.

Quote

I(somewhat) understand your reasons for not agreeing with the invasion of Iraq, but fail to see how you call our move into Afghanistan unreasonable. What should our response to 9-11 have been in your opinion?

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[dorbie 0]

Please quote & reply correctly, you have to intentionally edit the reply block to have bad formatting like this and it screws up subsequent replies.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

Afghanistan is also a war of aggression.

BS!

Fundamentalists are usually good at reading and taking writing literally; maybe you should apply to international law documents the same with which you apply to the bible.

Quote

>Al-Qaeda didn’t govern Afghanistan.

No, but the Taliban sheltered Al-Qaeda. Had the Taliban given them the boot on Sept 12th 2001, then we would have had no national-security justification to attack the Taliban. However, they continued to protect the people who attacked us, and thus put themselves squarely in the crossfire.

The US wanted all terrorists in Afghanistan including Osama and the Taliban wanted evidence to justify adhering to US demands. The US refused this and the majority of people squarely in the initial crossfire were Afghan civilians.

That isn’t close to being justification for invasion. Presenting evidence, working within international law and trying to extradite Osama only to then have the Taliban refuse to comply with US demands would be getting closer to justification.

Quote

Afghanistan is also a war of aggression.

Quote

I(somewhat) understand your reasons for not agreeing with the invasion of Iraq, but fail to see how you call our move into Afghanistan unreasonable. What should our response to 9-11 have been in your opinion?

Any response that was lawful and involved reason and logic.

Cutting off international food programs to millions of innocent people 5 days later when the NYC skyline still has the smell of smoke isn’t. Making demands and refusing to provide evidence isn’t. Limiting diplomacy to 26 days before carpet bombing a country isn’t.

Or as British military historian Michael Howard put it; an international police and international court operation rather than “trying to eradicate cancer cells with a blow torch.”

So a reasonable response would have been all diplomatic and lawful channels, if this then resulted in the Taliban still refusing then a case can probably be made to justify Invading the country, although not with the methods that were used.

None of this happened however and it is a testament to education and understanding of current events that the Afghanistan invasion is a “just war” and only crazy radicals would say other wise even when there was no diplomacy, more innocent people killed than in 9-11 and no goals achieved; eradication of Al-Qaeda/terrorism and the capture of Osama. The removal of the Taliban was also not a goal and was trumpeted as a victory about a month later and we should ignore the fact no one cared how brutally they repressed the Afghan people prior to 9-11.

• Quote

[kallend 2,027]

Fascinating looking at the poll result (where "at no stage" seems to be running way ahead) and compare with what people were writing on DZ.COM in early 2003, when the anti-war folks were in a minority. I guess most of the gung-ho pro-war Bush-can-do-no-wrong crowd have left the DZ.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Afghanistan is also a war of aggression.

Quote

I(somewhat) understand your reasons for not agreeing with the invasion of Iraq, but fail to see how you call our move into Afghanistan unreasonable. What should our response to 9-11 have been in your opinion?

Personally I believe if we'd worry about home more (as a U.S citizen) and quit fuckin w/ everbody elses business none of this shit would have started to begin w/. Quit trying to dominate the world (s resourses) and cram a Big Mac down everybodys throat. If you guys like fighting and dying so much your gonna have plenty of fronts to fight on. We are creating more animosity now than ever in the world. Carry on.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

So a reasonable response would have been all diplomatic and lawful channels, if this then resulted in the Taliban still refusing then a case can probably be made to justify Invading the country,

This was done. The Taliban refused to comply.

I have a feeling that ANY response would be unsatisfactory to you.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

n DZ.COM in early 2003, when the anti-war folks were in a minority.

I don't think that's correct. I think the majority of posters were against the Iraq war.

I seem to remember there were something like four or five people who were Pro-Iraq war, but who also made a lot of posts.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------