Do You Support The War In Iraq?

[phouka]

I had very strong reservations about invading Iraq from the start. Even if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Even if he had the will to use them. The US is halfway around the world, and while Saddam was crazy as a shithouse rat, he wasn’t stupid. He would have known that lobbing an anthrax bomb at us or dropping a dirty nuke would have ended with his country turned into a large sheet of radioactive glass.

On a political level, I subscribe to the idea of never starting a fight, but always finishing it. I completely agreed with and supported the invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban was and continues to be evil and should be annihilated. I was prepared to support a decade or more occupation of Afghanistan to make sure their country was built properly and wouldn’t sink back into the quagmire that made the Taliban tolerable.

Not so with Iraq. They didn’t shelter Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. They had a weapons program, but so do all sovereign nations. I believed at the time that while we could completely take the country, holding it was a different matter. I disliked the idea of opening up a second front and taking attention away from Afghanistan. I worried that we were setting ourselves up as the villains of the piece, using 9/11 as an excuse to invade a country we didn’t like, and any time you start something of that magnitude, war crimes become inevitable.

My father is retired military, so I have a knee-jerk “support the troops” attitude. I understand, however, that as admirable as the idea of defending our country is, many people join the military for many different reasons. Some of those people were sure to be racist or criminal or sociopathic or otherwise dangerous. Put them in another country that is subjugated to us, and bad things are bound to happen. Even if every member of the military is of sterling character, waging war means that civilians will be killed.

The invasion of Iraq took our attention away from Afghanistan, it stretched our resources to the point that we can’t support the troops properly, it opened the possibility for Americans to create war crimes, it wasted the international community’s sympathy for us, it destabilized an already treacherous area, it has polarized American politics, it put our country into debt for the foreseeable future, it outright murdered over half a million Iraqi citizens and put nearly 1.5 million out of their country as refugees, it allowed the man who murdered 3,000 Americans to get off scot free, and it left us with a financial burden of trillions of dollars debt.

I never supported the war, and I never will.

[John_Mace]

@Der Trihs

America has already lost. The only question is how bad it’ll be.

Eh. You’re just dancing around in circles now avoiding the logic of your own assertions. No point in debating with someone like that.

[elucidator]

Youi’re not being quite fair, John. You are the one who carried the question to an absurdity, the slaughter of every US citizen, which is, as you surely know, ridiculous.

Here:

@John

…The most badly we could lose would be for the Iraqi insurgents (or whatever you want to cal them) to kill every single American, including you. Is that what you want?..

[Unregistered_Bull]

It didn’t make any sense to attack a secular dictatorship when our enemies were fundamentalist Muslims.

And Powell going on about Saddam a the UN like he was a Bond villain with surreal WMDs was genuinely laughable.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Youi’re not being quite fair, John. You are the one who carried the question to an absurdity, the slaughter of every US citizen, which is, as you surely know, ridiculous.

It wasn’t a question, it was a statement. He said he wanted us to lose “as badly as possible”. I don’t know how to draw the line between what is and is not ridiculous with such an open ended criterion.

If he doesn’t like my scenario, then surely you and he can envisage some scenario where Iraqi insurgents (or their proxies) inflict damage on US soil. That almost happened in Britain just last week. And surely Der Trish could be the victim of such an attack. Is he willing to give up his own life in order to satisfy the wish that we lose “as badly as possible”?

[RedFury]

Don’t know about you, John, but I define “as badly as possible” the utter defeat of the invaders – as in having to tuck tail and race out of Iraq.

After all, most Americans were initially against the invasion without a green-light from the SC. Sure propaganda, outright lies and fear-mongering got the worst of them over time…but I beleive that’s understandable. After all, it’s not like your average Joe Six-pack understood much of what was happening. Other than the media blitz and Powell’s much publicized pack of lies at the UN.

And yes, unfortunately, I agree with Der Trish that a thorough trashing of your forces in Iraq, is, over the long run, the best outcome possible. Otherwise, “someone” might get the idea that it’s a good thing to go invading countries willy-nilly in order to impose your “values” on them. Furthermore, I also agree with Baldwin vis-a-vis giving The Democrats a pass on their vote. For if dimwits like me (or not-so-dim posters such as Mr S) were able to debunk almost all their claims prior to the invasion, surely you’d expect as much from your leaders regardless of Party affiliation. All you needed was an Internet connection to find out the truth – and even back in 2002 there weren’t that rare. Hell, this old man has been ‘connected’ since early 1990. Dial-up at 28 kbps if anyone remembers that.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

Don’t know about you, John, but I define “as badly as possible” the utter defeat of the invaders – as in having to tuck tail and race out of Iraq.

Well, that strikes me as just another way of saying you’re willing to let other people die for what you want, but you draw the line when it affects you personally.

After all, most Americans were initially against the invasion without a green-light from the SC. Sure propaganda, outright lies and fear-mongering got the worst of them over time…but I beleive that’s understandable. After all, it’s not like your average Joe Six-pack understood much of what was happening. Other than the media blitz and Powell’s much publicized pack of lies at the UN.

I think once you put troops on the ground, there is a natural tendency to want to “support” them and that get translated into supporting the mission. I don’t feel that way myself, but I can sort of understand why others might.

And yes, unfortunately, I agree with Der Trish that a thorough trashing of your forces in Iraq, is, over the long run, the best outcome possible. Otherwise, “someone” might get the idea that it’s a good thing to go invading countries willy-nilly in order to impose your “values” on them.

A thorough trashing of our troops is much less in the realm of the possible than that some Iraqis might kill innocent Americans on American soil.

Furthermore, I also agree with Baldwin vis-a-vis giving The Democrats a pass on their vote. For if dimwits like me (or not-so-dim posters such as Mr S) were able to debunk almost all their claims prior to the invasion, surely you’d expect as much from your leaders regardless of Party affiliation. All you needed was an Internet connection to find out the truth – and even back in 2002 there weren’t that rare. Hell, this old man has been ‘connected’ since early 1990. Dial-up at 28 kbps if anyone remembers that.

Agreed. My position was very much like that of phouka’s. I thought all the talk of WMD was a sideshow because I didn’t see SH as a threat even if he did have so-called WMD. And the possibility of a prolonged insurgency leading eventually to civil war was very much in the realm of “the possible”. It was darn near predictable.

[RedFury]

@John Mace

Well, that strikes me as just another way of saying you’re willing to let other people die for what you want, but you draw the line when it affects you personally.

Not quite sure how to parse your response, John. I mean, even without getting into the debate of how many innocent Iraqis have already been killed, you’d have to agree that the ratio is highly in “favor” of your troops – just like in 'Nam. But why, for og’s sake would I wish death on those not only outside Iraq but also against this clusterfuck from the start? By saying “invaders” (i.e. boots on the ground and those who put them there) I think I’ve narrowed down the exact group I am talking about, don’t you?

I think once you put troops on the ground, there is a natural tendency to want to “support” them and that get translated into supporting the mission. I don’t feel that way myself, but I can sort of understand why others might.

True and quite natural. One tends to care for one’s own, even if the only real communality – beyond a geographical accident of birth – is piece of cloth and a hymn. But like you, I don’t believe in that. While I didn’t want Spanish soldiers to die while they were there, I certainly didn’t “support them” vis-a-vis the Iraqis. I just wanted them the hell out instead of playing ‘heroes’ and killing a bunch of locals so we could feed our collective national ego.

A thorough trashing of our troops is much less in the realm of the possible than that some Iraqis might kill innocent Americans on American soil.

Maybe, maybe not. But I do think you’re right that you’ve got some certain “blowback” coming your way. And that’s sad.

Agreed. My position was very much like that of phouka’s. I thought all the talk of WMD was a sideshow because I didn’t see SH as a threat even if he did have so-called WMD. And the possibility of a prolonged insurgency leading eventually to civil war was very much in the realm of “the possible”. It was darn near predictable.

Well, you’re clearly no Joe Six-pack, because as you rightly say, the whole thing was more just not “possible” but rather obvious. Again, all it took was a bit of research if you didn’t already have the knowledge. Which is what pisses me off to no end with those that voted for this madness out of sheer political motives. And let’s not even get into the ones that did it knowingly for financial gains.

As much as I am against the DP, I think I might depart my own moral stand in some of those cases, mass-murder facilitators that they were…

[RedFury]

PS-I also think it’s absurd to even think that the Iraqis have the means (even if they had the will) to invade and kill all Americans.

Even Bollywood wouldn’t dare write such a sci-fi scenario. Of course, the neocons not only managed to do just that, but they were also able to sell said mad script…with more than a little help from your compliant MSM.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

Not quite sure how to parse your response, John. I mean, even without getting into the debate of how many innocent Iraqis have already been killed, you’d have to agree that the ratio is highly in “favor” of your troops – just like in 'Nam. But why, for og’s sake would I wish death on those not only outside Iraq but also against this clusterfuck from the start? By saying “invaders” (i.e. boots on the ground and those who put them there) I think I’ve narrowed down the exact group I am talking about, don’t you?

Yes, you have, but you haven’t offered a logical explanation why wishing death on that group of Americans is any different than wishing death on any other group of Americans. There are plenty of Americans fighting in Iraq who do not support the war and who are not over there by choice. Plus, if you really care about Iraqi casualties, surely you have to realize that an overwhelming defeat of Americans in Iraq would only come at the price of an overwhelming escalation of those casualties.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think enough people have died in this conflict already. More people dying isn’t going to accomplish anything other than extracting some kind of revenge.

[Squink]

@RedFury

Even Bollywood wouldn’t dare write such a sci-fi scenario…

It takes Hollywood and Chuck Norris for that:

‘Invasion U.S.A.,’’ a movie in which America is ravaged not by disguised saboteurs but by uniformed troops from the Soviet Union, Cuba and some unidentified Arab state.

CHUCK NORRIS’S ‘‘Invasion U.S.A.,’’ which opens today at the RKO Warner Twin and other theaters…

[Cervaise]

@Sitnam

A regime changing military expedition is much like a house mortgage.

Half a million people were killed when you bought your house?

You might want to look into getting a new real estate agent.

Either that or your analogy is somewhat off point.

One or the other.

[gonzomax]

The New York Times came out and said we should leave as quickly as possible. When a paper ,with its contacts and affiliations so deeply in the political parties and the establishment comes out against it ,it is important. They were one of the Iraq war enablers and now they have finally changed.

[Sevastopol]

@John Mace

Yes, you have, but you haven’t offered a logical explanation why wishing death on that group of Americans is any different than wishing death on any other group of Americans.

There are plenty of Americans fighting in Iraq who do not support the war and who are not over there by choice.

I search in vain for evidence of such.

@John Mace

…More people dying isn’t going to accomplish anything other than extracting some kind of revenge.

Death of their own is the only thing Red State America understands. You can’t talk to these people. Plus the fewer of them there are, the better and safer place the world will be in all sorts of ways.

[ITR_champion]

In 2003 I predicted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would turn out the same way as every other American nation-building project in the last 50 years: badly. But even I never imagined that the war would go this badly.

[tomndebb]

@Sevastopol

@John Mace

Yes, you have, but you haven’t offered a logical explanation why wishing death on that group of Americans is any different than wishing death on any other group of Americans.

There are plenty of Americans fighting in Iraq who do not support the war and who are not over there by choice.

I search in vain for evidence of such.

Until you get a chance to brush up your search skills, you can look ovewr these sites and stories:
http://www.ivaw.org/

Luxury Addiction Treatment Center - Alcohol & Drug Rehab - Passages Malibu

http://www.pr-inside.com/iraq-war-veterans-opposed-to-war-r136352.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/national/23vets.html?ex=1184126400&en=e9e63d6a6444cf32&ei=5070 (May require free registration.)

[Sitnam]

@Cervaise

Half a million people were killed when you bought your house?
You might want to look into getting a new real estate agent. Either that or your analogy is somewhat off point. One or the other.

People in the market for houses see money as a resource to invest. Governments willing to undergo military sponsored regime changes see their citizens as a resource (i.e. Luxembourg doesn’t do a lot of regime changing). My analogy is directly on point. It’s horrible that people die, but without supporting this particular invasion, in general it is incredibly naive to believe peace solves the worlds woes, and that you don’t need money to buy a house.

[John_Mace]

@Sevastopol

I search in vain for evidence of such.

Death of their own is the only thing Red State America understands. You can’t talk to these people. Plus the fewer of them there are, the better and safer place the world will be in all sorts of ways.

Tom gave you some places to look, but even if we couldn’t find such a cite, you can’t just assume that everyone over there is fighting out of choice and supports the war.

Your cavalier wishing of death on people is chilling. Why not wish for terror attacks on “Red State America” so there will be even fewer? The attitude you are displaying is exactly the same what is fueling the civil war in Iraq right now. Death to our political adversaries! Yeah, that’ll make this a better world…

[ZomZom]

I supported and continue to support the ouster of Saddam. We had twelve years of no-fly zone enforcement, our planes getting shot at regularly, and UN resolutions threatening severe consequences for failure to comply with the inspection regime. Saddam didn’t comply, and the severe consequence was his hanging.

I don’t, however, support the attempt to bring democracy to people who clearly haven’t the capacity for self-government. We should have left once Saddam’s regime was removed. What comes next can be either benign or targets for our Air Force.

[John_Mace]

@ZomZom

I supported and continue to support the ouster of Saddam. We had twelve years of no-fly zone enforcement, our planes getting shot at regularly, and UN resolutions threatening severe consequences for failure to comply with the inspection regime. Saddam didn’t comply, and the severe consequence was his hanging.

I don’t, however, support the attempt to bring democracy to people who clearly haven’t the capacity for self-government. We should have left once Saddam’s regime was removed. What comes next can be either benign or targets for our Air Force.

Were you really surprised, though, when sectarian violence broke out after we got rid of Saddam? I don’t think it’s fair to blame the Iraqis-- they’re people just like anyone else. And to say that we’ll just shoot 'em up again if we don’t like the new regime makes as much sense to me as what the other side is saying about wanted our military over there to take heavy casualties.

I can’t think of very many nations that didn’t go thru some sort of civil war before stability was achieved. Implying that the Iraqis are somehow barbaric because they’re doing what almost every other nation on earth had to do simply doesn’t make sense.