What is your view of the Iraq war? 2003 and 2006 (Keep it friendly)

[True Democrat]

No way/All for it

[Nym90]

There was no adequate response for me. I am retired military (33 years total) so one must expect I am not against war if it is justified. I do not believe we should ever commit troops to overseas battle without a congressional declaration of war. I opposed the "war" in Iraq from the outset. I believe we should have declared war on the Taliban and taken care of business in Afganistan first. Iraq could have waited or potentially pulled a Libya and not have been done at all. I firmly believe that you never go to war unless you intend to win. When you commit the forces you tolerate no dissent at home; you censor the press (media); you accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from the enemy. Ugly? You bet! I just described World War II. The last war we actually won. Like I said, don't go to war unless you intend to win.

A good response.   

Thanks! I think we see things much the same. I suspect we are in the same business!

Yeah, for the most part. I still support/support it though.  The whole "declaration of war" is a bit hard to do with some of the modern "actions," but you're right, we should only commit if we think we can win . . . and we did.  I think the media has made this war much harder than it should have been, but at the end of the day, we'll have a "V" next to this war in our record book.

Is it worth winning the war if we have to lie to people in order to do it? If the only way to win a war is by lying to the American people, that makes me wonder if it is something we should be doing in the first place. Those who feel the media should be censored are basically saying they feel the American people are stupid to make the decision of whether or not a war is just or not and Big Brother needs to make it for them. I say tell people the truth and let them sort it out for themselves.

Make no mistake, I feel Saddam was a horrible guy and I'm glad he's gone, but the truth of the matter is that the war has been massively expensive and as of this moment in time we aren't any better off for having done it. I sincerely hope that history will prove this wrong for the sake of our country.

[adam]

Option 2. As my emotions were running high (as a lot of people's were) I was for it for the most part. However, I have grown weary of the rhetoric and would like to think that we could move on to domestic issues.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Was opposed/still strongly opposed

And I support a complete and immediate withdrawl of all troops.

[MODU]

I'm not going to debate it here Nym (since the thread says "keep it friendly") but I disagree that there was "lying" in regards to the premise of the war.  So yes, it was worth it.

[NewFederalist]

And Nym... I think you missed my whole point about censorship. Censorship is coupled with a declared war and other unpleasant suspension of constitutional liberties. That is why the declaration is important. It is such a HUGE step that you don't do it lightly and once the step is taken the complete national focus is on total VICTORY as soon as possible. This would eleiminate Vietnams, Koreas etc.

[minionofmidas]

There was no adequate response for me. I am retired military (33 years total) so one must expect I am not against war if it is justified. I do not believe we should ever commit troops to overseas battle without a congressional declaration of war. I opposed the "war" in Iraq from the outset. I believe we should have declared war on the Taliban and taken care of business in Afganistan first. Iraq could have waited or potentially pulled a Libya and not have been done at all. I firmly believe that you never go to war unless you intend to win. When you commit the forces you tolerate no dissent at home; you censor the press (media); you accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from the enemy. Ugly? You bet! I just described World War II. The last war we actually won. Like I said, don't go to war unless you intend to win.

A good response.   

Thanks! I think we see things much the same. I suspect we are in the same business!

Yeah, for the most part. I still support/support it though.  The whole "declaration of war" is a bit hard to do with some of the modern "actions," but you're right, we should only commit if we think we can win . . . and we did.  I think the media has made this war much harder than it should have been, but at the end of the day, we'll have a "V" next to this war in our record book.

Is it worth winning the war if we have to lie to people in order to do it? If the only way to win a war is by lying to the American people, that makes me wonder if it is something we should be doing in the first place.

That obviously depends on how necessary the war in question is.
If all the alternatives to going to war are worse, then lieing to the people is worth winning the war.
Of course, that basically leaves the Civil War, World War II and arguably World War I as the only legitimate wars the US has ever been in. (Not counting the Revolution because the US was not internationally recognized until 1783. )

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

support/support

I think we went there on good intentions, and now that we're there--FINISH THE JOB!  can't leave 1/2 way through!

[Smash255]

opposed/ Opposed

I think the War hurt us in the war on Terror and that was one of my main concerns from the start.  The biggest threat we face comes from Fundamenalists.  Saddam was evil no question, but he was a Secularist, he wasn't a Fundamentalist, he wasn't going to wage war on behalf of Islam, he didn't have the weapons or the capabilities to wage war.  We should have let the Inspectors do their jobs instead of kicking them out.  Saddam did kick them out once, but then we kicked them out since they didn't find anything.  I think it has hurt us in Afghanistan (as we now see the Taliban gaining in some areas) & helped Al Qaeda.  It also is a great recruiting tool for al Qaeda & Fundamentalsism.

The War has also been very very badly managed.  While it should have been asked more, the few times it was asked the adminsitartion disregarded it.  That is the What if question.  What if the Weapons aren't there?  What if we aren't greeted as liberators?  What if the Oil profits aren't able to pay for the War?  What if we are there for an extended period of time?  What if the sides can't coexist & their is Secatraian violence?  All those questions were disregarded.  the administartion saw one way of things, one way how things were going to go and planned that way, they made no plans for the alternative scenarios and continue to do the same thing.  What if the sides are not able to coexist?  What if the Secatarian violence continues & the low level civil War turns into a full blwon CiviL War?  Then what?  Again no plans.

Now I don't favor up getting everone out right away, however I do  think we need to start redeploying troops and getting them the hell out of there.  Getting them home within the next year or so.  The Iraqis may not get themselves together with or without us.  we can't just saty there forever and just hope.  We need to do something.  It looks like the Iraqis are using us as a cructch and as long as that crutch is there (100 k + U.S troops) the Iraqis aren't going to step up and take care of their own.  Most of the vioelnce in iraq is Iraqi vs Iraqi, we are now in the middle of it, and our troops being there isn't going to have the Iraqis step up.  thats somethng they need to do themselves, and if they keep using us as a crutch which all indications indicate than it ill just be that non stop fighting.  Iraq is a very tough situation, a very bad situation, their is no easy solution, but stay the course isn't working

[Nym90]

I'm not going to debate it here Nym (since the thread says "keep it friendly") but I disagree that there was "lying" in regards to the premise of the war.  So yes, it was worth it.

I never said there was, but you are essentially blaming the media for the current state of affairs. If the media portraying what is happening in Iraq is leading to American opinion turning against the war, that would imply that the only way we can win is by lying to the American people in terms of censoring what is actually going on. I don't believe it's morally right to hide the truth from people, and if a war cannot be won without lying about how well things are going, we should seriously reconsider whether or not we are on the right side to begin with. I trust the American people to make the decision about whether or not their tax dollars are being used wisely in Iraq.

[Nym90]

And Nym... I think you missed my whole point about censorship. Censorship is coupled with a declared war and other unpleasant suspension of constitutional liberties. That is why the declaration is important. It is such a HUGE step that you don't do it lightly and once the step is taken the complete national focus is on total VICTORY as soon as possible. This would eleiminate Vietnams, Koreas etc.

I agree with that. I'm not against extreme measures in extreme situations, but in those cases there would need to be a full debate in advance of the war as to the pros and cons with the American people agreeing to give up those rights in order to allow the President full power to wage the war.

[Nym90]

support/support

I think we went there on good intentions, and now that we're there--FINISH THE JOB!  can't leave 1/2 way through!

I agree, but the problem is that we don't seem to be making any progress at all. If nothing else someone needs to clearly articulate what progress is being made and how things are better now than they were one month, two months, 6 months, or a year ago. That's why it's starting to feel like Vietnam, because it seems as though people are dying and we are stuck in a rut and not making any progress.

And if progress is indeed being made, there should be no reason to fear or oppose a timetable for eventual withdrawal, as we will clearly eventually accomplish our goals which will lead to withdrawal once those are done.

[Joe Biden 2020]

If the Democrats regain control of the House and/or the Senate in 2006, they would most likely have the votes to counteract and override a lot of President Bush's ideas and potential vetos, especially with growing Republican dissent and dissatisfaction.

I think the President will almost be compelled to start slowly withdrawing troops from Iraq, a process which if done right should take about 12-24 months, thus taking until between early spring 2008 and early spring 2009.

There's no getting around the fact that we will have been in Iraq longer than in World War I or World War II or Korea.

[Michael Z]

I didn't support the war precisely because I thought this sort of thing would happen (ie. Shiites and Sunnies lunging at each other's throats). Plus I didn't quite trust Bush and Blair to NOT make a pig's ear of this one.

That said, what do we do now? We can't cut and run because it would simply make a bad situation worse. I foresee British and American troops being stationed there for a long time to come, even though I would support a solution where an international peacekeeping force gradually takes over in the transitional period where we fully hand over military control to the Iraqi forces (who, at the time of writing, are patently incapable of handling this situation themselves).

[??????????]

There's no getting around the fact that we will have been in Iraq longer than in World War I or World War II or Korea.

I never understood this line of argument. Somehow critics have come up with the idea that "if it takes longer the WW2 = the war was wrong". And remember, we quit Korea because Truman didn't actually want to be aggressive and finish the job. And WW1? Well the US didn't even get involved till nearly the very end of the war.

[MODU]

I'm not going to debate it here Nym (since the thread says "keep it friendly") but I disagree that there was "lying" in regards to the premise of the war.  So yes, it was worth it.

I never said there was, but you are essentially blaming the media for the current state of affairs. If the media portraying what is happening in Iraq is leading to American opinion turning against the war, that would imply that the only way we can win is by lying to the American people in terms of censoring what is actually going on. I don't believe it's morally right to hide the truth from people, and if a war cannot be won without lying about how well things are going, we should seriously reconsider whether or not we are on the right side to begin with. I trust the American people to make the decision about whether or not their tax dollars are being used wisely in Iraq.

Yes, it is not morally right to hide the truth from people, but that is what the media is doing.  It is only reporting and exploiting the negative news from Iraq to the point of absurdity.  There is a whole different side to the war which rarely gets mentioned by the media, and when it does, people claim that it is propaganda.  Well, I'm sorry to admit, but airing nothing but negative information on a situation is also propaganda under that definition then.  That's why I say that people's opinion on the war would be different if they actually knew the whole story of what is going on over there.

[??????????]

Amen to that MODU. I have several friends who have been there a few times. One of my good friends is on his 3rd or 4th tour and he has been to every area of Iraq and has been in a few battles. He told me, "Don't believe what the media says, they are full of sh!t."

[Josh/Devilman88]

Supported then and Support it now.

[Nym90]

I'm not going to debate it here Nym (since the thread says "keep it friendly") but I disagree that there was "lying" in regards to the premise of the war.  So yes, it was worth it.

I never said there was, but you are essentially blaming the media for the current state of affairs. If the media portraying what is happening in Iraq is leading to American opinion turning against the war, that would imply that the only way we can win is by lying to the American people in terms of censoring what is actually going on. I don't believe it's morally right to hide the truth from people, and if a war cannot be won without lying about how well things are going, we should seriously reconsider whether or not we are on the right side to begin with. I trust the American people to make the decision about whether or not their tax dollars are being used wisely in Iraq.

Yes, it is not morally right to hide the truth from people, but that is what the media is doing.  It is only reporting and exploiting the negative news from Iraq to the point of absurdity.  There is a whole different side to the war which rarely gets mentioned by the media, and when it does, people claim that it is propaganda.  Well, I'm sorry to admit, but airing nothing but negative information on a situation is also propaganda under that definition then.  That's why I say that people's opinion on the war would be different if they actually knew the whole story of what is going on over there.

I'm certainly not denying that there is going to be some distortion and spin to what the media tells us. I'm just saying that the solution is to allow more coverage then so that the positive side can be told as well, rather than censorship. If there are positive developments, then someone needs to be over there reporting them so that the people aren't misinformed. I would object just as strenuously to attempts to censor positive war stories as I would to censorship of negative stories. There is also the factor of the President always being able to command an audience at any time to help spin his side of the story and the media always being necessary as a counterbalance to that, which is true no matter who the President is or what party he's from.

I believe that the media largely tells us what we want to hear. In the beginning the coverage of the war was almost 100 percent positive, and I'm sure most of that was spin as well and that not everything was going as well as it was portrayed. The media above all likes to simplify otherwise complex realities and make them seem black and white, which I agree is very distrubing and a very bad thing for the country; however, the onus ultimately falls on us as the people to not buy the products being advertised on a media source if we object to what they are reporting.

They are simply serving the market that is out there; that's how capitalism works. Not saying it's right or wrong but that's the system.

[Bdub]

Support/growing restless

[NewFederalist]

And Nym... I think you missed my whole point about censorship. Censorship is coupled with a declared war and other unpleasant suspension of constitutional liberties. That is why the declaration is important. It is such a HUGE step that you don't do it lightly and once the step is taken the complete national focus is on total VICTORY as soon as possible. This would eleiminate Vietnams, Koreas etc.

I agree with that. I'm not against extreme measures in extreme situations, but in those cases there would need to be a full debate in advance of the war as to the pros and cons with the American people agreeing to give up those rights in order to allow the President full power to wage the war.

Bingo my friend! That is EXACTLY what a congressional war resolution does. The entire United States Congress debates whether this is really worth the price to accomplish and IF they decide it is then Katie bar the door for the enemy! The enemy is then clearly defined and they know the entire nation will not rest until they are defeated... unconditionally defeated. If the New York Times does not like it... well it doesn't matter because they cannot write anything the government doesn't want the citizens to read or hear or see. Total war sucks which is why they don't last any longer than necessary to achieve total victory. We haven't done this since 1941. We have not won a "war" since 1945!

[Eraserhead]

No Way/Not a chance. I'm amazed two people voted for No Way/All for it.

[°Leprechaun]

This war is clearly not justified. Next to improving the democratic process it is my number one issue.

It is a terrible tragedy that so many people have died for nothing.

[DownWithTheLeft]

No Way/Not a chance. I'm amazed two people voted for No Way/All for it.

As much as I support the war, I too am amazed that someone who was against it in the beginning (minority) would have switched to other minority of supporting it now.  But I guess, some people are like that or dishonest voters.

[°Leprechaun]

As crazy as it may sound to some people, I am not sure war is ever justified, but that may be a moot point. We should be doing everything we can to prevent war, the US could lead the way by reducing the number of nuclear weapons we have and stop thinking of ourselves as the police of the world. We could be doing whatever we can to promote cooperation between nations instead of taking sides and supplying arms to other nations.

Whether you are a total pacifist or not, there are ways to promote peace.
We spend to much on war and not enough on peace.