The internets provided the opposite side of the official US story. Scott Ritter and Hans Blix were protesting loudly but you could only get them on the internet. They said they went everyplace the Bushies said to go looking for WMD. Of course when Rummy said we know where they are ,around Tekrit north .south east,west,up down inside and outside and he was not hooted off the stage I knew we were in trouble. We allowed horribly stupid things to be said without arguement. The media rolled over and fed the war line to the people.
I am an anti war type. It takes a lot to get me fired up to attack another soverign nation.
Marching in our millions and being called traitors. Posting on supposedly intelligent internet forums and being called traitors.
The more relevant question is why those still here, who got it so, so, so, wrong dare even voice an opinion on Iraq, Iran and foreign affairs in general considering their track record.
As you apparently believe that “thumbing their nose at the collective security regime” (i.e., the UN) is something requiring an armed response, lets do a little pop quiz.
-
At the time of the invasion, in March 2003, which nation was in violation of more ongoing security council resolutions than any other?
-
Which nation was in second place?
-
Was Iraq in either first or second place?
This was me, too. “War with Iraq? What a laugh!”, I thought. Then it happened and it wasn’t funny.
The sad thing is that I haven’t learned my lesson, yet. “War with Iran? What a laugh!”, I said to myself last year.
It appears we have an unrepresentative sampling of the public here, the support for the war in March 2003 was quite overwhelming. At the time the Dixie Chicks were darn near tarred and feathered for exercising the freedoms that Bush pretends to care about.
I was against it from day one. I thought at the time we had the inspectors on the ground and Saddam was cooperating, however grudgingly, and eventually the truth would come out one way or the other. Why that course could not have been maintained is beyond me. I will believe to my dying moment that Bush and Cheney had been planning this since 1999 and was the impetus for their run for office. In the transition meetings with the Clinton team, the Bush people wanted to talk of little other than Iraq.
However, if I recall correctly, polls before the war actually started showed that the majority of Americans opposed it.
I would be astounded if true. I’ll have to do some research.
I found this July 2003 Zogby poll :
That’s about what I recall. Even 4 months into it, a healthy 59% still supported it.
I’m another “opposed from day one” guy (cite and cite).
Incidentally, in looking for those posts, I went through some other early pre-war threads, and was very interested to see how many pro-invasion members have left the boards.
This thread, also, is very interesting.
Yep. Can’t make an omelette without slaughtering a few thousand innocent children.
I’ve posted this a number of times, but it’s not quite as **Hentor **said. Polls before the AUMF vote in Oct '02 showed more opposition to the war than support. But by the time we actually invaded, in Mar '03, support had risen considerably (I think it was around 70%). Read this, from right before the vote.
Kinda interesting exercise to search back and see what I posted when.
On 9/14/01, 3 days after the towers fell and folks were all eager to go into Afghanistan:
Just it kind of bothers me when I hear folk talk simplistically as tho we just have to go in somewhere with guns a blazing to teach those bastards a lesson.
From a thread I initiated on 10/2/02
I’m in the group who has not yet seen any convincing justification for an immediate attack against Iraq.
1/23/03, in response to an OP asking what it would take for me to support war against Iraq:
*It really burns me when apologists for this military action start raising humanitarian reasons. It seems to me that the US generally proclaims humanitarian reasons as an afterthought - a post hoc justification for action we want to take for other reasons.
I do not see a consistent US foreign policy - under this or immediately prior administrations. Situations seem to be are addressed piecemeal. The primary determinants seem to be:
- If a country is of tactical advantage to us;
- If the country has resources we desire; or
- If relations with this country will be beneficial to US industry and economy.
I would be interested in hearing situations where the US acted recently in furtherance of humanitarian interests, at the expense of one or more of these 3 factors. I’m not saying it never happened. Just that I suspect it would be a rather short list.
If we wish to influence other countries to become more democratic and respect human rights, I strongly would prefer that we try to influence them through trade, or economic/agricultural/technological/medical aid. However, that would require a willingness to forego economic advantages in support of such principles. …
I do not understand why sovereign states should welcome US intervention in their domestic concerns any more than we would welcome outside intervention in ours.*
From 2/28/03 re: what it would take to forestall war:
Administration response: “Too little too late.”
Repeat as often as necessary, in response to all possible developments, until we initiate the attack.
I wonder what action by Iraq/Hussein - if any, would be enough to forestall the invasion?
And from March 2003, following Bush’s press conference:
The line that kept pissing me off was when he kept saying “12 years of negotiation hasn’t worked.” Exactly what level of negotiation has been going on consistently for the last 12 years. In my inexpert opinion - what HAD been going on for the past 12 years was containing him, and that had seemed to be going pretty successfully.
When he was talking about the various factors that made Iraq dangerous - anyone else think how well most of the factors fit Saudi Arabia?
Of course, I should admit that when making the case for American Imperialism on 9/2/02, I wrote:
And Iraq is easy pickings. Just the type of terrain where our military can wheel and deal. The live ammo war game to end all. And when it’s over, we’ll have that oil! Oops! 
Just a further clarification on that CBS poll I linked to. It’s not as simple as asking whether people support or don’t support the war, but under what conditions they would support the war. You can certainly read those poll numbers to say that more Americans supported the war, but it’s clear they didn’t support it (back in Oct '02) under the conditions it was waged-- ie, the timing, the reasons, and the lack of an International Coalition ( a real coalition, not Bush’s phony CotW).
You’re correct - my recollection was overly simplistic and incorrect. It is more accurate to say that on the straight up question about going to war in Iraq, majorities supported it. When asked, however, if we should wait for the inspectors to finish, and to a greater or lesser extent the factors that you mention, there was majority support.
Still, I stand corrected.
Me on 3/18/03:
Today my local news was filled with"Saddam defies Bush!" and “Hussein will not stand down!”
Ah yes. Refusing to leave your own country and stating that your country will defend itself against invasion is just TAKING THINGS TO GODDAMN FAR!!!
Me on 3/27/03:
I support the troops whole-heartedly. I’m looking into a pen-pal program so that at least one of those guys will know that their name will be called during mail call.
I worry that many will die in this bullheaded show of political testosterone. I fear that many more will spend countless years trying to patch up the forgein policy mess this administration will leave behind in the Middle East. I’m upset that many of those young men and women will have to make morally repugnant choices because of the dirty tricks of a madman who has nothing to fight with except dirty tricks.
This war will leave a boiling cauldron of hatred which our troops will be standing in for many years to come. I support my troops by opposing this war.
Can I call 'em or what?
At about the same time I realized Bolivia posed no immediate danger to the US either.
IOW, I always thought it was all a pile of Bushit and have been saying as much since joining this Board. This one and this one sum-up my position from the start quite nicely.
Ned Lawrence, is that you? 
I’m not convinced it was a mistake.
I still believe this was premeditated.
Yes, even the situation the country is in now is exactly where some people want it to be.
It looks to me as if measures were taken to ensure the country would plunge into chaos.
Tony Blair always looked like he was thinking, “I can’t believe I am acting like I am really on board with this”.
Epiphany: Blair’s face, from the talk of war with Iraq and his support of the US, made me think, “Um, this probably isn’t a good idea”.
Second epiphany: Only strategy anyone was willing to beat their chest about was a pure military strategy and did nothing to say, “Hey, here’s the long term political plan”.
hey Dinsdale care to post the links? (so 400 posters aren’t searching for the same 5 threads?)
Two reasons, just before the war began. First, the inspectors didn’t find anything, and I assumed, correctly, that US intelligence was giving them places to look. Second, the lack of interest in participating by most of our allies. I assumed that we would show them the smoking gun, like we did in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Their lack of interest seemed to indicate that there was nothing there worth invading for.
I must admit that I never expected Bush to screw the pooch so badly during the occupation. The idiocy of the Administration exceeded all my expectations.