's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

So, is anyone formerly against the war now supporting it?(34 posts)

So, is anyone formerly against the war now supporting it?DougSloan
Apr 9, 2003 7:30 PM
Regardless of motives for intervening, I would think it is hard to ignore the new freedom for the Iraqi people. For the first time in most of their lifetiimes they can walk down the street, express themselves, and not be concerned that some Saddam henchman will haul them off to the torture chamber. While this isn't finished, yet, has anyone changed their minds? In other words, ignore why we went in, who called for it, who was against it, just look at the result (so far, at least).

Wednesday Special at al Saa: Fresh crowjs5280
Apr 9, 2003 7:46 PM
for all war protestors and human shields that thought the people Iraq didn't want the U.S. there. So far, this has turned out like I thought it would. Hopefully the country will be stablilized in the days and years to come and the Arab world won't view this as a transgression. We can only wait and see. I remain optimistic. . .

Despite the what appears to be a successful "liberation" I still think that evidence that Saddam's reigme posed a clear and present danger to the U.S. is necessary to justify the action we have taken. I'm very surprised we are yet to find significant quantities or even evidence of WMDs. While it is great to see the reaction of the Iraqi public and rid them of their oppressor, I fear a U.S. that decides to gets in the business of "liberation."
Here, get this:purplepaul
Apr 9, 2003 7:49 PM
"We discovered that all what the [Iraqi] information minister was saying was all lies," said Ali Hassan, a government employee in Cairo, Egypt. "Now no one believes Al-Jazeera anymore."

"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," he said. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."

"This is a message for the Arab regimes, and could be the beginning of transformation in the Arab region," al-Absi said. "Without the honest help of the Western nations, the reforms will not take place in these countries."


"I spit on them," he said. "Do those crowds who are saluting the Americans believe that the United States will let them live better?" Fakhoury said. Americans "will loot their oil and control their resources, leaving them nothing."

Bahraini physician Hassan Fakhro, 62, said he was saddened because even if Saddam "was a dictator, he represented some kind of Arab national resistance to the foreign invaders -- the Americans and the British."

Snippets taken from the website.
re: So, is anyone formerly against the war now supporting it?Jon Billheimer
Apr 9, 2003 7:53 PM
The immediate apparent result has to be encouraging. I'm reserving judgement until I actually see what comes of this whole adventure. If Iraq ends up with a reasonably representative government and some internal stability AND the U.S. pulls out rather than continuing on to either threaten or actually invade other Arab states, I'm prepared to change my views. However, I still take the Wolfowitz gang at their word, that this is only step one in Project Pax Americana. Setting up Chalabi as the potential head of a new "democratic" government, however, does not bode well. How many other Arabs can you think of who are pro-Israel? Heck, he hasn't even been in Iraq in twenty years. Representative of the "people"? Hardly. Representative of neo-con imperialistic fantasies? You bet.
re: So, is anyone formerly against the war now supporting it?cycleaddict
Apr 9, 2003 8:38 PM
So who's next? As you are well aware, this is not the only place on the planet where one will find human suffering at the hands of a dictator. If we as Americans do not continue to "liberate" all of the oppressed people on earth, we will be exposed as only interested in the natural resources that exist within these wretched dictatorships.
So Doug, list the next five countries we will be paying a visit to.
re: So, is anyone formerly against the war now supporting it?bic
Apr 9, 2003 9:11 PM
Why is it that some, such as yourself, choose to not agree that what was done was the right thing to do? You always put more and more conditions, always raising the bar. Today, "so to speak" one country has been freed or as you say "liberated" why the use of Quotes?. of a shackel that you will never know. If America, and all the other 50 some countries, where to go back within their borders and never again do what they are doing. If Iraq and the Middle East chooses to regress back to what was. The fact will remain. Those who live in freedom gave their lives to free their fellow man. If some choose to view that as something else, then the blinders will always be on!!
Short term memory loss?jesse1
Apr 10, 2003 2:28 AM
You said:
"If we as Americans do not continue to "liberate" all of the oppressed people on earth, we will be exposed as only interested in the natural resources that exist within these wretched dictatorships."

In answer to your quote above, I can't think of anything our government claimed from the shedding of American blood in Bosnia, Samolia, Panama or Haiti. So hopefully those that think as above will be reminded that there was no oil, gold or diamonds in those countries.

We (the U.S.) imports more oil from Canada than any other country. I don't think they're too worried about us. Although - the Molson brewery is an inviting "target".
What natural resources were we after in Kosovo? (nm)Captain Morgan
Apr 10, 2003 5:08 AM
Probably, but not me...Dwayne Barry
Apr 10, 2003 6:01 AM
personally I thought and think it was a bad decision and I assume the main motivation was fighting "the war on terror", not the silly "it's all about oil arguement" or the equally silly idea that we went in there to liberate the Iraqi people. That doesn't mean that I don't think our military has done an exemplary job or that it is a good thing for the Iraqi people to be out from under the boot of Saddam but I really doubt that the threat Saddam represented to US National Security was all that great or that the best way to go about winning the war on terror is to invade an arab country that is far from the worse offender.
I'll agree with all that, and here's more...rwbadley
Apr 10, 2003 7:23 AM
I've always maintained that Saddam was a bad egg, and should be deposed. Time would have done this job for us, or it could have been speeded along a bit with subtle outside influence.

The Saddam statue coming down and the crowd reaction was great to see. The residents of Iraq appear to be showing gratitude at their new found freedom.

I think the short-mid term lack of food, water, and infrastructure will be overcome with great assistance from outside sources. It will be difficult for the population, and for others involved. The long term shows promise...

The flip side is, was this destruction the 'only' or 'best' way to accomplish this.

Now that Saddam is out, has the mind of the Arab world softened toward the idea of Western interference in their region? Have potential terrorists decided not to pursue Western targets? Are we any safer now that Saddam is gone?

Any answer given now (re: toppling Saddam) that does not attempt to look at more than one angle of the whole story is premature and shortsighted.

Many, if not most, world cultures have a collective memory going back thousands of years. The US memory may go back to the last TV commercial (come on, that's funny!?). I find it difficult to base a judgement of outcome on a one day/week/month timespan. Especially when a decade from now it most likely will still be possible to view the destruction of the last few weeks in Iraq. How it will be seen a decade from now is what would speak volumes.

I admit surprise the regime toppled quickly thus far. Is it 'all over'? Probably not, but one can hope...

Here here . . . .soup
Apr 10, 2003 7:28 AM
Show me a chemical/biological/nuclear weapons program in Iraq sufficient to pose a threat to the US and I will admit that I was wrong in thinking that it was too soon to go to war. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that the war was a bad call by the Bush administration.

I too believe the result (ouster of Saddam) is a good one. IMHO it could/would have been accomplished with broad international support if inspections continued and WoMD were found. If no WoMD, then why go to war?

wrong questionmohair_chair
Apr 10, 2003 6:52 AM
I think people can be against the war and still celebrate and appreciate the result. A lot of people were against the rationale for going to war, but that does not mean that once the war started they wanted the coalition to fail.

I think a better question is: After seeing the behavior of Saddam's death squads, his "prisons" and torture chambers, and the jubilation of the Iraqi people upon liberation, do you still think we could have solved the problem without war?

Personally, I was for going to war, but I'm also for quietly getting out of Dodge. America boasts far too much about its own greatness with ridiculous endzone celebrations. We came, we saw, we liberated, let's go home. I don't want to see any parades or parties. Let's look like we've done this before, and let's not turn on those who disagreed with it in the first place.
that's a good question, too, butDougSloan
Apr 10, 2003 7:04 AM
I see people interviewed on television who said they are happy to see Saddam fall, but still think we should have accomplished this diplomatically. Huh? What dream world are they living in? How does one "persuade" a dictator to step down and stop murdering and torturing people? That kine of fairlyland thinking (not you) is what keeps these tyrants in power. "We'll just think nice thoughts, flash peace signs at the cameras, call Bush a moron, and maybe the problem will go away." I think it is clearer now, maybe all over the planet, who is really promoting freedom (and willing to do something about it) and who would prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

No intention of attacking you, MC, I just happened to attach this message to yours.

Exactly doug...ClydeTri
Apr 10, 2003 7:08 AM
Why would Saddam agree to step down? I can hear the question, "Mr. Hussein, would you please agree to quit being a dictator so your people can please put you on trial and hang you from a light post?" how many of yall would agree to that if you were him?
but we told him we were "deeply saddened" by his behavior nmDougSloan
Apr 10, 2003 7:13 AM
Apr 10, 2003 7:16 AM
When the true nature of what was going on in Iraq is revealed, I don't think too many people will have regrets about the war. There will always be dedicated pacifists who will disagree, but I think over time they will shrink to a statistically insignificant number.

Did you see the ITV (Britain) report on CNN and other stations, where a British reporter went through a prison in Basra with men who had been there? The men were so desperate to tell what had happened to them there, they re-enacted the crimes.

I don't see how anyone could watch that report and some of the other reports I've seen and believe that Saddam and his regime would politely step aside. The regime had everything to lose, so diplomacy would NEVER work. Personally, I thought that was clear long before the war. It doesn't mean we don't try diplomacy ever again, it's just that when diplomacy is obviously not working, the line has to be drawn somewhere.
well put nmDougSloan
Apr 10, 2003 7:23 AM
Apr 10, 2003 7:42 AM
Do you think that once people see that this campaign had a good outcome and brought happiness to a nation of people--if indeed we don't botch it up--that they will overlook all the former questions they had about our motivations for doing it? I'm so tempted to just overlook it...but I'm not so sure that's a good idea.
not a good ideamohair_chair
Apr 10, 2003 8:09 AM
I'm suspicious of overnight conversions. People with true convictions can change, but it's usually a slow change rather than a quick one. If we manage to pull off a successful democratization of Iraq, I think over time, a lot of minds will be changed. Hopefully, a lot of those minds will be in the Arab world.

But no, I don't think all the former questions will be overlooked, and they shouldn't be. I think a lot of things were said, officially and otherwise, as part of the administration's sales job for war, that they may not be able to back up. There were some good questions asked before the war, and I think they deserve answers after the war. I think that's part of the process that must continue, like it or not.

I was for going to war, but going to war should never be easy to do. I hope our happiness and excitement about the outcome of this war won't make it easy to do it again.
Well said. Thanks for your thoughts. nmKristin
Apr 10, 2003 8:13 AM
until the next dictator gets set up anywayColnagoFE
Apr 10, 2003 7:33 AM
I still feel that it might not have been best in the long term for the US to go in with guns-a-blazing, but what's done is done. I guess you could call me cynical, but I can't see Iraq turning into a bastion of democracy overnight just because we offed Saddam. Who will it be next that the US decides is getting too powerful? Syria? Egypt?
nope..California..thought we discussed that :~)ClydeTri
Apr 10, 2003 7:48 AM
Can't we allow for some ambivalence?Kristin
Apr 10, 2003 7:37 AM
I was never against Iraqi nationals being free. But I still doubt the motives and values in Washington that drew us into this war. And I believe that we've blemished ourselves in the international community. Can't I just have some ambivalence about all of this?
Apr 10, 2003 7:53 AM
Ambivalence is ok. I just was curious whether anyone had changed their mind.

I think it's hard to reconcile the desire for Iraqi's to be free, but then not supporting doing what it takes to help them.

No doubt the motives of Washington in interventing were mixed, some undisclosed, some maybe even lied about, some good, some bad, but in the end, the result is what matters. We may never know the "true" motives, assuming anyone could clearly and honestly articulate *all* of them. While there may have been dozens of "reasons" to intervene, the bottom line ultimately is that there was one and only one way to solve the various problems -- to remove Saddam and his regime. Whether the motive was to free the people, establish democracy, rid the area of WMDs, impede terrorism, enforce UN resolutions, etc., the only effective means for doing any of those things was to take out Saddam. Even if the motives were impure, I think the result is still good, and would have have been achieved any other way. Freedom is a good thing.

I agree there is a long road ahead, though. We can't let this freedom be short lived.

The crux is, "When is the application of force justifiable?"js5280
Apr 10, 2003 8:28 AM
Everyone has their own defination from pacifists who say never and criminals who say whenever it suits their own needs. I think Saddam is clearly a case where force was only way to enforce any type of compliance on any issue. No resolution or even economic pressure would ever radically change conditions in Iraqi. Tyrants only respond to brute force.

The U.S. not above using force, in fact, the general population supports even greater use of force whenever it passes new federal and state laws/programs. Most people don't look at it that way though. However, if you stopped paying your taxes that supported these programs or violated these laws, you'd quickly find yourself looking at the barrel of a gun.
true nmDougSloan
Apr 10, 2003 9:50 AM
re: So, is anyone formerly against the war now supporting it?4bykn
Apr 10, 2003 12:45 PM
Are you asking if the ends justify the means?
not exactlyDougSloan
Apr 10, 2003 12:49 PM
I'm asking whether maybe some of the assumptions made about the conduct or outcome of the war may have been wrong, and therefore in hindsight, it was a good thing.

not exactly4bykn
Apr 10, 2003 2:42 PM
Assumptions about the outcome? I'd have been very surprised had it turned out differently.
I'm personally against war in general, not just this one specifically. I suppose I could be called an aging hippy pacifist.
Apr 10, 2003 3:13 PM
If you walked by a man beating the heck out of a woman, and you are the only other one around, what would you do? Assume he refuses to stop after you try to "discuss" it with him...

Oh, and you are much bigger, or you have a gun and he doesn't.

Apr 11, 2003 12:39 PM
We love hypotheticals, don't we :)

First I try to rationalize, then I try to defend the woman. Oh, and I'm not much bigger than anybody, and I don't (and never will) own a firearm.
Jury is still out...........Len J
Apr 10, 2003 4:00 PM
but a thought provoking question non the less.

I believe that it is way to early to say the war was worth the cost, mainly because we don't know the cost yet, nor do we know the benefits. We also don't know if the justifications as presented to the American people were real. Let me deal with each one of these individually:

1.) The costs. Will our actions further destabilize an already unstable area of the world? Has it irrevocably weakened the UN to the point that it will be unable to play the role it has attempted to play and we presumably wanted it to play? Will our actions so enrage the Arab world that the incedence of terrorism against Americans, will actually increase? Will the Iraqi people end up under another tyrannical regeime? How many more Coalition Soldiers will die? We do not know any of these answers yet. All (or none) of them could end up with favorable outcomes.

2.) The Benefits. See the inverse of # 1 above. We just don't know yet. All we know for sure is that a subset of the population of Bagdad is currently happy that Saddam is gone. We don't know how long that will last or how prevelant it is throughout the population. The only other thing we know is that a Despot has been removed (Not an insubstantial thing I will grant you). Wether or not it is sustainable is another question.

3.) The Justification. This was sold to the American people based on two primary issues, WMD and support for terrorism. IMO neither of these justifications has been substantiated yet. Finding one camp in Northern Iraq where terrorists may have, at one time, trained for missions against we don't know who, hardly classifies as evidence of a terrorist threat to the US. Securing freedom for the Iraqi people was originally an additional benefit that has taken on a bigger role as time went on and no other threat evidence has been discovered. Let me ask you a question: If GB had tried to justify the war solely on freeing the Iraqi people (which is the only benefit so far), would the American people have supported it? Obviously the answer is no IMO.

I am thrilled that the campaign went as smooth as it has so far. I am grateful that so few lives have been lost. But I still don't believe that that loss has been worth it yet. Believe it or not, I pray to God that I am wrong on this. The consequences for the world are too great.

Apr 10, 2003 4:26 PM
The premature back-slapping, "told-you-so's" and snarling in the direction of Iran and Syria is worrisome for those of us afraid that Iraq would go the way of Afghanistan, i.e. the Administration would count on American's short attention span and settle for a merely superficial victory.

The overthrow of Saddam is a step, but at this point we have no idea of which direction it will be in. The murder of the returned cleric doesn't bode well for the notion of a new leadership populated by repatriated exiles. More worrisome is this story :
Agreed. Maybe.purplepaul
Apr 10, 2003 6:02 PM
The events in the article, if true, are certainly terrible. However, I don't believe it would be tolerated for long. We seemed to damned if we do, damned if we don't. We're vilified for wanting to maintain control of Iraq for a period of time to stabilize it, and accused of complicity to terrorize when we let Iraqis run the show.

I think it's really too early to tell how things will shake out. No doubt there will be instances of tribal revenge, but I do believe it's possible that the man who was beaten and lost his car could just as easily been a former Saddam hood. Not that that excuses the behavior. But all may not be as innocent as they seem.