Yesterday I talked with a friend of mine via ICQ. We were arguing about the war and it was pretty clear that nothing either of us said would change the other person’s opinion.
So, I wondered, what needed to happen before people change their minds?
Being one of the people “against” the war (broad characterization, we all know it’s a bit more differentiated than that), I’ll start out and say what would change my skeptical view about Bush and the war:
New Iraqi government should be formed under supervision of the UN.
Afterwards the UN (yes, that means the USA too) needs to withdraw from that area.
Bush needs to explain the reasons for defying the UN and face the consequences of his actions.
Rumsfeld should step down.
As an added bonus, it would be nice if WoMD were found (and this time without evidence being rigged) and Saddam Hussein was found and put on trial.
I doubt that any of these things are going to happen, but hey, one can always dream
So, what needed to happen before you would change your mind? I am guessing that the provisions of the pro-war camp are equally unfullfillable and since they would most likely need to go into a direction of Bush committing a couple of crimes of war, I am keeping my fingers crossed that I will be the one who changes his mind in the end
For me, personally, if a new Iraqi government is established under U.N. supervision, the country settles down, the Iraqi people as a whole express approval of the U.S. military action to oust Saddam Hussein, and the rest of the Middle East sees this and realises that Americans really are good guys after all, then I would probably say that although I think the war was started for the wrong reasons, it had a good outcome.
And then the pro-war camp can start as many “neener neener” threads as it wants and I won’t complain…
Suffice it to say, the United States started this war for all the wrong reasons. We had no proof of the evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and the Saddam regime was complying with UN weapons inspectors. Even if we were to find a motherlode of chemical weapons and even if we found nuclear missiles, we still had no right to invade when we did. As far as I’m concerned, we lost this struggle as soon as Bush spluttered out his 48-hour ultimatum. I was and still am with the French on this one: I wouldn’t have ruled out invasion, but I wouldn’t advocate invasion unless we had solid evidence of these weapons.
As a result of this untimely invasion, the United States has sacrificed its respectability in the world. We have done damage to our international diplomatic influence and have caused unnecessary rifts with the Arab nations and Europe, as well as with Turkey and Iran. We became the biggest thug on the block as a result of this invasion. We have abandoned our longstanding policy against preëmptive strikes. When I was watching the TV war coverage on the day we invaded, I remember feeling something akin to having the plug pulled on a long-ailing patient.
Hopefully we’ll get a decent government installed in Iraq, largely under the guidance of the UN, and controlled by the Iraqi people. Hopefully the United States will work with the UN to rebuild Iraq and not turn it into an oil-dripping puppet and not leave it as a messy, unreconstructed anarchy like we left Afghanistan. But no matter how well the post-invasion scene plays out, the fact is that the ends don’t justify the means. It’ll be a long time before we can get back what we lost by attacking Iraq, if we can ever get it back at all.
With regards to the question posed in the OP, I think Chance the Gardener is saying that nothing will make him change his mind about Bush/the war with Iraq, because no matter what comes of this war, the ends don’t justify the means.
Basically, if one thinks it was wrong of the U.S. to go to war, a positive outcome isn’t necessarily going to change that. E.g. an angry mob lynches a serial killer: happy outcome for all of us, but still not a commendable action for the mob to have taken.
Personally I think that if this war had a really brilliant outcome - like what I already mentioned would be brilliant for me - I would still think it hadn’t necessarily been a wise or fair action to take but I would agree that all’s well that ends well. I would still doubt the intentions of those behind the war, but I would be glad that it had happened.
Maybe I didn’t state it clear enough. I was asking that in regards to the OP Chance the Gardener was basically stating that nothing would change his mind.
skankweirdall—Yes, that’s basically it: at this point, nothing would make me change my mind. What’s wrong is wrong and what’s done is done. If we could go back in time and prevent Bush from invading without sufficient evidence and thus making a hash out of American diplomacy, I’d be glad to answer the question “What would convince you we should invade Iraq?”
Azael—“Factually incorrect”? “Cowardice”? You attack, but you don’t substantiate: a true mark of a coward. Lay off the ad hominem attacks or crawl back under your rock. Leave the weighty subjects to those of us who know what they’re talking about. Honestly, I don’t agree with pennylane, but at least pennylane backed up his or her argument and, above all, was polite about it.
I’ve seen enough cognitive dissonance on both sides of this debate to make me wonder just where reasoning left off and emotional investment took over. It doesn’t seem like anyone is changing their minds, and who would blame them when the internet offers enough resources to let everyone indulge in their fantasy of choice. This has been a dark, dark time for the SMDB… I can’t wait until we can go back to being reasonable people.
It has certainly caused some very heated exchanges. I don’t really see anyone changing their minds about the war. It would go against their fundemental core values. I don’t think we are capable of just tossing that aside.
Don’t be so pessimistic, people! I’ve seen some really dark times on this message board before (even inspiring me to take an 18-month leave of absence) but on the bright side, you never know when you are helping someone come to a more informed opinion. I’ve changed my mind about a couple of issues based on stuff I’ve read on this board… so it can happen!
The true mark of a coward is hiding in words and excuses when action is necessary… I don’t expect you to understand that.
You do not know what you are talking about… please refrain from pretending you do.
**
We had plenty of evidence, we had a regime that had refused to disarm for 12 years at great cost to its economy and people. We had a regime that was still turning up banned weapons after all of that time. We had a regime that would not account for WMDs that had previously been known to be in their possession. If we truly had no proof of the evidence of WMDs then it is you who must ask yourself exactly what the sanctions regime was put in place for.
Ask yourself why the UN weapons inspectors had to fight every inch of the way to get access to sites and scientists. Ask yourself why we are now finding an extensive Nuclear complex underneath a site inspected only months before; a complex completely unknown to those inspectors. The evidence has been in front of you for quite some time now, the smoking guns are now coming to light. Your statement that Saddam was complying with the inspection regime is unfounded and self-deluding. The inpectors were not there to be detectives. What was required of Saddam was full-disclosure and you cannot make an argument that full-disclosure happened.
**
This is more obviously false. It has been picked to pieces many times before on this board and I was wrong to assume that you would know that. I’ll give you a chance, show me a cite to support “our longstanding policy against preemptive strikes.” Good luck, because the US has never endorsed such a policy.
Here’s a list of different places where the US has taken preemptive military action. (taken from another thread)
Grenada
Kosovo
Panama
Bosnia
Libya
Innumerable incidents in the Carribean from 1900-39
Somalia
Haiti
Either start talking facts or shut up, I’m not interested in your interpretation of “weighty subjects” when you obviously have no handle on them.
Have you entertained the possibility that Saddam Hussein played the game with the inspectors because he did not have any WoMD rather than because he did? He ruled by fear and intimidation, on that much I think everyone agrees. Allowing the Arab world, and the Western world, for that matter, to believe he did have them would make him seem bigger and more threatening than he actually was. He could not save face among those who looked to him as an example of what standing up to the Western world means if he was shown to have been dis-armed.
Always keeping the inspectors guessing allowed him to maintain the image of a powerful, threatening force. Proving he had no such weapons would make him seem weak.
If he had them, why didn’t he use them? We effectively crushed the Iraqi military with a fairly small effort, in terms of what we are capable of doing. Don’t you ask yourself why he wouldn’t use every weapon he had in his arsenol to stand up to the infidel?
the US has never had a policy against preemptive strikes (except using nukes). Indeed, (how many freaking times must I repeat this?!) the majority of instances where the US used military force in the 20th Century were preemptive. (e.g. Panama, Grenada, Libya, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, I had two more that I forget now.); and
(accepting your intepretation arguendo*) there still would have been no evidence of WoMD and Saddam would have been complying with UN resolutions.
Hell, let’s add to it:
After the UN-approved war, US companies would have received new oil and oil-support contracts, making billions.
Why would a war have been acceptable under these circumstances, just because the UNSC voted for it? This is situational ethics at its finest.
But Sua, I’m sure you know what Chance means. He’s referring to the act of attacking a country * that is not currently attacking anyone else. * Hell, apart from the usual fucked up internal police state, Saddam wasn’t even waging war on his own people (a la the Kurds). This is the first time we’ve just said “Hey, you, asshole… We don’t like you and we’re gonna come over and kick your ass and make you like it.”
And that’s just not how I’ve ever thought of my country behaving. We’ve done some bad shit in our day, but this is a new low.
(Although the results so far seem to be benefitting the Iraqi people, and that’s a very pleasant outcome to be sure.)
What would it take to change my mind? New, significant facts. There haven’t been any so far except for there being somewhat less guerrilla resistance than I had feared.
A change of my mind about Bush’s decision being correct would depend on learning what new, significant facts he had at the time that were not made public. If not, then one’s judgment of the ethicality and the wisdom of it must stand even if the worst cases do not occur.
Stoid, who were the Grenadians attacking? The Libyans? The Dominicans? Hell, the invasion of Panama was really just a very large police raid to arrest Noriega.
We may quibble over some of the examples, but I don’t think there is a real dispute that Panama was a precisely a “Hey, you, asshole” moment.
Sorry, Optihut, but with the exception of the WMD angle up there, none of your conditions for changing your mind make any sense. So you’ll think the war was a good idea if suddenly we throw the UN a bone, when the only reason that UN nations want to have anything to do with the rebuilding of Iraq is for lucrative contracts? And if we fire Rumsfeld? Whatever the hell for? Yeah, he devised the war plan that all of the Military Experts disagreed with, but which successfully demolished the Iraqi army in record time - the bastard. So you’ll agree the war was a good idea if we get rid of one of the people who thought the war was a good idea?
Frankly, this doesn’t seem like conditions for changing your mind. It seems like conditions for forgiving Bush for doing something that you still think was a bad idea, especially since none of your conditions have anything to do with the end results of this war. By your reasoning, if we do all of the above, and then the Iraqi democracy falls apart, al Qaeda launches a nuke against us in retaliation, and there’s a massive European embargo against us, you’ll still agree that this war was a grand idea.
As for myself, these are some things that could lead me to believe the war was a bad idea after all:
WMDs held in Iraq leak out, fall into the hands of terrorists, and are used against the US, and it can be shown (or at least reasonably believed) that this would not have happened had we not invaded.
There is a dramatic rise in terrorist attacks against the US and its interests, and the rise is a long-term phenomenon.
Iraqi democracy falls apart, and is replaced by another despot comparable to Saddam, who is also hostile to the US.
The French get really pissed, launch a massive cheese embargo, and the cost of pizza in the States skyrockets.
That last one is particularly frightening to ponder… shudder
Jeff
Substantial new evidence of Saddam’s imminant threat to the USA or a major role in 9/11 would change my mind about the war. But it would have to be evidence that Bush had, but had not made public. What has been made public up till now actually suggests his relative harmlessness and makes Bush a liar.
On the other hand, if that evidence showed up. It would be even worse for my opinion of Bush, because he has no right to start a war on secret evidence.
Conversely, My opinion of Bush would change if he admitted he had been lying all along about why he wanted to take out Saddam. At this point he could atone for his sins by apologising to the world and the American people, and resigning. (Without the resignation, that Apology is just so much talk).
