The Iraq War

[Sionnach Glic]

We had a thread on this subject created just a few days after the board first started up, but given how the forum has grown in members I'm interested in seeing people's thoughts on it now.

So, did you support the war when it first began? Why? What's your stance on it now? What do you think the US should do now?

Personaly, I was always against the war. I seriously doubted Bush's claims that Iraq had WMDs from the start, and figured that even if they did, then they'd still have no way of delivering it to a European/North American city. As such I considered them to be of no real threat. I also had a feeling that it would turn into an unending guerilla war that would fuck the country up even worse than it was before. Unfortunately, I was right.

As for what should be done, I say leave. The government is propped up purely by the US military. As soon as the US leaves it will collapse. As far as I can tell that's pretty inevitable. The only way to prevent it would be to keep US troops there for as long as decades while building up Iraq into Israel Mk2 so that when the US does leave the government won't fall to a coup or uprising or to an invasion from other countries.

[Captain Seafort]

I supported it from the start, not on the WMD grounds, but to get rid of Saddam - he wasn't a direct threat to any western country, but he was to both his own people and the region, and so his removal could only be a good thing.

While the US government bogging something up wasn't suprising, I think the sheer scale of said bog-up was, and I must admit to going through a stage (about 2006 to late 2007) when I thought the best solution was for us to get out - initally because everything was going to hell, and latterly because I believed that only the surge was reducing the violence on the grounds that swamping an area with troops is bound to have some effect.

Now, however, since a combination of the surge, Petraeus' new tactics, and the Sunnis in Anbar having had enough of AQ's interferrence have had a significant effect, I think an immediate withdrawal would be premature. The US has finally made significant progress towards stabilising the country, the Iraqi army is finally starting to get itself into good form, and there seems to be some progress towards integrating the former insurgent warlords into the political system. The process is far from over, and whether the progress seem over the last year to eighteen months can be maintained once the surge winds down remains to be seen, but in order to give it the best chance possible, I think it's important to stay put for the time being and reduce forces slowly, rather than just bugging out.

[KuvahMagh]

First I'll start off by being honest, I supported the War when it first began, I was an idiot and believed Bush.

What should be done is a tough call, if America leaves then I agree the Government will collapse, what concerns me though is Iran's influence. If the US does just pull out they will pour into Iraq and make a bad situation even worse.

[Teaos]

I was against it from the start, I was only about 16 when the war started but even then I knew the whole WMD thing was BS.

I was pretty sure they didnt have them given the total lack of compelling evidence and I though Bush just wanted revenge for Sadam trying to kill his Daddy.

What to do now...

I think leaving is the wrong thing for so many reasons. For one from what I have read the only reason there is a drop in fighting is pretty much because the US is paying the people who used to be fighting them to now act as local militia/police.

Thus the second the money stops coming in the fighting starts again but this time with better armed and trained people. I saw a cartoon not long ago that pretty much said America tended to train people and then 10 years latter they just ended up fighting those people they had trained. Its funny cause its true.

I dont know of any solution to Iraq, something like the Martial plan could work if it was done well and not the total and complete clusterfuck that has gone on in Iraq, where missiing money is not counted in dollar terms but in how many tonns of money has been lost. Where private contracting firms rape the American tax payer of money that they then dont use to help Iraq.

If America were to pull out it could have serious and drastically bad results for the middle east and the whole world.

So American can't pull out. People say "but our troops are dying" or "its costing billions" or "we're not making things better".

Not to sound like a heartless bastard but, tuff shit. Its the price you as Americans pay for electing such a complete retard. I'm in no way anti american. I do how ever hate the american administration and believe all americans have to be held accountable on some level for allowing them to get into, and remain in power. America started this cluster fuck, you have to stick it out.

[Nickswitz]

I'm against all human conflict from a religious standpoint mostly. And I feel bad for anybody who may have been lost in it, but I still don't support it.

[Nutso]

Against the war from the start, and I'm still against it.

First of all, for me to believe a secular dictator would allow loose cannons like Al Qaeda free access into his lands, and any co-operation with such an unstable presence as Osama bin Laden and his followers, I would have to take a huge leap of faith. Dictators are by nature very, very paranoid. They have to be. Someone is always trying to unseat them. Working with the mastermind of the U.S.S. Cole attack, with the group responsible for so many bombings, Saddam would be asking for another war with pissed off countries. I don't believe he would jeopardize his seat of power to help some religious fanatic fight a hopeless war. After the pasting he's got in Desert Storm, no way is he dumb enough to risk war on behalf of a religious fanatic.

Second of all, I wanted Osama bin Laden's head on a pike. Why in the hell would we abandon the mission to capture the very mastermind who slaughtered our people? For some penny-ante dictator? Colin Powell sold many on the righteousness of this new Crusade by showing us...pictures of some bunkers in a desert. In the meanwhile, the real hard working weapon's inspectors were busy digging and overturning Iraq in their search for any traces of WMDs' and yet they kept coming up empty-handed. Meanwhile there is all this evidence linking Osama bin Laden, all these videos and past attacks, and we are abandoning the hunt for our nation's biggest threat? Bullshit! Get the bad guy now!

Thirdly, who the hell are we to force democracy onto another nation? That should be up to the Iraqi people. They could eventually overthrow Saddam or his heirs. Come to think of it, our C.I.A. put this brutal dictator in power in the first place! Yet George W. Bush, son of Saddam's best CIA buddy George H.W. Bush, wants to kill his daddy's former BFF? We crushed the Iranian government which overthrew their King. The Iranians got their Democracy. However the Iranian people weren't so important to the British and U.S. as their oil was. So they engineered the coup that destroyed the emerging democracy under Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, and then let the Shah take over. Now I'm supposed to believe that the U.S. is pro-democracy or even gives a damn about the Iraqi people? We're pro whoever lets our private companies drain out that oil. Oil isn't a good enough reason to sacrifice anyone's life.

What we're doing in Iraq now is building bases. All the talk against Iran, I suspect the U.S. is preparing a staging ground for an offensive against Iran based in Iraq. We funnel so many $billions over there, we ignore America's own crumbling infrastructure, we send kids off to die on country-building missions, we have millions of Americans dying because they can't afford health insurance, yet we've seen the Iraqi puppet leader throwing out money to the Iraqi people on the Iraqi streets. Taxpayer money going out to Iraq, private contractors, and mercenaries with NO oversight. No wonder the Dollar is losing value. We've been printing so much of it without care, then we're supposed to be stunned when we're paying $4 per gallon of gasoline. It's not because of China or India increasing demand for oil and gas. It's because of our weakened currency, perpetuated by this over-budget, illegal war.

We caused Iraq's problems, now we can't leave because there will be a bloodbath to follow. It's an odd statement to hear since we killed so many Iraqis from the George H.W. Bush Administration through the Clinton Administration, what with Clinton's sanctions on Iraq who knows the definite number of children who died from starvation, into the Jr. Bush Administration, and going into the next Administration. Holy shit. Maybe we should offer the Iraqis freedom from us. We should beg for their forgiveness for all the damage, death and destruction we've fostered upon them. Because I don't know how many of them lost their fathers, mothers, children, friends to this war, and I sincerely hope they don't one day seek vengeance for those deaths.

[Captain Seafort]

First of all, for me to believe a secular dictator would allow loose cannons like Al Qaeda free access into his lands, and any co-operation with such an unstable presence as Osama bin Laden and his followers, I would have to take a huge leap of faith.

I agree. What this got to do with anything?

Second of all, I wanted Osama bin Laden's head on a pike.

I'd rather see him locked up, and live a very long life rotting away there, but that's nitpicking. In a more general sense, however, how are going after bin Laden and going after Saddam mutually exclusive?

Thirdly, who the hell are we to force democracy onto another nation? That should be up to the Iraqi people. They could eventually overthrow Saddam or his heirs.

I can't see it myself - Saddam was exceptionally good at maintaining control, and given his shift from favouring Uday to Qusay, was clearly looking to establish an equally effective successor. In any event, establishing an Iraqi democracy would have been a pleasant side effect to removing Saddam. The man was a menace, and would undoubtedly have resumed his plans for regional dominance given half a chance.

What we're doing in Iraq now is building bases. All the talk against Iran, I suspect the U.S. is preparing a staging ground for an offensive against Iran based in Iraq.

I very much doubt an invasion is in the offing - the Iranians are a much tougher nut to crack, and the US military's in no shape to launch such an invasion anyway. Air strikes on the other hand are likely, to prevent the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons.

We funnel so many $billions over there, we ignore America's own crumbling infrastructure, we send kids off to die on country-building missions, we have millions of Americans dying because they can't afford health insurance, yet we've seen the Iraqi puppet leader throwing out money to the Iraqi people on the Iraqi streets.

Do you seriously think that money would go towards sorting out the US' own problems if it wasn't going towards Iraq? The state of the US, particularly the lack of a proper health care system, is cultural, not economic.

No wonder the Dollar is losing value. We've been printing so much of it without care, then we're supposed to be stunned when we're paying $4 per gallon of gasoline. It's not because of China or India increasing demand for oil and gas. It's because of our weakened currency, perpetuated by this over-budget, illegal war.

The state of the US economy is down to the budget and trade deficits and the sub-prime mortgage idiocy. The cost of the war certainly doesn't help such matters, but neither is it the root cause of the problem. As for the price of oil, it's an inevitable result of expanding demand coupled with limited and shrinking supply.

I also find your description of your dirt-cheap fuel prices as "stunning" amusing.

We caused Iraq's problems, now we can't leave because there will be a bloodbath to follow.

Correct. An immediate pullout, such as Obama is suggesting, would very likely result in a bloodbath that would make 2006 and early 2007 look tame.

It's an odd statement to hear since we killed so many Iraqis from the George H.W. Bush Administration through the Clinton Administration, what with Clinton's sanctions on Iraq who knows the definite number of children who died from starvation, into the Jr. Bush Administration, and going into the next Administration.

Why is it odd. It's certainly the case that both sanctions (mainly thanks to Saddam) and the war have caused great suffering in Iraq. A civil war would cause far worse.

Maybe we should offer the Iraqis freedom from us. We should beg for their forgiveness for all the damage, death and destruction we've fostered upon them. Because I don't know how many of them lost their fathers, mothers, children, friends to this war, and I sincerely hope they don't one day seek vengeance for those deaths.

Then stay put and clean up the mess you left. What do you think would be more likely to breed resentment and hatred of the US in the long term? Staying as long as is necessary, and withdrawing in gradual stages as the violence recedes and the strength of the Iraqi government grows so that the country is left as a functioning democracy, or bug out ASAP, and let it collapse into civil war, split in three, and provide a ripe recruiting ground for AQ?

[Sionnach Glic]

With regards to Iran, there's no way the US is going to invade it. Regardless of who wins the election, there's neither the support nor the ability to really do so. The army is stretched thin occupying Iraq and Afghanistan already from what I've heard.

[Nutso]

I agree. What this got to do with anything?

We were told that Saddam worked with Al Qaeda and was harboring the terrorist. I couldn't believe that he would work with an unstable terrorist group. So for my President to link Osama and Saddam as some kind of brothers-in-arms and therefore Iraq must be attacked is a farce, a sham, a travesty.

I'd rather see him locked up, and live a very long life rotting away there, but that's nitpicking. In a more general sense, however, how are going after bin Laden and going after Saddam mutually exclusive?

(I feel I might be misunderstanding your question here, but I'll try. Correct me if I failed to answer to your point.) We're supposed to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11. Saddam didn't have a part in 9/11. Why was he included in that group? We don't go after every bad ruler in the world. That would be policing the world, something I feel no nation should do.

I can't see it myself - Saddam was exceptionally good at maintaining control, and given his shift from favouring Uday to Qusay, was clearly looking to establish an equally effective successor. In any event, establishing an Iraqi democracy would have been a pleasant side effect to removing Saddam. The man was a menace, and would undoubtedly have resumed his plans for regional dominance given half a chance.

You're assuming that the region won't be able to defend itself against a nation of starving people and a weak military. Israel could handle them. They have a strong, well trained and well-equipped military. Iran fought a U.S. backed Saddam before. They aren't entirely helpless either.

What you said about "establishing an Iraqi democracy," what gives the West the right to force this type of government onto people in the Arabic lands? We surely have the military might. Where is the moral right? I have a problem with the notion of attacking, invading and occupying foreign lands under the guise of spreading democracy. If we're going to war with any nation, it should be out of self-defense, not out of some misguided crusade to "fix" them.

I very much doubt an invasion is in the offing - the Iranians are a much tougher nut to crack, and the US military's in no shape to launch such an invasion anyway. Air strikes on the other hand are likely, to prevent the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons.

I can't disagree with anything here.

Do you seriously think that money would go towards sorting out the US' own problems if it wasn't going towards Iraq? The state of the US, particularly the lack of a proper health care system, is cultural, not economic.

I cannot disagree with what's been said here.

The state of the US economy is down to the budget and trade deficits and the sub-prime mortgage idiocy. The cost of the war certainly doesn't help such matters, but neither is it the root cause of the problem. As for the price of oil, it's an inevitable result of expanding demand coupled with limited and shrinking supply.

There isn't one cause. I apologize for my faulty statement.

Why is it odd. It's certainly the case that both sanctions (mainly thanks to Saddam) and the war have caused great suffering in Iraq. A civil war would cause far worse.

Then stay put and clean up the mess you left. What do you think would be more likely to breed resentment and hatred of the US in the long term? Staying as long as is necessary, and withdrawing in gradual stages as the violence recedes and the strength of the Iraqi government grows so that the country is left as a functioning democracy, or bug out ASAP, and let it collapse into civil war, split in three, and provide a ripe recruiting ground for AQ?

Both your above quotes are why I can't say "We must pull out NOW!" The damage has been done. No matter how foolish the war strategy was, or the lies used to get us into there, there is nothing to do but try to help Iraq become stable. Pulling out now would indeed have disastrous consequences for Iraq and for the U.S. and allies later on. I don't have a solution that fixes everything better and cleaner. However this doesn't mean I must support my dumbshit President or my ineffective, ineffectual Congress. Nor do I support their reasons for the Iraq War. They are both at fault for the quagmire. As a citizen of this land, I too must bear a responsibility for the future of Iraq. Of that there can be no doubt in me.

[Tsukiyumi]

Nutso - I only want to address one of your points. Regarding the morality of spreading democracy in general (our brand isn't the best IMO), if I saw a guy punching his kid in the face, I'd go and "fix" him quite promptly. Some people might argue that isn't my business, but I politely disagree. I think we, and other well-off nations should go around taking out dictators that abuse their people. Of course, I favor the "sniper round to the face" approach rather than all-out war, but a dead dictator is no loss to the world, and, in fact, may be a great boon.

[Captain Seafort]

We were told that Saddam worked with Al Qaeda and was harboring the terrorist. I couldn't believe that he would work with an unstable terrorist group. So for my President to link Osama and Saddam as some kind of brothers-in-arms and therefore Iraq must be attacked is a farce, a sham, a travesty.

The fact that Bush came up with various idiotic excuses for the invasion is no concern of mine. What I am concerned with are the twin reason that Saddam was a destablising force in the region, and had a track record of developing WMD. While the intelligence of an active WMD programme (the official causus belli) proved innacurrate, the existance of historical programmes is incontrovertable, as is Saddam's desire to posses them.

(I feel I might be misunderstanding your question here, but I'll try. Correct me if I failed to answer to your point.) We're supposed to go after the people who attacked us on 9/11. Saddam didn't have a part in 9/11. Why was he included in that group? We don't go after every bad ruler in the world. That would be policing the world, something I feel no nation should do.

AQ are not the sole source of all the world's ills, nor is association with them (or lack thereof) the sole factor by which the US should decide whether to invade a country. Moreover, not every dictator is sitting in the middle of the world's biggest oil reserves, with a track record of invading his neighbours. As long as Saddam remained in power there was the risk of another Gulf War, which would destabilise world oil prices even more than the dwindling supply is. As a side note, he should have been removed at the end of the last Gulf War, but unfortunately Bush senior's brain and spine had been hounded out of office.

You're assuming that the region won't be able to defend itself against a nation of starving people and a weak military. Israel could handle them. They have a strong, well trained and well-equipped military. Iran fought a U.S. backed Saddam before. They aren't entirely helpless either.

They're not helpless, but neither were any of Iraq's neighbours capable of removing Saddam. Nor, given the sorts of characters who run such countries, would such an overthrow be in the interests of the west.

What you said about "establishing an Iraqi democracy," what gives the West the right to force this type of government onto people in the Arabic lands? We surely have the military might. Where is the moral right? I have a problem with the notion of attacking, invading and occupying foreign lands under the guise of spreading democracy. If we're going to war with any nation, it should be out of self-defense, not out of some misguided crusade to "fix" them.

I specifically stated that the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq was a beneficial side effect to the removal of Saddam's destablising presence, not the sole justifying factor. In a perfect world, the western powers, under the auspisences of the UN would have the authority, military capability, and the popular support both at home and in the international community to go into every dictatorship in the world, boot out the incumbents, and provide humanitarian assistance until the installation of a democratically elected government. Obviously, this isn't going to happen, as none of those prerequisites exist. Nonetheless, this does not make the removal of individual dictators a bad thing.

Both your above quotes are why I can't say "We must pull out NOW!" The damage has been done. No matter how foolish the war strategy was, or the lies used to get us into there, there is nothing to do but try to help Iraq become stable. Pulling out now would indeed have disastrous consequences for Iraq and for the U.S. and allies later on. I don't have a solution that fixes everything better and cleaner. However this doesn't mean I must support my dumbshit President or my ineffective, ineffectual Congress. Nor do I support their reasons for the Iraq War. They are both at fault for the quagmire. As a citizen of this land, I too must bear a responsibility for the future of Iraq. Of that there can be no doubt in me.

That, to me, is a statement of support for continuing the war, for precisely the same reason that I do - pulling out would fuck the country up, while staying put at least stands a chance of sorting it out. Regardless of any support (or lack thereof) for the original invasion, or for the individuals responsible for the fuckups between 2003 and 2007, the Iraqis have every reason to ask and expect both our countries to clean up the mess we've created.

[Reliant121]

I will say it openly, when it started, I had no idea of the consequences.

Now, i look at it with retrospect. And I disagree with it. But i will recognise that good side effects have come of it: IE Saddam's removal. But the cost has been high. Too high IMO.

[Lt. Staplic]

I personally was in fourth grade when the twin towers were attacked, so i had no real opinion at the start of the war.

Now, however, I believe we did the right thing for the wrong reasons, and now we're paying for it.
I also think the correct solution is far beyond the ideas of pull out or stay. We need some kind of way to increase the political, and social system in the Middle East, not just Iraq before anything will be safe.

The biggest issue, is we are now fighting in a centuries old religious battle, and think we can somehow win through sheer military might. It's not going to happen. These people have been willing to fight and die for thier cause since before the US was a nation.

What we're left with is: We can't win through military might or diplomacy, but we can't afford to loose. We can't pull out as such actions would encourage the terrorists in the area, as well as demoralize many of the soldiers in the military to see the cause that they've fought for and seen many of their friends die for, abandoned before it was reached. At th same time, we can't stay in there and keep allowing our soldiers to fight and die over an issue we "overlooked" when we went into Iraq.

In other words we're f***ed

[Captain Seafort]

The biggest issue, is we are now fighting in a centuries old religious battle, and think we can somehow win through sheer military might.

Hardly. The religious angle is certainly important in the civil war aspect of the conflict, but the bulk of Iraqi opposition to the US is a combination the locals taking exception to a bunch of foreigners with guns turning up in their country and a lot of ex-squaddies taking exception to being sacked. These are both issues that can be solved and are being solved, albeit slowly.

What we're left with is: We can't win through military might or diplomacy

The facts disagree. The war is being won. US casualties are down, attacks are down, Iraqi civilian casualties are down, and most importantly the average Iraqi's confidence in the overall situation is increasing. Whether this progress can be sustained once the surge starts to wind down, and whether the short term agreements with the Anbar militias and the Mahdi Army can be converted in long-term political reconciliation remains to be seen, but as of now the combination of military might and diplomacy is working.

[Nickswitz]

I personally was in fourth grade when the twin towers were attacked, so i had no real opinion at the start of the war.

So was I Staplic. Were about the same age, huh?