I oppose the war in Iraq because...
Which of the above identify your feelings most closely? Multiple selections are available if someone feels strongly about several options.
Printable View
I oppose the war in Iraq because...
Which of the above identify your feelings most closely? Multiple selections are available if someone feels strongly about several options.
Where's my free oil?
I'm not sure there is a war in Iraq. Are you referring to the initial invasion? Or the continued presence of Coalition troops?
The issues are somewhat different. You could say one is about breaking and entering, the other about squatting.
An awful lot of people are going to fall into the "originally supported it" category. Pindar, I don't know if you're a poll-smoker, but here's some info that might be of interest to you.
I voted "wrong focus," since that most closely matches my misgivings. I'm not going to bother elaborating, since I have done so elsewhere, and since positions seem to be rather hardened at this late state of the game.
The Onion, as usual, has a rather brilliant comment on the President's conduct of the campaign.
I'm referring to the use of arms from the initial invasion through to the present.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That is interesting. Those Mormons are a tricky bunch. But, given South Park proclaimed them the ones going to Heaven, looks like Bush is in trouble.
Illegal and Impractical - Can't succeed.
Why are all polls anonymous nowadays? I like to see who voted what.
I voted:
It is an impractical war: cannot succeed.
It is an impractical war: wrong focus.
Am I the only one who wants the oil?
I've got bad news for you ...Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
While Iraqi lawmakers struggle to pass an agreement on exactly who will award the contracts and how the revenue will be shared, experts say a draft version that passed the cabinet earlier this year will likely uphold agreements previously signed by those countries under Saddam Hussein's government.
Well, "to take control" does not necessarily mean "to take control and actually do more than pocket some of the profits". See?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I vote for all options to varying degrees apart from .....I originally supported the war
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
We should have had tankers lined up in the persian gulf and shipped as much as possible to the U.S.
These ideological wars Mr Bush has gotten us into really have me scrathing my head, you cant export a theory unless you have a willing customer.
I much prefer war for profit, clearly we need the oil anyway, it would defer some of the cost of the war and if we sucked enough out minimalize the value of that commodity in that part of the world.
But oh no, we want to ensure they are no longer repressed and have the right of self determination :dizzy2: Bush is an idiot, the only person who can ensure self determination is the individual, so once he screwed up and went to war at a minimum we should have taken the treasure.
what would have been the worst that could have happened? Iraq civil war and universal condemnation from the rest of the world? :2thumbsup:
Wrong focus, with a nice trail of breadcrumbs to lead to that wrong focus.
Pwnt. Better luck next time.
Illegal & immoral; I thought so before it started, throughout its prosecution, and still do today. At least most of the lies* and hypocrisy** have now been thoroughly exposed, but they were clear from the beginning, as was the Orwellian doublethink of Blair and Bush. I thought the way the media curled up and swallowed the government line was spineless, and as ever, any outpouring of bellicose flagwaving always creates an uneasing feeling for me. The country turned into a mindless, bloodthirsty mob incapable of analysing the facts of the situation.
* WMD and Saddam-Al Qaeda links, faked intelligence etc
** Saddam was a bad man who had to be removed, even though he was just as bad when we were supporting him, oh and all the poison gas he ever had we sold to him in the first place
You honestly think that Bush has or ever had the welfare of the Iraqi people at heart? Are you serious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
To be blunt yes, I think he truly believed that he was rescuing them from a tyrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Yes i am serious, why wouldnt i be?
these guys are radical ideological nuts, yep no doubt in my mind he believed and still does believe the bullshit that comes out of his mouth.
They did have the tankers lined up , the problem was that they had them waiting in line for a hell of a long time . All the time they was waiting it was just costing more money , since they were waiting and waiting and waiting in a dangerous area the insurance and wages premiums cost even more money .Quote:
We should have had tankers lined up in the persian gulf and shipped as much as possible to the U.S.
Another case of bad planning eh :yes:
Bah, the wait would have been half as long if Turkey had taken the payoff and let us invade from the north. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Now that this has been explored, the Hitler's of the world thank you.
Nah , wouldn't have made much difference , the hundreds of attacks on pipelines and refineries which caused delays happened after "victory" . Since those that occur in the North , which would be the only facilities were Turkish help would have had any impact occur in those errrr.....quiet , fine areas where the Pershmerga have been in control for the past decade anyhow .:shrug:Quote:
Bah, the wait would have been half as long if Turkey had taken the payoff and let us invade from the north.
Thats wierd , I could have sworn that it was the Hitlers of the world that went round invading countries and spreading their form of government among others .Quote:
Now that this has been explored, the Hitler's of the world thank you.
Perhaps I got my history wrong and this is a good exampe that you can learn something new everyday:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
:laugh4:That assumes the same strategy that was used applies if the goal was different. Lets see a "surge" of 30k troops to secure oil lines to a port and tankers. forget urban centers, classic death trap for professional armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Nah, secure the oil, ship it home and allow Iraqi's the true meaning of the term "self determination". :laugh4:
Slight problem there Odin ,apart from the Syrian pipeline going through Anbar province all the others go through urban areas , and the ports are urban areas too , good thought though.
Hey perhaps secure the Anbar pipeline and invade Syria so we can use the pipeline .:2thumbsup: After all they do actually have lots of WMDs , and WMDs are a good reason for an invasion:laugh4:
Sorry, I thought the many shy members of the Backroom would be more apt to participate if they could choose from the shadows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
:hide:
I knew you would come around ! Ever live in Texas by chance? :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
One vote for the pacifist. I'm european, and I spend most of my free time smelling flowers and decorating.
You are taking your self-criticism too far lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Miles
ROFL! :laugh4: Excellent put, my friend! :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I voted it is an immoral and illegal war.
Illegal because the US has no business in how another independent country runs its internal business.
Immoral - well, where do I begin ?... Hypocrisy, lies, making a mess out of those people's lives...
As for the practicality of the war, I don't care. A war should have nothing to do with practicality, imo.
I'm somewhat of a pacifist, but I didn't put that down as a reason - I believe that sometimes wars are inevitable, and I'll support them in those cases, despite my convictions. I can't smell flowers, though, I'm allergic.
Pindar: re anonymity: I don't think you needed to worry too much about that. In all honesty, we prolly all pretty much know what the others think about this - remember the "your predefined Backroom stance" thread ? :beam: It's ok, either way - most people seem to say what they chose.
Others: It was and is counter-productive… And Stupid, ill prepared, doom to fail…
Same vote than Luigi...
i voted for beef as my favorite dinner meat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That's true Blodrast. The backroom does resemble that old joke about the guys in prison: It's all quiet when one of them yells "53". The whole place busts up laughing. The new guy doesn't get it and asks what's going on. They explain: "We've all been here so long we just number the jokes."Quote:
Originally Posted by Blodrast
We could save ourselves a lot of time by just assigning numbers to our positions and arguments. We all know who thinks what.
So I say this poll is nothing but a clever ploy by Pindar. He knows we're not shy. Each one of us is a pompous, arrogant piss so full of himself we all re-read threads just to remind ourselves again of our own brilliant contributions.
This thread is but a cunning means to lure shy, lurking members out in the open so we can then trap them in craftily spun rhetorical webs for our amusement.
:spider:
Hehe, so true, my friend. Although, in a way, see, I feel bad, for example, for Agent Miles, who probably got this impression literally, unfortunately. I also believe that there may be people who might take your (and mine...) post seriously, Louis. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Too bad that people don't hang around a bit more, to see that underneath our venomous snipes, harsh comebacks, and acid comments, we're all really a bunch of huggy-feely, fluffy-animal-loving, giggling friendly folks. ~:grouphug:
We just take a little getting used to.
Whew, I thought it was just me ...:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Errr, sorry about the hijack, Pindar.
“Qui m’a dénoncé?” Légionnaire Légitimus in Le Bouclier Arverne. Who denounced me? Cafard... Snitch…:sweatdrop:
I still think one needs to separate the two. There is the world of difference between invading a sovereign state (Saddam's Iraq) and providing troops to maintain the internal security of a sovereign state (post-Saddam Iraq).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
That said, I oppose both.
The invasion was immoral. To attack another state, you need a pretty good reason and there was not one in this case. In fact, it is hard to think of what would constitute a good reason. Only two possible come to mind.
The first is to avert a humanitarian catastrophe - a Rwanda-type situation. Saddam's Iraq did not qualify - yes, he had done nasty things to his own people but most of the mass atrocities seemed to be dated around the Iran-Iraq War or Gulf War I, and there was not evidence of ongoing genocide or anything equivalent.
The second potential justification for an attack on another state is for national security. I guess this was the official reason for the invasion, but it never seemed plausible to me. I was not convinced Iraq had significant quantities of WMDs it could use against the US and the UK. I don't think anyone - in either the UK or the US government - was convinced of that. They hid behind legalisms and technicalities. (They might have thought Iraq had a few left over WMDs, but did not think Washington or London could be hit by them.) The Blair reasoning that Iraqi WMDs might leak out to terrorists seemed tenuous and hypothetical. The case of Afghanistan was very different - given that the Taliban was harbouring the perpetrators of 9/11 and allowing them to plan further attacks. Further, Afghanistan was never really "invaded" by the US - "bought" might be a better word. The Taliban had a much more fragile grip on their country than Saddam and the US was able to operate through strong proxy forces in a way that was inconceivable in Iraq.
Ex post, it seems clear that on both counts - humanitarian and national security - the war has made things worse. Mortality estimates imply the invasion has made the humanitarian situation much worse. The invasion (and Abu Grav etc) have inspired a whole new generation of terrorists and make the terrorist threat worse (especially for the poor Iraqis). That was certainly suggested by some opponents of the war at the time, but it was not obvious to me that this would be the case, so it is not the essence of why I thought the invasion immoral. It does reaffirm that thought though.
I oppose the occupation on pragmatic grounds. The continued presence of coalition troops is opposed by the majority of the Iraqi people (and, AFAIK, the politicians - at least the ones who will come out on top). Most think removing the troops will improve the internal security situation. Many support attacks on coalition troops. I agree with the majority of Iraqis: taking the foreign troops out will reduce one reason for conflict. It may also allow a sustainable political settlement to be made, when the power of the US is not providing a temporary crutch for the incumbents. The incumbents will have more of an incentive to build up their own security forces and/or do political deals with their opponents to settle disputes.
Still think the war was justified, but mistake on mistake on mistake..... it shouldn't have been like this. Winning hearts and minds the american way, should have sticked to serving hamburgers.
Since we are
let's explore econ21's brilliant post.Quote:
Exploring the opposition mind
I actually don't have much dispute with the first 90%, laying out the fraudulent groundwork used to justify invading (although I think some of the proponents actually believed their reasoning, at the time; i.e. I don't think they deliberately lied).
Once those initial goals were achieved (WMD threat neutralized (ha!), Saddam captured), I don't understand the need for further occupation. OK, stick around to help out with elections. But then? Stick around at Iraq's Gov't request to help out with security? For how long?
At the moment, I feel like we are a visiting bouncer in a bar not our own - having just broken up a fistfight. I've got a Sunni by the scruff of the neck, a Shia in a hammer-lock, and I'm staring down a Kurd in the doorway.
I just wanna leave this joint and have a cold beer, but if I let go right now, these 3 (and others) will burn the place down, I'm quite sure. Do I let them go, anyway? What do I do?
It cannot succeed because it has the wrong focus. This in turn means that people are dying for no good reason, making it immoral, especially when coupled with the level of half-truths, misrepresentation and "honest intelliegence mistakes" that laid the case for war in the first place.
Good analogy - it's shows that exit not an easy decision. I guess the key thing for me is the visiting bouncer point. Sooner or later, you are going to leave. And you will not be replaced by another bouncer from outside. The Sunni, Shia and Kurd will have to share the bar together, unsupervised. Your exit is a matter of timing and it is not obvious when to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
A more brutal observation is that the Coalition have not broken up the fistfight. They've shot the leader of the regular bouncers and scared off his lackeys. The regular bouncer was a pretty vile character, so no particular regrets about his fate, but still, it's pandamonium now. As a consequence quite a few of the bottles are aimed at you, but usually they are launched behind your back so you can't see who threw them. Probably some of the regular bouncers who have crept back in to the bar, as well as their Sunni pals. But quite a few bottles seem to have come from the Shia side of the bar, where rival gangs are squaring up to take over when you leave. A neighbouring bar seems to be supplying free empty bottles for some of the Shia to lob at you.
And of course there are not one each of the Shia, Sunni and Kurds but a whole room full of them all. And only one of you. (Well, there's a slightly built Brit watching the south exit, but he's wearing glasses and trying to read his newspaper, smiling politely at the brawny Shias who bump into him.)
ROFL. Brilliant, as usual. :bow: If that isn't a Q. Tarantino scene, I'll eat my script. All we need is Samuel L. Jackson quoting the Bible before he & Travolta kill 'em all.
To stretch that analogy just one more step: It's your contention that my (bouncer's) merely being there in the bar has incited the other actors to additional violence/bottle tossing. Will emptying my hands and walking out rapidly cause the bar to be destroyed, or will the actors behave themselves, once I've gone?
Or isn't it my problem to solve anymore? If the bar brawl scenario were RL, the answer would seem to be: hold on for more legitimate authority to arrive and take over; the police (the UN? Arab League?), or the bar owner (Iraq gov't?) should sort this out.
One thing seems clear. Once dis-entangled from this middle-east barbrawl, we (US) need to re-look at presidential war powers again. Apparently we didn't get it right when we tried to fix that in the late '70's.
But it's their place, not yours... If they really want to burn it (and eachother) down, don't you think that's really their right to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
Just playing advocate. For the record I think the answer to that is yes.
Voted that the war was/is illegal and immoral to begin with, wrong focus, and completely and utterly impossible goal.
:balloon2:
To add to the analogy, it is not merely just the 3 men's bar, but other people are in the bar doing whatever, but will be harmed should the bar be burned down, but yet cannot stop the 3 men from doing so
Here's a view from the ground, rather better informed than any of us.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
That is fine, you may distinguish in your reply as you wish. I'm content to go with the standard view which mixes the two given there is a continued martial exercise.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21