posted
First they said it was wrong to dissent against the Iraq War while troops were still in battle. Then they said we had to be patient with the search for WMDs (but insisted that they would be found.) Then, when no WMDs appeared, they said the war was not really about WMDs at all - it was about helping Iraq become a more stable country less likely to support terrorism. And they said if we could only wait a little longer, we could make Iraq into a land of freedom. So we waited and we waited and we waited....
And this is just the stories of the past two days... Add to this the fact that our troops tortued Iraqis because of this war. Add the fact that we've added hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit because of this war. Add the fact that trust in America has dropped all over the world, especially in the countries we most need for the war on terror, because of this war. Add the fact that we have had to force many of troops to stay in military service, against their will, because of this war. And the fact that 1000 of our own troops and countless Iraqi innocents have died because of this war.
All of this, and what have we bought with it? We've managed to replace a tyranny with no WMDs and no proven connection to Al Qaeda with an anarchy where terrorists have free reign and the Iraqi people are unsafe.
Given all that we now know, who could call this war "necessary"? Who could even call it right?
Apparently, Bush still can. He insisted he knew Iraq had WMDs. He insisted Iraq was an immediate threat. He, at the very least, implied they were connected with Al Qaeda. Then, when none of these could be proven, he insisted this war would bring freedom to Iraq. He insisted Iraqis were happy we were there, and were better off. And he insisted that the war was justified under international law. He insisted that it was not unilateral. He insisted that it would help the war on terror. Later, when asked directly if he had made any mistakes in regards to the war, he could think of none. Since then, he has not retracted any claims.
So, the question now is, how can anyone still believe him? The administration has asked for time - it has asked for us to wait and wait, and we have (well, not me I guess, but more leniant folks have.) Isn't it time to say enough is enough, the war was wrong?
posted
Umm... I don't understand why you use the word "finally". Has this perception of events really only just captured you since yesterday?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
After thinking about it, I've come to the realization that all we can do is rebuild the infrastructure, make sure the country is secure again, and then make Iraq something along the lines of a protectorate. Something to let the world know that the first country that attacks Iraq risks retaliation from the US. Then we pull out.
I don't believe the military has any chance of changing anyone's mind about democracy or a secular society. Keeping the military around after we've rebuilt just guarantees that we're going to be spending money we could be putting to better use elsewhere, and sucks us into ideological battles that we have no chance of influencing.
We have opened the door, now it's up to the Iraqis to work it out. If they choose to butcher each other in the streets, then that is their choice and none of our concern (with caveats, of course), just as our civil war was an American problem.
It saddens me that we got involved in Iraq. While getting rid of Saddam is great, if what comes behind is no better, then it will have all been for little in the long run. I guess we will have to be satisfied for doing at least some good in the short term, no matter how mixed it might have been.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good, gods... Nothing can bring back all of those people... I had my suspicions from the very start in this...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, the intelligence community pretty much said the exact same thing before the most recent invasion and before the last invasion. It's why we didn't depose Saddam ten years a go.
posted
>.< What a mess... We'll probabaly pay for this for 10 years... Consign them all to flames of woe >.<
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the "finally" is in reference to the hope that most Americans can "finally" come together in agreement that the war was wrong, now that these conclusions are coming out in the news.
posted
I wouldn't hold my breath. This just means the justifications for the war will slide to the humanitarian side.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But how could even the "humanitarian" argument be made, given the destroyed and dangerous state of post-Saddam Iraq... and the likelihood of more civil warfare (and even potentially more dictators)?
posted
Because people believe that it will stabilize in the near future and that, long term, Iraq will be a stable, peaceful democracy, which makes the cost of the war worth it.
Also, many people don't know about the roving gangs and whatnot.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly the people in charge of that war were irresponsible, had no plan, underestimated the Iraqis, had the nerve to say last year that all major fighting as ended when it is only getting worse. Well meaning civilians are being kidnapped and are not being protected enough and yet STILL people will say that the president is doing a good job..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you believe you have evidence that an enemy is building up to attack, do you wait for definitive evidence, or do you cripple them?
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Clearly the people in charge of that war were irresponsible, had no plan
I don't know if that's true. I don't imagine Bush and Co. just invading 'for the oil' or some other shallow excuse. Bush took a huge gamble invading Iraq. Any number of things could have gone wrong, not least of which would be that Saddam actually *did* have WMD and used it on our troops or a neighboring country. As has already been mentioned about a million times, we and other countries *did* believe Iraq was doing something involving WMD. This report doesn't contradict that.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe you have evidence that an enemy is building up to attack, do you wait for definitive evidence, or do you cripple them?
You better have evidence good enough to be certain you won't be wrong, because if your evidence is wrong then YOU are the bad guy. That's why we have innocence until proven guilty, and at least one thing this war shows is that we need to apply that principle to international relations.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I orginally supported this war. I'd like to say that I was dreadfully wrong. I should have trusted my gut on this one, rather than thin justifications.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
For me, it was a lesser of two evils situation. The world is still far better off without Saddam Hussein in power. He should have been taken out in the first place. I have seen his biography, and have seen first hand accounts of what life was like under his regime from refugees. I'm sorry, but the man is and was evil and I'm far more ashamed that we ever supported him than that we took him down.
As for Kofi Annan, he is the head of a corrupt bureaucracy and I feel that he has furthered that corruption.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the UN had gotten behind the war and helped us out--like we asked them to about a dozen times--we wouldn't be in this mess. They cripple our efforts, then blame us for the result? To heck with 'em.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag you are right, this is nothing new. Its just further proof on something President Bush's critics have been saying all along.
It may not be time to announce that this war was a mistake, but it should be past time for the President to stop campaigning on the idea, "I am doing a great job and this war progress proves it."
It is time for a little more honesty from the President, and a little less spin.
My favorite part of President Bush's stump speach is the comment he makes, "All we do know about my opponent is, that if he had his way, Sadaam Hussein would still be free."
Well, President Bush has had his way, and Osama Bin Laden, the man behind those who actually attacked our country, the sponsor of thousands of deaths here in America, around the world, and now in Iraq, is alive and free.
Why? Because instead of hunting him down, a difficult task, we are spending our resources invading a country that had nothing to do with the attack on the US.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you pat yourselves on the back, condemn the UN and make little jokes, you realize Iraq is sliding ever closer to a potential civil war. More and more people are dying every day, and terrorist attacks are becoming more frequent, sophisticated and deadly. The situation now is hardly better than under Saddam.
Yes, I am aware that he was a vicious tyrant, and I am not saying that the current government and occupation is morally equivalent to his regime. Yet without the power to enforce some kind of peace, there is effectively no government in an increasingly large part of Iraq. Insurgents and terrorists are in charge now, just like the warlords and Taliban are in charge of Afghanistan.
A compounding of tactical and strategic errors has lead to a situation where it is becoming increasingly difficult for the US to accomplish its goals. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is essentially a failed state, and Iraq is perilously close to that condition. Regardless of your opinion of the justness of the Iraq war, current American military policy needs to be seriously reconsidered. Radical policy changes need not be an abdication or a sign of weakness, but a sign of the ability to recognize miscalculations and correct for them. So far, the current administration has seemed incapable of this, and that is what really worries me.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, we have no idea whether or not we would have Osama if we had not invaded Iraq. Maybe we would--maybe not. We spent quite a bit of time hunting him before proceeding to Iraq and didn't find him then, remember.
I hear a lot of people saying that we've abandoned Afghanistan, but anyone who takes the time to look will find periodic articles on what our military is still doing there. Just because it isn't on the front pages or the evening news doesn't mean they're gone. In fact, it suggests that little of interest is happening there--ie, we have brought some reasonable measure of stability.
Chaeron, if you are right about Afghanistan I have been seriously misreading those articles, or have missed some recent ones. Things looked remarkably quiet there.
As for the rest--I agree with you, and am reluctantly planning to vote for Kerry. Nonetheless, I maintain that the UN is also at fault for not helping us out--or even effectively enforcing its own rulings. If we Americans are not supposed to police the world, surely the UN should be doing it--so why has it not done so?
posted
Another trend I forgot to touch on that the Iraq war has to a large extent brought on, or at least propigated to a massive extent, is the transformation of al-Qaeda from from an organization into an ideological movement. This has the potential to significantly increase the threat from Islamist terror in the next decade or so. This is perhaps the greatest failure in the war on terror, much worse than the failure to capture Osama bin Laden. To portray the Iraq war as a victory in the war on terror is hoplessly naive at best, and at worst, an outright deception.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mac, read up on Afghanistan, the situation there is very bleak. There aren't enough troops there to maintain stability by an order of magnitude. The only place held by the US and her allies is Kabul, and for the most part, that's only during the day.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And no, it's not time to say the war was wrong.
When does that time come? Only when this all has become distant history and our judgement of the war no longer matters?
quote:Somehow I'm not terribly concerned about what Kofi Annan thinks, by the way. I have a feeling he's not willing to do anything about it.
But as the U.S. proved in regards to the U.N.'s statements on Iraq, it is not necessarilly about whether Annan does anything about it.... It's about what the rest of the world will do about it.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm disillusioned enough with the Republican camp to not vote for Bush.
But I can't stomach the Democrats either.
I'm going to write in someone's name. I thought about my mission president, but he's no politician. Who else can I vote for? I'm taking suggestions.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hell and damnation. When I turn 35, I think i should just run for president for the hell of it... It's easy to complain and gripe about politicians, but what about taking action? I should figure out how to run for some local government position... hmmm... hmm... Plus I'm just about scandal free.. *is not kidding*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has warned that "terrorists" are flooding into his country from across the Muslim world.
His comments on Monday echoed those of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair who said the day before that Iraq was now the "crucible" in which the future of global terrorism would be determined.
Allawi, who is visiting London, told GMTV at the end of one of the bloodiest weeks since the end of major conflict in Iraq: "It's not a second conflict per se, it's really an international conflict.
"Terrorists are coming and pouring in from various countries into Iraq to try and undermine the situation in Iraq. They're coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, from Europe, from Morocco, from Syria and so on.
"Iraq is on the front line of fighting these terrorists. And, God forbid, if Iraq is broken or the will of Iraq is broken, then London would be a target, Washington will be a target, Paris will be a target, Cairo will be a target, as we have seen in the past."
But former British foreign secretary Robin Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet over the Iraq war, disputed that argument.
"There were no international terrorists in Iraq until we went in," he told The Times newspaper.
"It was we who gave the perfect conditions in which al Qaeda could thrive."
Before the war I argued this same point - that overthrowing Saddam could create an ideal home for terrorists. At the time that argument was dismissed on the grounds that America would never allow Iraq to house terrorists once we took out Saddam - and that Saddam would be a worse terrorist threat than anything we'd allow. But isn't it clear now that we have NOT removed a terrorist nation from the map with this war...
posted
When forced between choosing A or B always choose C.
President Bush declared "Mission Over" two years ago at a photo op. He is praising his own great job he's done in Iraq.
Whenever questioned, he responds that he had only two choices, A--Invade Iraq or B--Risk The Countries Safety.
How? Well Hussien probably had WMD and he MIGHT give them to terrorists some day.
He says he had to choose between doing what he did or trusting the word of a dictator.
There was a choice C. There was a third option.
That third option was to invade with a plan, not only for defeating the enemy, but for efficiently managing the peace.
He Assumed that Saddam had WMD. He Assumed that Iraqies would welcome our conquest and occupation. He Assumed that rebuilding of Iraq could be done as the war had been done, with a minimum of manpower and on the cheap.
He was wrong three times. How many strikes do we give him?
Now I don't think Iraq is President Bush's fault. He believed his people, and put a lot of faith in Rumsfeld and Cheney. Many of his people may have wanted to please his agenda more than offer the truth. When everything is spun so much, reality gets lost in the dizziness.
I feared he was not truly in charge, not truly in the "loop" when he talked about the "Shock and Awe" attack that would open up the war, and it was more of a surgical strike of a couple of cruise missiles.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure there was a plan we could have made that would have avoided the problems we're having right now, short of not invading when we did. No matter what it would be the U.S. ruling over a sharply divided people in a time when the Arab world all around and within Iraq hated us.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The terrorists are coming from other countries. Isn't it possible that this will be helpful in both the other countries and in protecting ourselves?
posted
Face it. We've taken a chaotic country and made it even more chaotic. It could take ages for it to settle down. And yet, this president choses to just slap a bandage on saying, "We're winning the war on terror." and that the Iraqi people and the world is safer. Clearly it ISN'T...
Then, there is this to consider-http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1308346,00.html
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee... The world is seldom a safe and stable place. I try to avoid the news, but each day, each week there are kidnappings in Iraq, soldiers dying on a weekly basis. If the world were really safer, would this even be happening? http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=IraqPosts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it "Clear" that it is a safer place? How can our President not only predict that it is, but proclaim it from the rafters as an undisputable fact.
Kind of like WMD were an undisputable fact.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
