I was strongly opposed to the war in Iraq.

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Neubarth, Nov 23, 2008.

  1. Neubarth
    Offline

    Neubarth At the Ballpark July 30th

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    3,751
    Thanks Received:
    199
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Pacific
    Ratings:
    +199
    Mind you guys, I am not a mamby pamby liberal. I am a strong conservative when it comes to national defense. I just did not see Saddam as a threat. He was a stable dictatorship that we could have used in an attack on Iran if we felt so lead. We have used dictatorships hundreds of times in the past when it suited out needs.

    Ya gotta remember that our mentality during the cold war was that a country was safer with a military dictator than with a communist government. (Better dead than red was the philosophy.)

    It heald off the advance of world wide communism, so perhaps is was at least partially correct.

    Back to Iraq verses Iran. Iran is ruled by Radical Islam. Radical Islam at last count has issued over 100 Fatwas against the western democracies. To them we are the devil that needs to be destroyed. Osama bin Ladin is just a general in the overall Radical Islamic army. Mainstream Islam is not tolerant of Radical Islam, just like mainstream Christianity (Liberal Christianity) is intolerant of Fundamentalist Christianity. The mainstream guys just want to live a good life, do it with some religion so their daughters don't become tramps and their wives don't cheat on them. Beyond that the mainstream guys just want to live normal lives and be left along.

    Radical Islam wants to pursue holy wars against the infides. Osama is Radical Islam and tried to wage war against the West. He was overjoyed when he heard reports that after 9/11 American checked out books on Islam from our libraries and many attended Mosques to attend services out of curiousity. Iran being Radical islamic sees the US as the enemy, and they have issued many declarations that they are working to destroy the US. Ahmedinejad has promised to destory Israel and the US and has funded RI actions round the world. Iran is our potential enemy. Iraq never was.

    Too late to do anything about that now. Saddam is dead. He predicted that eventually the US will have to find a strong man to run that country in one piece, and I believe he was correct. How much you want to bet tha within three months after we pull out Radical islam will be in charge in Iraq. I think we let the Genie out of the bottle.
     
  2. Againsheila
    Offline

    Againsheila Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    17,126
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Federal Way WA
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    I wasn't. However I did have a caveat to my support. That being that if no WMD were found, Bush would be tried for treason.

    Before the war I was willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. Clearly I was wrong.
     
  3. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    Unlike you, I supported taking military action on Iraq based on regime change. I think we failed in our calculations about how to win the peace after we won the war (sorry to use such a hackneyed phrase, but I think it's apt still), but trying was still the right decision.

    Allowing Saddam to remain in power just to serve our own political ideals would, in my view, have been reprehensible. The man was a monster.

    There are many other monsters around the world, so should we take action with them as well? Whether we should or shouldn't the simple answer is we can't. There is neither the will, the money or arguably the military strength to fight mini wars on the several fronts that would be needed.

    That's where the UN should be making a difference but, like the League of Nations before, the UN is a paper tiger, torn by political rivalries and countries who take decisions based on what serves their interests rather than what serves the interests of humanity. I've always thought the UN should be a force to defend those who can't defend themselves. Yeah - fat chance.

    Essentially, we're fucked. This state of affairs will not, I am absolutely certain, be resolved within my lifetime. It's a terrible shame, but entirely consistent with our history as a species.
     
  4. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    Do you today believe that Bush himself knowingly inflated the intelligence pointing to the war in Iraq? Do you think he know that the intelligence was flawed and sold it to us anyway?

    If Obama doesn't do what he says he's going, i.e. end the war in Iraq in 18 months, cut taxes for the lower and middle class, get us energy independent in 10 years, do you think we will EVER be able to trust the government again?
     
  5. strollingbones
    Offline

    strollingbones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2008
    Messages:
    65,620
    Thanks Received:
    15,618
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    chicken farm
    Ratings:
    +31,922
    i am always amazed at the people who were against the iraq war...where were yall in 01 and 02....o wait...rabid with the idea of war...after 9/11 americans were willing to believe whatever it took...so afraid of another attack..remember the color alert codes..what became of them...o we were so proud attacking afghanistan..a country that had been engaged with the soviets for more than a decade...they were not and are not afraid of the title super power they have already forced one super power to withdraw. we was the outcry when the us toppled saddum and became engaged in the building and run of another country's governement. i simply refused to believe that all these people were against the war...its like vietnam vets on the net...if all the people claiming to be vets really were...that war would have been over in nanosecounds...(i mean zero offense to any vet but i think we all know the mentality i refer to) now it seems the next major lie..we were against the war....if making the big wave...arent the biggest lies the ones we tell ourselves?
     
  6. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,590
    Thanks Received:
    1,581
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,027
    There was no reason to attack Iraq, just as there is no reason to attack Iran. Ahmadinejad has said some inflammatory things about Israel, but that is not cause for war. He hasn't actually done anything to the United States, and all evidence points to Iran ceasing it's nuclear weapons program in 2003. Our policy of preemptive war is absurd. If you can attack somebody for something they might do, then you open the doors to attack anybody at anytime.

    Think about what you're saying for a moment, "We have used dictatorships hundreds of times in the past when it suited our needs." Do you honestly think that's a good policy? I'm not saying it's not true, because it certainly is, but do you believe it's a good idea? Blowback is the unintended results of our foreign policy. For example, we armed Osama bin-Laden and his fellows to fight off the Soviets during the Cold War, and later Osama attacks the United States. Why in the world should we have allied ourselves with Saddam Hussein to invade a nation that hasn't attacked us?

    Saddam was only "stable" when he wasn't gassing his own people, and this is a person you'd be willing to work with? We do not have the right to invade a country and depose its leader simply because we don't like them, but neither should we ever work alongside a murderer and a tyrant.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    I was against invading Iraq.

    Once we invaded and the society fell apart, I felt we were obliged to stay until civil authority could take over.

    I'm informed we're almost to that point.

    I hope I'm not being misinformed.

    If the reports I'm hearing are correct, I think we can be out in 18 months.
     
  8. Againsheila
    Offline

    Againsheila Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    17,126
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Federal Way WA
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    Yes I believe that Bush knowingly lied to get us into that war.

    I already don't think we will ever be able to trust THIS government again. I think for some time now our government has been ruled by a small powerful elite group behind the scenes. I think it's passed time for our second revolution.
     
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Welcome to the Viet Nam generation's zietgiest, Again.
     
  10. Red Dawn
    Offline

    Red Dawn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,224
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Liberal Socialist Paradise
    Ratings:
    +456
    You know, as the years go by, I'm finding more and more conservatives saying they were against the Iraq war from the outset. I hardly remember any Cons being against it in 2003. I suspect in four years, most Cons will be telling us that they never voted for George Bush.


    I agree with this. Saddam was a horrible thug, and a thorn in our side. But hardly a threat that merited a trillion dollar war and occupation, and the deaths and maimings of tens of thousands of americans.


    I think you newly minted "I didn't support the Iraq War!" Conservatives need to do a little more reading on islam and the Middle East.

    Iran is a shia theocracy. Osama and Al Qaeda are sunni fundamentalists. Shia theocrats and Sunni Jihadists hate each other guts. Sunni Jihaddists think Shia are dogs, and would just as soon cut their heads off and piss on their dead bodies, as break bread with them. Iran was an enemy of both the Sunni Taliban and the sunni extremists who derive from the wahhabi tradtion on the Arabian pennisula. Rather than conflate sunni jihaddists, and persian shia theocrats, a wise and intelligent President would figure out ways to exploit their differences. Much as we exploited the differences between German fasicsts and Soveit communists.


    I'd like to see a credible link to a statement by Ahmedinejad that he intends to destroy the U.S. I don't think that ever happened, I think you're only imagining it happened. Or, maybe you heard somebody on rightwing talk radio say it.

    He did say something about the State of Israel being wiped off the map. Although, that was a bad english translation. The actual translation from the Persian, as I understand it, is that the Zionest rulers of Isral will eventually be wiped from the face of history. There's a lot of ways to interpret that. A nuclear attack from Iran on Jerusalem is only one possible, and the most paranoid, interpretation. Nonetheless it was a stupid and beligerent thing to say. I seriously doubt Iran would ever contemplate a nuclear attack on Israel; the Iranian nation would be wiped off the face of the earth. And someone please tell me the last time Iran ever attacked another soveriegn nation? I think its been several hundred years at least, since Persia attacked and invaded another nation. That's not to say they aren't an appalling theocratic regime. I just want to see more credible evidence that we need war with them; evidence that was never provided in any credible way by the Bush republicans in their runup to the Iraq war.

    Now, before we go launching another stupid and unneccessary war, its behooves us to remember that Ahmedinehad is a puppet in Iran. He holds no real power, and he's not even the leader of the State. Khameni is the ruler of Iran. Ahmadinajad is just a figure head. He does not control Iran's military, and constitutionally he can't even issue any orders to the military. His role is symbolic. He's not even that popular with the actual theocratic leaders of Iran. They don't partiuclary like some of his crazy ass statements. I've never heard the actual leaders call for the destruction of the United States.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2008

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

whats the bulkaharran