TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Does anyone think that starting the iraq war was the right decision?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Does anyone think that starting the iraq war was the right decision?

Just curious

shupid

I think the poll results right now pretty much explain it :P

I claim minority status.

Re: Does anyone think that starting the iraq war was the right decision?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Just curious

yes.

^--- I think we can safely deduce which 2 voted in favor

*cough *cough

it was seriously lacking and misguided in purpose and goals. Presenting no solution to terrorism and no achievements in establishing the presence of those vaunted WMD's in Iraq. Still our president insists it was worthwile to go to war

It's quite clear that Afghanistan was not a war of choice, and was indeed a necessary war. The Iraq war was sold to the public on the basis of over 200 lies and misleading statements - some so outrageous that they should have immediately raised a red flag. Members of both major US political parties are to blame, but ultimately the buck stops with W.

Mosaic of soldiers killed in Iraq (some obviously must be repetitions based on the math):

http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/warpresMED.jpg

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I claim minority status.

I thought you were a "libertarian."

You're anti-women's choice, pro-war, and pro-big government
(and anti-constitution) when it comes to handing government checks to Pat Robertson. That makes you about as "libertarian" as Neal Boortz.


I'm sorry, that�s not a personal attack, but I just get tired of these faux �libertarians� on the radio.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ I thought you were a "libertarian." You're anti-women's choice, pro-war, and pro-big government (and anti-constitution) when it comes to handing government checks to Pat Robertson. That makes you about as "libertarian" as Neal Boortz.

Wow. I support our efforts in Iraq, so all of the sudden not only am I not libertarian, I'm in fact all of those other things? Interesting.

Of course Neo - in order to support freedom you must also support feminism, multiculturalism, free education for convicted felons, gay rights, negotiations with terrorists, unconditional welfare, the universal authority of the U.N., hefty donations to 3rd-world countries who will spend the money on bombs and tanks... did I miss any other radical left-wing inventions?

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Wow. I support our efforts in Iraq, so all of the sudden not only am I not libertarian, I'm in fact all of those other things? Interesting.

Supporting the troops does not mean supporting a war built upon lies simultaneously.

I was only repeating the opinions on those issues that you had stated previously, albeit in my own words.

However, consider this issue, as of now, a non-issue.


http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php...view&record=634

quote:

Libertarians issue statement on U.S. invasion of Iraq WASHINGTON, DC -- Statement by Geoffrey Neale, national chairman of the Libertarian Party, in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq: On behalf of the Libertarian Party, I wish to express our deep concern for the U.S. troops currently engaged in war in Iraq, and urge the government to end the conflict quickly and with as few casualties as possible. Though it is difficult for Americans who have never fought in battle to imagine a soldier�s fear and bravery, it is easy to imagine the anguish that every family will feel for their sons and daughters who never return. For that reason it is essential that the government make every effort to minimize casualties on both sides in this conflict. Libertarians believe that all Americans should give moral support to our troops, and we urge those who are opposed to the war not to blame soldiers for the misjudgments of politicians. Sadly, this war may extract horrific costs not only from governments and soldiers but from American society. More terrorist acts may yet be committed inside our borders; relationships with our friends and allies could be forever diminished; and the financial costs of war could be catastrophic to an already stumbling economy. Because Libertarians believe in limited, constitutional government, we are disappointed that President Bush declined to seek a formal declaration of war as clearly required by Article I, Section 8 of that document. By acquiescing to the president, Congress has abdicated its responsibility as well. The Libertarian Party also urges the administration to abandon its plans for an occupation of Iraq -- a policy that would further inflame anti-American sentiment in the region without benefiting the United States in any way. Though Mr. Bush promises that democracy will soon sprout from dictatorship in Iraq, the results of U.S. military involvement in Panama, Haiti, Kuwait, Afghanistan and other nations indicates that such promises are far easier to make than they are to keep. Finally, we would remind the nation that the traditional American values of peace, freedom, and military non-intervention have served this country well in the past and should be embraced again. To that end, we hope that our political leaders can summon the wisdom to bring our armed forces home from Iraq.

Yes, the Libertarian party is against many points pertaining to the War in Iraq. However, they are also for the complete removal of foreign aid as well as all domestic welfare. In short, I do not agree with everything the party has to say. I do not blindly adhere to all the points of the Libertarian party the same way I'm assuming most educated Democrats and Republicans do not agree with every stance of their parties. I do associate myself most closely with the Libertarian party, however.

But, if you're saying it's a non-issue, that's cool. I'm over it.

On a side note, I'll agree that I've stated my pro-life position and support of the Iraq involvement in the past, but where have I said that I am pro-big government? Maybe something I said was interpreted wrong, because I assure you I am very much against big government. (That's like hitting a libertarian below the belt )

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono On a side note, I'll agree that I've stated my pro-life position and support of the Iraq involvement in the past, but where have I said that I am pro-big government? Maybe something I said was interpreted wrong, because I assure you I am very much against big government. (That's like hitting a libertarian below the belt )

Bush's "faith-based initiative" is one of the most egregious, big government, anti-US Constitution policies in recent memory. It's Falwellism at its finest.

No self-respecting libertarian, Barry Goldwater paleoconservative, or liberal would support it, but you argued in favor of it in a thread I had started a while back.

Again it's dropped.

back on topic.

Yes "starting" the war was the right decision.

If you want more accurate polls in the future, don't try and lead the witness

Yes

Hmm. I'm not quite sure what to pick here. The way the US justified and carried out the war, no. However, if the clear intent was to get rid of Hussein rather than the 'Iraq is an imminent threat' line, then I would have supported it. Ho hum.

^^^ what he said, except that if the war was designing to rid the region of Saddam, there should have been a real effort to predict the consequences of a power vaccum in Iraq. Not just a hasty assembly of foreign opposition leaders into a governing council.

I also have a problem with how the war was sold to the public.

If they had been honest and had said they simply didn't like Saddam instead of scaring the shit out of everyone with "aerial vehicles" and "mushroom clouds," I don't think the support would have been there for a full-scale invasion. Their entire war planning after the toppling of Saddam also seems to have been incredibly inept.

I also don't see how the US will win hearts and minds in that region if Al Jazeera (Fox News of the Middle East) is showing reports like this on their TV channel and website to manipulate their viewers:



Pictures:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...EA425192815.htm



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...A478D565B02.htm

quote:

Scores dead as Falluja resists US onslaught Wednesday 07 April 2004, 10:51 Makka Time, 7:51 GMT Casualties are mounting in the besieged town Fierce street battles continued to rage in Falluja with resistance fighters putting up stiff opposition to US occupation forces trying to gain control of the restive town. Hospital sources said at least 45 Iraqis were killed and 90 injured in attacks on the besieged town on Wednesday. Among the casualties were a family sitting in a car parked behind the Abd al-Aziz al-Samarai mosque when it was bombed by a US airplane.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic ^^^ what he said, except that if the war was designing to rid the region of Saddam, there should have been a real effort to predict the consequences of a power vaccum in Iraq. Not just a hasty assembly of foreign opposition leaders into a governing council.

I agree entirely. Being against this war in Iraq, does not mean that I - as a rule of thumb - would have opposed any military action directed against Saddam Hussein (this is the mistake many of the Hawks make in chastising the anti-war contingent). This is what I posted on another forum:

quote:

Contrary to what many would like to believe, opposition towards the removal of the Baathist regime (and to a lesser extent, the Taliban regime) was not a stance of complicity towards the travesties committed by these regimes, but rather a fundamental "mistrust" of the US - acting as a power with a self-confessed interest in hegemony (be it political, economic, cultural or anything else) - to ensure that the interests of the local people would be upheld in the formation of new governments. You may argue that this "mistrust" is misguided (or merely go the way of an Andrew Bolt in suggesting that this mistrust - or any other disagreement pertaining to US policy - is based purely in neurotic anti-Americanism) but given the case history the US has in rebuilding nations and installing leader, I should think that my fellow anti-war advocates and I are quite justified in "distrusting" the US in this capacity. Besides, how can I trust an administration to spread democracy and liberty in the Islamic Middle-East when it is doing its best to undermine democracy (Florida?) and liberties (the PATRIOT Act?) within its own nation? If the action against the Baathist regime were initiated and/or sanctioned by the UN then - for the simple reason that I have more faith in the UN than the US to carry out the impartial, selfless recontruction of a new nation - I probably would have supported a war (in some capacity) aimed at removing the Baathist regime in the hope of installing a better system of administration for the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein committed intolerable acts of cruelty against his own people, and his ousting is a blessing (just as the ousting of Kim Jong-Il or Robert Mugabe would be a blessing) but I have little faith in the current US administration to adequately fill his void with an administration chosen by the Iraqi people, to act in the best interests of the Iraqi people. [...] The US, pre-war, never gave any insight into their plans for post-war Iraq. This undoubtedly has much to do with a lack of adequate preparation in this area (by Paul Wolfiwitz's own admission) but the absense of concrete plans for the future of Iraq still worries me. They speak of democracy as though it were a metaphysical entity, permeating all matters of human conduct, yet I doubt they'd be willing to hand over Iraq to a true democracy for fear of allowing a Shia goverment into power. I also doubt they've spent much time considering the general difference between the individualistic conception democracy of the west and the collectivist conception of democracy in the Arab world. Furthermore, how do they plan on keeping what is essentially three different nations (comprising of the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the centre and the Shiites in the south) together in the absense of a brutal dictator? The silence about how they plan to address these issues is worrying. Now you may chastise me for my lack of faith in the US's commitment to the Iraqi people, in which case allow me to ask you: 1) Based on 5 decades of nation building, why do you have faith that this administration, at this point in time, in this unstable region of the world is likely to install a stable system of government, supported by the Iraqi people? 2) Based on the absense of any enunciation of a post-war plan prior to the beginning of hostilities (still largely absent as of now) on what grounds should I have/have had faith in the US's proclaimed aim to install a system of government supported by and benefitting all Iraqi people? 3) Given that the "liberation of the Iraqi people" wasn't cited as a major pretext upon which a just war could be waged until it became clear that the claims of ties to Al-Qaida and of possessing large stockpiles of WMDs were false, on what grounds should I believe that the US were willing to spend $87 billion merely to satisfy the altruistic aim of installing a new system of government for the benefit of the Iraqi people (the same Iraqi people who suffered under sanctions enforced by successive US administrations for 12 years)? Would I really be so naive as to believe that the US would spend such an amount of money just to see the smiles on the faces of ordinary Iraqi people? Surely the US would have only undertaken this action under the pretext that it is likely to acheive its own aims (many of which may be mutually exclusive to those of the Iraqi people) in the process?

I may have supported a war against a Iraq if the following conditions were met:

1) It was clear - beyond all doubt - that all non-military avenues had been exhausted.
2) It had been sanctioned by the UN.
3) There was an international coalition committed to the military action and the subsequent rebuilding process.
4) There was a clear ennunciation of post-war goals, including how a new government was to be installed, what form the government would take, how the division of power amongst the ethnic groups would be managed and so forth.
5) It was made clear that the military action was undertaken only as a humanitarian mission, and that no member nations of the occupying force stood to profit from it in any way.

Zero from five, Mr Bush.

Winning hearts and minds:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...n_re_mi_ea/iraq

quote:

Hospital Chief: Over 280 Iraqis Killed 1 hour, 47 minutes ago By BASSEM MROUE and ABDUL-QADER SAADI, Associated Press Writers FALLUJAH, Iraq - More than 280 Iraqis have been killed and 400 wounded this week in the U.S. Marines' siege of insurgents in this city west of Baghdad, the director of Fallujah's hospital said Thursday. Taher Al-Issawi told The Associated Press that the toll was likely higher. "We also know of dead and wounded in various places buried under rubble, but we cannot reach them," because of fighting, he said. The U.S. assault on Fallujah began early Monday, when Marines surrounded the city of 200,000 people. Since then, U.S. forces have been waging heavy street battles, using warplanes and tanks against Sunni insurgents dug in heavily populated neighborhoods.

What a useless war.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I may have supported a war against a Iraq if the following conditions were met: 1) It was clear - beyond all doubt - that all non-military avenues had been exhausted. 2) It had been sanctioned by the UN. 3) There was an international coalition committed to the military action and the subsequent rebuilding process. 4) There was a clear ennunciation of post-war goals, including how a new government was to be installed, what form the government would take, how the division of power amongst the ethnic groups would be managed and so forth. 5) It was made clear that the military action was undertaken only as a humanitarian mission, and that no member nations of the occupying force stood to profit from it in any way. Zero from five, Mr Bush.

totally agree with that.also add "if saddam really was a threat to the world peace."

Bush was a uniter after all:

CNN reporting that the Kurds are joining the Shites and Sunnis in fighting the Americans by sending carloads of aid (perhaps weapons) into the Sunni triangle.


Or maybe they're finally bringing those flowers to welcome the liberators as Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us.

Or maybe CNN is full of crap, but they are a little better than Fox.

Re: Bush was a uniter after all:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ CNN reporting that the Kurds are joining the Shites and Sunnis in fighting the Americans by sending carloads of aid (perhaps weapons) into the Sunni triangle. Or maybe they're finally bringing those flowers to welcome the liberators as Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us. Or maybe CNN is full of crap, but they are a little better than Fox.

Really, I see no reason why the Kurds would even want to touch this mess, they have their own Utopia in Northern Iraq compared to the rest of the country. If true however makes you wonder, what was the point of this war, as if more was needed to question it.

Re: Bush was a uniter after all:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Or maybe they're finally bringing those flowers to welcome the liberators as Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us.

If it means we have to kill every last iraqi to liberate them then that's what we will do.

Re: Bush was a uniter after all:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Or maybe they're finally bringing those flowers to welcome the liberators as Cheney and Rumsfeld promised us.

Might be worth digging this up:

quote:

When Americans invade Iraq, Bush says, we will be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people, proving that taking out Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. The Iraqis will smile, and their joy will be recorded by �embedded� journalists, and will be broadcast to the world, and the world will see the justice of our mission.

The Global War for Hearts and Minds 19/03/03

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.