How many Dopers are pro-war (with Iraq?)

For most of my life, I’ve taken an anti-war stance, regardless. But as I get older, things are just not as black-and-white as they used to be.

I hate war. But…there’s just something in the back of my head telling me that this time, this one just isn’t wrong. I really wish there was some way to avoid it, but the more I learn about the whole situation, the more I believe that we’ve pretty much exhausted our options here.

So put me on the “pro” side.

There is no alternative, IMHO. We just need to get it done as quickly and with a little loss of life ( on both sides ) as possible.

I’m pro-war with Iraq but I feel bad that we’re not taking the same route with North Korea.

I’m pro too since war is a form of diplomacy. The only form that works on recalcitrants like Saddam. I believe that kicking Saddam out now will actually save more lives in the long run.

I’m not anti-war, but I wish that there was some way to actually avoid one (not that I see any such option, but it’s wishful thinking). I think this stems from the fact that my best friend is apparently somewhere among the first battalions to be sent in. Take care, Chris.

I’m leaning towards it. I’m not sure that war with Iraq is a necessity, but I think it’s apt time for the Ba’athist dictatorship to be removed.

I believe that we have been, after 11 years of economic sanctions and diplomatic failures, reduced to a military solution to the threat posed by Iraq. I tend to vote conservative, but not exclusively republican.

This is more of a poll, so I’ll move it to IMHO. I’m sure my colleagues will be greatful. :slight_smile:

I’m against a war on Iraq at this stage, and I’ll remain against it if the only two parties involved are the US and the UK. I agree that Bush senior should have finished the job a decade ago (he thought leaving a crippled Saddam was more stable than a potential regime change, and boy was he wrong), but it’s worth noting that the problem goes back further than that. Without US backing, Saddam wouldn’t be the dictator he is now. Keep this in mind when engaging in a debate with someone who might not be American: they’re not anti-US per se when they’re opposed to this war, but they might just feel reluctant to have their respective armies jump into a battle to solve a problem created by another nation. Having said that: that’s all hindsight, SH is a problem, a real threat, and a dictator that must be stopped. I just happen to disagree on the methods, another point that needs stressing in these debates - seeing anti-war people being called supporters of SH is getting somewhat tiresome after a few months of war debates.

Anyways, off to IMHO.

Pro-war dem, here. For much the same reasons voiced here more eloquently than I could have.

Pro war here, as I just posted about at length in another IMHO thread. Going by that one we seem to be in the minority, but “A man who is more right than his neighbor is a majority of one.” - Robert Heinlein

Does this mean that the US is going to force China to leave Tibet?

I am glad that we are finally shaking off this forty year-old “paper tiger” mantle and doing what is right. I just hope that we have more resolve with North Korea.

Exactly what Coldfire said.

And quite frankly, I think the greater immediate threat is from North Korea, and then Pakistan - not the Paki government, rather the amassed Taliban and Al Qaeda hiding within its territory bordering Afghanistan. It’s most likely the place OBL is hiding out, too.

And is it just me that sees this conundrum?: The US and the UK say that the integrity of the UN is at stake, because of blah, blah…. But isn’t it the same the other way around? That the US and UK (mainly US) keep threatening to take unilateral action if the UNSC doesn’t agree to their demand of military action against Iraq?? Doesn’t that also threaten the integrity of the UNSC?


I basically am not convinced that inaction now will save more lives later. Plus, I feel we need to clean up the loose end that is Saddam…It’s not the 2nd resolution folks, it’s the 18th!

Also, that area is pretty unstable as is…I fear what will become of Saudi Arabia (anyone else see the possibility that that democracy votes in some less-than-desirable factions?) and also places like Syria and Jordan. Having easier access to strategic military locations (which the whole of Iraq will become) makes future posturing easier.

I’ve been wondering though about North Korea too…But I think we should do things one-at-a-time, not split our forces.

And lastly, yeah, dammit! The Security Council needs to actually be something more than a whining bitch screaming “Youbetternot!”


Not I.

Definitely pro.

Pro getting rid of Saddam by whatever means necessary.

Pro, but less pro than I was - I’d like to give the UN a little more time, but I also believe in the “war is justified even if it costs innocent lives, so long as it saves more lives in the long run than not going to war” argument. Saddam is a tyrant. He needs to be stopped. The allied forces were wrong for not doing so a decade ago.

The above hawkish sentiment does not imply that I think the sun shines out of Western leaders’ arses. The US, UK etc have made mistakes, do make mistakes, and have engaged in decades of hypocrisy in many ways. But while their claim to the white hats isn’t watertight, it’s the best we’ve had.

I’d consider myself largely conflicted and variable.

I understand the argument that Saddam should be deposed, but I don’t understand why the U.S. should act now and without broad international support. I see that the Bush administration’s bellicose stance has forced the inspection process to go as far as it has, but I still don’t think the inspectors have identified a real causus belli. I’m in favor of allowing more time for inspections, but I understand that there are strategic and tactical reasons why we must move soon if we move at all. I see that Saddam has effectively given the minimum necessary support to the inspectors, but to what extent should giving only the minimum enough to spark war?

I would be a lot happier with the war effort if there were a strong international consensus of support. I’m disturbed by the Bush administration’s apparent single-minded focus on war with Iraq rather than other international, domestic and economic issues.

In short, my view changes day by day, depending on the news.

Getting rid of Saddam sounds like a good idea, but then what? A 2 year occupation? Gosh, let’s put bullseyes on our men’s backs while we’re at it.

So, no, I’m not pro war, at least not a war where we go in and “kick some butt.” Even if we win, it’ll give endless fodder for terrorists. Everyone will want to kick the big bully’s ass. And if our allies think we’re acting like big bullies, then we should listen.

So what should we do? Give a bit more time for the UN inspectors to find a smoking gun. Provide economic incentive for the surrounding countries to take care of the “problem,” secretly perhaps but within the Muslim population.