When the Iraq War started, did you support the war?

Meaning, was there ever a time when you thought the war was a good idea, before the revelations about WMDs and the al-Qaeda link?

I thought at the time that GHW Bush was crazy for not finishing Saddam off at the time of Desert Storm. But I now see why he did not, and actually have to credit him with a wise decision way back then. And you have no idea how that galls me.

What was the all-fired hurry? I think they started the war because the RW rednecks don't believe you're really doing anything about terra unless you're blowing people's heads off.

INSPECTORS 4 Eternity... and shared the expense and rule with the world community.

Saddam was owned.... he was giving in to most everything....

What a fiasco Bush/halliburtons wanted and got.

May they burn in a new fresh hell tempered up just for them. I am so sickened, so angry....

but "Hell, no!" Never. My dad warned me that more American soldiers would die after victory was declared than during the offical war. My husband kept saying that it was a mistake because Saddam was boxed in by inspections and at least he's predictable...that we had no way of knowing who or what would wind up in control of Iraq if we ousted Saddam.

Let's just say I trust their opinion more than I ever would the word of George Bush.

Better late than never.

No, I didn't support the Iraq War, but then again,
I don't depend exclusively on US broadcast media for
my news & information about the world, either.

I did coolly support Gulf War 1, but I didn't buy into
all the patriotic hoopla, even then. I thought it was
a dirty, unfortunate
business that was best done quickly w/o fanfare.
Saddam back then was indeed guilty of naked aggression
(though, as we now know, not wholly unprovoked), and
this could not be permitted to stand.

But, in retrospect, I think Bush Sr. made "diplomacy fail" in much the same way GWB did (though he was a good deal more subtle).
From all I've read, I feel the U.S. could have negotiated an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait without ever firing a shot. Desert Shield was probably necessary...Desert Storm was not. The "Highway of Death" massacre at the tail end of DS was probably a war crime.

I also did NOT support the war in Afganistan, which I know is a minority opinion, even among Democrats. The Taliban were basically asking for the USA to provide convincing evidence of UBL's involvement with 9/11 before they would agree to arrest him and turn him over....but there were other agendas afoot, so this little factoid gets flushed down the memory hole. The path to disaster in Iraq started with the militarization of a law enforcement problem with its roots in Afganistan.

Back to Gulf War 1, I also didn't support the 10+ years of crushing sanctions kept in place AFTER GW1. It became obvious by the mid 1990s that this strategy WAS NOT WORKING and needed to be dropped...but a old friend of mine, a DC-based Democratic staffer, still supported the sanctions as late as 1999...we had quite an ugly argument about it. Since then I'm convinced this beltway insider friend of mine has utterly lost touch with the Democratic base...

But to return to the topic at hand, the lead-up to the current Iraq War, to me at least, was so obviously based on faked/manipulated info and outright lies and demonization of anyone who knew better (Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, et. al.). It had no justification whatsoever.



John J. Ronald, graduate student
MLS general study program
School of Library & Information Sciences
University of North Texas
UNT School of Library and Information Sciences
http://www.unt.edu/slis

A police action woulf have done it better to capture OBL - in whichever country he was. No need to bomb a whole country for one guy - and a bunch of Saudis.

11 March 2003

For over twenty years, the study of history has been my passion; American history, world history, particularly the history of wars. I’ve had ancestors and relatives who fought in almost every American war from the French and Indian Wars to Vietnam. I am fiercely proud of all of them and I love my country. I get tears in my eyes when I see our flag waving. I am grateful to all the men and women who choose to serve their country - my country. I shouldn’t have to defend my patriotism but find I must when I state that I think we are on the wrong path with regards to Iraq.

I was fully in agreement with the action in Afghanistan, a place proven to be a refuge for the terrorists who perpetrated the horrible events of September 11th. I do not believe in revenge, but in justice. I have seen no compelling reasons for going to war with Iraq. Our country was not founded on principles that support pre-emptive warfare. It’s an incredibly dangerous precedent to set and has the potential to blow up in our faces. Attacking a country because they might do something is wrong. Period. It opens up the possibility of any country holding a grievance against their neighbor swooping in aggressively with the excuse that they believed they were in danger of attack themselves. It’s like punching somebody because you’re afraid they might punch you. Is this the example we want to set?

I don’t dispute the fact that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and that the world – and Iraq – would be better off if he were not in power. The same could be said of many leaders (and an argument could be made for including GW Bush among them). Is it our place to depose them all? Many, many countries have weapons of mass destruction, including our own. Are we morally bound to disarm them all?

I have no doubt that we will win this impending war. What, exactly, will we win? Bush’s stated goal is to bring democracy to Iraq. When has the bearing of democracy at the end of a gun worked? In South Vietnam? Anywhere? What do we win? The chance to keep a military presence in Iraq until we feel that whatever puppet government we set up is stable enough to leave alone? The chance to pour millions of dollars into the region to rebuild and redesign it? A whole lot of oil? Oh, goodie.

I very much fear that it’s too late. The saber-rattling is fast reaching the point of no return. While our leaders froth at the mouth, our economy is in a shambles and many people are without jobs. Our young people are gearing up for war. I am not anti-war and I am not anti-military. But I firmly believe that we have no right to send men and women out to die for a “what-if” scenario.

no way jose

I knew from reading assessments Iraq was not a threat. I am a true patriot in terms of what the founding fathers were trying to establish, therefore attempts at Imperial conquests I find offensive and counterproductive even if American companies get blood money or not.

But hey, I didnt support Afghanistan either.

As does Kerry. There might be aspects we don't support, but overall it will do something which years of trying other things has not.

Clinton and Gore both supported the removal of saddam, Kerry has as well. Does that mean one must support Bush's handling of it? No.

The question becomes why did both clinton and gore see saddam as a threat? Attack * on how and not why, that to me is the crux of things for the swing voters. The dems saw him as a threat, the rethugs did as well, now we have to ask them - who has the better strategy which will save lives?

Kerry. He knows what war is like, and he can better relate to our folks in the field. * ran from his job, kerry did not.

Clinton and the dems in the 90's felt he was a threat, saw him as a financier of terrorists - now * has went in and removed him (saddam). Ok, great, but now what???

Who better to help our people than someone who has been there? It may not be vietnam, but it does have parallels. Kerry served, bush swerved. I trust Kerry to do the best he can to help our folks in the military. He went, he saw, he came back and spoke out to help. He cares about the people we have over there. * cares about himself.

Kerry - for the troops. He may not be perfect, but damn he is a whole lot more close to perfection than * and crew.

I support our folks, the ideals of bringing democracy in some form to the people of Iraq, but I think that Kerry can do a better job of making things right. * is f'ing it all up - Kerry will fix it all up.

Bush handled it all poorly. I don't care about his guard duty some 30 yrs ago. I care about now. Kerry could have, would have, done a better job. * is concerned with the total end result - kerry cares about how we get there as well.

Kerry cares about the troops, * uses them.

Pardon me, but can I borrow some of what you are smoking? BTW, there are about twenty other evil dictators I can think of off the top of my head. When will you enlist in the military to go help remove them?

He was contained. The inspectors told us he had no WMDs. You are leaving out so much of what we knew in 2003. It makes no sense to me to say that what people believed in 1998 was relevant to 2003 when you had so many people clearing up the doubts about Saddam.

people to endorse (vote in favor of) a resolution calling for Saddam's ouster. That's where that scurrilous "support" for the overthrow of Saddam by Dems come from. Unfortunately, AIPAC wields a LOT of power on Capitol Hill. Unfortunately, the Dems who voted for it caved as the most expedient way to just get beyond it, probably most of them (the Joe Lieberman's of the group aside) not imagining that such a vote would come back and bite them on the ass. I mean, after all, what's a harmless "Yeah, Saddam ought to be thrown out" vote when you've got a sane Dem in the White House?

I've always believed the removal of Saddam was a good idea, regardless of my opinion of the overall war plan. When the war started, even though the case for war had not been clearly made, I felt that there was enough of a justification, based on the WMD threats. Even now, I still think Saddam being gone is a great thing, and Iraq is the better for it. My main problem with Bush's handling of the war is his inability to take correction. The fact that WMDs or the 9-11 link have yet to materialize, doesn't seem to bother him.

At least Kerry is willing to admit mistakes and adjust the course.

must be making you feel pretty lonely.:o

I've come to terms with the fact that I'm one of the few on this board (probably the only one) who basically feels this way about the war. No big deal. It's a big tent, right?

Your monker indicates you're an anti-choice (pro-life) liberal Christian who supports the war? Just guessing.

You're right on all the other points though.

... you find any contradictions in being "pro-life" and "pro-war"? Or do you perhaps follow some form of Christianity where Matthew 5-7 was omitted from the Scriptures?

First off, I don't omit any of the Scriptures. Secondly, I don't think any sensible person is pro-war. I'm pro-defense. I believe that when threats arise to your security and to the security of the free world, you use diplomacy when you need to, and war only if you have to. Just war saves lives. We can debate the specifics of Iraq, but in general, I feel oftentimes war is neccessary.

No WMDs, no nuclear program, a depleted, fourth-rate military, no ties to Al Qaeda... what threat to American or global security was posed by Iraq which in ANY WAY warranted a "Shock and Awe" invasion which has cost tens of thousands of Iraqi and American lives, including those of thousands of innocent women and children? Just how does that jive with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the books of Matthew? How can you claim to be pro-life yet hold the lives of others' children in such little regard?

Or perhaps you've confused Iraq with Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, or a host other contries which really did (and do) harbor and finance Al Qaeda. North Korea has nukes now and poses ever so much more of a threat than Iraq EVER DID. Whatever shall we do? A few pre-emptive nuclear strikes ought to do the trick!

Whatever brand of Christianity you're touting is the very kind that made me turn away from the church, for in practice it is light years away from the teachings of Christ:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?

I was simply speaking in general terms. We all know about the revelations about the pre-war intelligence, and the lack of WMDs or the al-Qaeda link. We can debate Iraq, but I'm speaking in general terms, about war in general.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

Romans 12:18

Have you never heard of Marcos, Somoza, Ceausescu, the Shah? Swap an end to sanctions for permanent weapons inspections, and people have a chance to lose their direct dependency on the government for food. Then they have a chance at getting rid of him--they almost did in 1991, until we directly intervened on Saddam's side.

mind that ANYone would think otherwise.

Further, there was no realistic way to conduct the war OR its aftermath in such a way to MAKE Iraq "better off" without Saddam. It's a cesspool of political conflict -- and I mean no disrespect to Iraqis, but it's just true. There are at least 3 factions that are unlikely to ever get along let alone form a viable government on their own and had the violence from the insurgency not happened, the BEST outcome of a "democracy" in Iraq (without CIA meddling, that is) would have been an Islamicist theocracy since that faction has the highest number of people.

My main problem with Bush's handling of the war is his inability to take correction. The fact that WMDs or the 9-11 link have yet to materialize, doesn't seem to bother him.

My main problem with your post is that you don't seem to realize that all that was a bunch of very purposely cobbled together LIES to start with, to frighten a gullible, ill-informed public bereft of a viable press to fully inform them. Tee only "WMD's or 9-11 link" that could EVER possibly materialize would be fabricated and/or planted.

Besides, he DID have weapons at one point. The fact is that the pre-war intelligence was flawed, and Team Bush didn't check for accuracy, because it didn't really bother him to be sure. He was committed to the Iraq War plan, and all he needed was a hint of a piece of evidence. It's not that he deliberately lied, it's that he didn't bother to double-check, because he wanted this war, and pesky things like facts or accuracy was going to deter him. When the numbers didn't add up, he used the "saddam's an evil dictator" play. Saddam is indeed a murderous thug of a tyrant, but that, as you know, is beside the point.

With depleted urainuim and children were not being carbombed and people were not being beheaded on video and people had running water and peace before we invaded.

It really takes a lot of "faith" to ignore the reality of what is happening in Iraq. It's funny because that same faith should make it clear that starting a war is the most imoral thing people can do.

Kerry supports the concept of the removal of saddam hussein, he does not in any way shape or form support this war.

The dems saw him as a threat mostly because they were lied to. Because Reagan lied, because Bush 1 lied, because PNAC spent the entire Clinton administration lying and pushing everyone on Saddam.

I think your Kerry points later in your post are good. But dont get fooled by the Bullshit. Kerry doesnt think that the good dead (by all accounts) of removing Saddam was worth waging this stupid stupid war.

... as Max Cleland is glad to be rid of ingrown toenails.

... and if he's not, he's wrong.

Kerry supports the concept of the removal of saddam hussein, he does not in any way shape or form support this war.



So we have a man who wants to be a leader, following 8 years of clinton (in which kerry was serving as well in government) and both (including gore) wanted saddam gone and saw him a threat - but after 8 years what had changed?

Sure, we can see things which changed but the perception is that they all wanted something done (saddam out of power) and none of them did anything about it which resulted in that occuring.

Folks see democrats as weak on defense, and this is one reason. They want something done, have 8 years, try peace, and the guy is still in power. Bush 1 kicked saddam's butt, bush 2 captured him, and clinton just kept up sanctions which killed more people and kept him in power.

Is this a 'right' way of thinking? Does it matter totally? This is the perception I see from a lot of people (sometimes watered down) - and this is why we see people blindy supporting bush - they see him as getting things done (not that they think of the consequences...).

Do the facts tell a different story and if so, how is that communicated? Look - I come from a family of democrats (some in office, some have served and since passed on). The above is not a creation of my own mind or thoughts but is what I am hearing from a large group of folks on both the left and right I associate with (ok, not in those exact words - but the overall theme is there). This has not changed the way those people will vote, but it can have an affect on those who are the much sought after 'swing voters'.

We don't need people (the press and such) asking kerry does he support the removal of saddam, our troops, etc - we need them to ask him how would he have handled iraq, why his way would have been better, and show those on the fence how a true leader could have had his cake and ate it too when it came to doing what many said they wanted done (ie, either lift sanctions and leave iraq or take out saddam, piss or get off the pot kind of thing).

Gore said, more than once, saddam needed to go. If we say he and clinton were lied to, then bush can say he was too. We need real leadership, someone who can think and act, and Kerry is that man - what we have to do is see why some people don't think he (or democrats are) by taking a hard look at things from their perspective, seeing the world through their lenses, and finding out how to reach them.

We can't let them frame the debate (what will kerry do about iraq now - while valid is incomplete). We need to broaden the debate to include how things could have been, and they could have been better and saved many many more lives.

Does the Columbus Dispatch carry coupons for that in every issue? :eyes:

i'll never understand :wtf: :grr:

and Kerry and Clinton both should have been.

There is something inherently wrong with one nation imposing its will on another, and that is the essence of what has occured in this disgusting war. Supposedly this is for "democracy", but the lie is obvious. Privatizing public Iraqi corporations right and left is not democratic. Appointing repressive despots to rule the country (under US control, of course) is not democratic. Murdering children (sorry, "terrorists") is not democratic. Maintaining a brutal occupation is not "democratic".

The main problem with badly-planned and unilateral murderous aggression isn't that it's badly planned and unilateral, it's that it's murderous aggression. If it has been well-planned murderous aggression, done with full NATO and UN support, it STILL woild have been wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. Invading Iraq has hurt US security, it has not improved it. The invasion was pointless and destructive, as is the continuing war.

In fact, you and the people like you are directly responsible.

Didn't have access to those while saddam was in power.

No one is saying war is pretty, but we have the convienience of having photos to show things we do wrong, something which was not around during saddam's time. Out of sight, out of mind.

If you saw saddam and crew doing the things they did, every day on tv, you might have something to compare it to. Now all we have is a terrible photo to compare to...well nothing.

No one (except maybe someone like saddam) 'supports' bombing kids intentionally and killing civilians (well, terrorists seem to and some I have seen tend to support terrorists and their actions as freedom fighters, so I guess some in the US do support/back killing like this). War is hell, for all involved. But sometimes, going to war can hasten the end to a longer hell which otherwise might last decades.

If we use pictures like this to show people how bad war is and try to change their minds then perhaps too we should be showing pictures like this often of what is being done to people by leaders in other countries (which oddly, might make people want to go to war and stop it....).

Peace is the best thing all around - but sadly it cannot always stop things such as the horrific murders and tortures that go on many places in the world (which we don't see).

How would you stop such things? You cannot reason with some people in this world. There are insane people who sometimes get into power and do unspeakable harm to many innocents. If you have the ability to stop them, would you? I have often heard people say if they could go back in time they would go back and shoot hitler before he came to power and killed so many - so today when we have the chance to take out someone who is as evil in intent (though maybe not in scope) why wouldn't we?

Hate bush all we want, but there are plenty of others to hate - and those countries don't have the luxury of voting out the leader killing them. If you saw someone torturing someone and planning to kill them would you stop them if you had the power to? Of course most would (but then there is the question, what if doing so kills more than you save? Should you bother trying?).

War is messy, terrible, and should be a last resort. It should be done to save lives. How bush has handled/executed the war is where the problem has come in for many - from the democrats to the republicans people saw the need and had the desire to get rid of saddam, it is how it was done that is the problem, not that it was done imho.

to attack and invade a sovereign nation, no matter HOW bad their leader is. The UN did NOT endorse our imperialistic plan. We had no right to enforce UN resolutions (another "excuse" given for going into Iraq) without their prior approval.

Further, the "humanitarian reasons" you cite were NOT the bill of goods (casus belli) we were sold going in.

You're spouting RW taking points, whether you know it or not.

Sure there are some horrible leaders in the world. It's unfortunatly NOT our job to overthrow them OR create them, as we have done on countless occasions.

Peace is the best thing all around - but sadly it cannot always stop things such as the horrific murders and tortures that go on many places in the world (which we don't see).

If you think what we've brought to Iraq can or will in the foreseeable future result in some form of "peace," I want what you're smoking 'cause life would sure as hell be a lot more pleasant. We have created chaos and destruction and suffering that will likely last many lifetimes, including our own.

Educate yourself, will ya!?

I think that's a load of baloney. Whatever I may think about Kerry's IWR vote, I do not believe for a minute that he was actually if favor of this invasion, or would have done it himself had he been president at the time.

The fact that you and others can make a statement like that reflects, I think, the difficulty that Kerry has had in articulating his position, and possibly his fear of really making it clear.

I realize that Clinton and Gore and most other people wanted Saddam gone. There is a huge difference between that, and engaging in unilateral and unprovoked aggression to bring it about. You will notice that Clinton did not actually invade Iraq at any time during his 8 years in office.

I agree that the Dems saw Saddam as a challenge, and a potential threat, but not one that justified a full scale invasion.

I think that even if this war had been carried out with much more competence and better planning, it still would have ended up badly. You can't just go into other countries and remake their societies at gunpoint. As Wes Clark has pointed out, real change has to come from within a society itself. We can sometimes facilitate it, but we can't force it.

I also don't believe that we would ever have gotten our allies on board, even with consumate diplomacy. The only reason other countries went along is because they bought, or pretended that they bought, the BS about WMD. If we hadn't been lying about that, and had simply said that we were invading to achieve regime change, and spread democracy, we wouldn't even have had Britain on board. This type of policy is simply not something that is recognized as legitimate by the international community. It is also against international law.

As for Kerry inheriting this mess, unfortunately I think he's screwed. I don't think that there is a way to deal effectively with the mess Bush has left at this point.

All this crap about Saddam needed to go and the world and Iraq is "better off without him". What about Fidel Castro? The world and Cuba are better off without him too. Or what about Pakistan, it's better off without Musaraff. Same goes with North Korea, but we don't have the guts to invade THAT country.

Why the hell does America obsessed with removing just one lousy dictator, Saddam, from the face of the Earth? Why does America ignore the other dictators at the same time? It's unfair!

was not worth going to war.

No comment on Senator Kerry's support.

Some of us knew better.

Supporting "our folks" and "our troops" has nothing whatsoever to do with supporting the war in Iraq.

One is supporting our people, the other is supporting an unnecessary act. The best way to care about the troops, imo, is not to send them to Iraq or to put them at risk except as a last resort. Iraq doesn't qualify.

This goddamned cataclsym could be seen coming for miles. Invading a M.E. country and attempting to steal its oil on a pretext. The pictures of the "drones" of death posted here were the funniest on all this WMD bullshit delusional crap.

I wrote and faxed congresscritters and begged them not to authorize Smirky's adventure. His polls were down and it was OBVIOUS what he was up to. A big fucking distraction so he could be a war pretlzedent.

God how I wish that man would just go back to crawford and step in pigshit.

"All war is sin." Alexander Mack

War kills innocents, wastes money, men and materiel, doesn't accomplish its objectives, and degenerates quickly from the sanitary scenarios of the war games to a messy, brutal business that dehumanizes combatant and civilian alike. And it happens every time.

It's a remarkably inefficient tool for accomplishing anything. I think we should have a constitutional amendment that any Congress that declares war should immediately resign, and elections held within 15 days, and incumbents are ineligible for re-election. The executive should resign 30 days after that, and be similarly ineligible.

War is VERY efficient at making some people quite rich.

:evilgrin:

you won the grand prize!

I did support the war against the taliban/osama bin laden in Afghanistan.

I sat watching despondently, as Shock and Awe played out on my TV screen.

I wasn't sure about WMD stockpiles, although I knew that his pre-war weapons programs had been shut down and as far as the Inspectors knew there was nothing major going on. Even if he did have WMDs I knew that the Bush claims of a tie to terrorists was totally untrue. Therefore I thought that Bush's justification for invading did not hold water. I also worried that if we did invade it would turn into a bloody mess.

... (one of several marches held nationwide) along with about 40-50,000 beautiful people (including proud patriot, Tinoire, noiretblu, arcane1, WillyT, and other DUers).

"When the war started"??? Looong before that!!

I was in New Orleans doing the same thing on the same day. There were only 30-50 of us in the French Quarter, and we were constantly threatened with violence and death from tourists (many from Texas).

... at Glide Memorial Church (in the Tenderloin), I've never been in the company of so many completely lovable and capable people in my life. It was a day I'll never forget for the unadulterated joy of it. I have many hallmark memories of my 15+ years in the SF Bay Area, but that day is at the pinnacle. I was so busy saturating my senses with the experience of it that I almost forgot to rant much at all. :silly:

He said he just walked down into the crowd and played music (he's a musician too) with a few other musicians. The pictures of the protest he sent me gave me saudades (homesickness), though I'm happy here in my hometown of New Orleans. I too will not forget October 26th 2002, but especially November 23rd. Our second protest was a bit more tenuous because our group was much smaller and we were outnumbered by the tourists, who often threatened us in their slurred, Southern accents.

likely lost my vote in perpetuity for having green-lighted what seeingly turned out to be the neocon implementation of plan PNAC, a plan long in formulation just waiting for fruition.

knew the Bushites were lying, and that it was all manipulative marketing for the 2002 midterms and beyond.

I did not even support bombing Afghanistan. Terrorism is not a nation or state. It is amorphous, mobile and hydra-like. Ground wars and bombing strikes are disastrous and totally ineffective. What the fuck have we accomplished in Afghanistan? Osama got away and the briefly disbanded Taliban is regrouping. Is anyone, anywhere better off now than they were 4 years ago? Aside from rich, white chickenhawks?

I had already seen that movie...

"Wag the Dog".

NOT EVER... and I am not a pacifist. I didn't support the war in Afghanistan either. I supported going after terrorists only.

I knew that little asshole was lying and manipulating his way into a war that he had already decided to have no matter what. I knew that the going to the UN was just a charade to buy some time for the buildup and try to get some international legitimacy.

I wasn't even lurking on DU or any progressive websites at the time, and was not following politics closely, but it was just so obvious to me that the little weasle was lying. There were just too many inconsistancies, and obvious manipulations for me to be able to swallow it.

I don't think it took a rocket scientist to figure it out. Just some simple observation coupled with a healthy dose of scepticism.

I don't believe the more experienced congresscritters when they say they were duped either. If I wasn't, I just can't believe that they were. I think that alot of votes were cast out of fear, or expedience, rather than out of genuine conviction. I think alot of them bought into the cakewalk theory, and figured that it would have all blown over by election time.

That doesn't change how I'm voting this election, but it does have an impact on my overall feelings about this election.

And haunted many times each day by the thought that people are dying because of the actions of my country.

Never supported this fiasco and am frequently on the brink of tears to think of all who have been killed and the destruction done. I think that W* and his minions have earned a very special place in hell.

Never have, never will.
Just didn't make sense to have gone there in the first place.

I decided to keep my mouth shut about it (in public). That didn't last long.

I can't talk politics at work (work for the government) and my friends and family all agree with me but I've taken to bitching at the grocery store and book store and airport and anywhere else I find myself.

Many of us here were involved in protests, and doing whatever we could to change the doomed course of this mess, and grieve that we were right all along.

I fear, however, that with the change in tone of the Dems, that DU will become one more place where strongly anti-war people will be ousted.

Kanary

I never supported the war ever...I was so depressed cause it seemed like almost everybody I knew supported it :crazy: what a bunch of dumbasses...Boy are they all wrong!! Lol :D

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

were well known here at DU (and around the world) well before the war. Very, very few DUers who were here at that time supported the war, and they were either mostly ill-informed OR possibly had succumbed to the Bush fearmongering.

Basically, we all knew better thanks to DUers bringing world amd alternative news here.

I suffered insults, threats of violence and death, and thrown beer bottles just for being against war by people too cowardly to go fight themselves.

I'm still disgusted with Kerry/Edwards for voting for it. I'm voting for them in hope that they will face the music and get the hell out.

Why Iraq, when they are not a threat and they are totally boxed in?

I did support going after the Taliban though. In fact I thought at the time that Bush was showing "restraint" by giving them time to hand over Osama.

and I was one of those crazy Americans that was not keen on an invasion of an entire nation (Afghanistan) in a search to find one man and his followers that were "supposedly responsible for 9/11" before the investigation into 9/11 had been commenced, pursued and completed. I mean the only thing for certain about 9/11 that I knew at the time and know now is that the fellows that flew the planes and took over the planes on 9/11 are dead. They were the only culprits that I knew for sure were responsible for the tragedy. Unless the incidents were thoroughly and honestly investigated, invading nations and killing innocents just seemed contrary to my understanding of justice. Vigilantes and lynch mobs are wrong, I have known that for years, and that is the mentality of our nation after 9/11, the mentality that catapulted the shrub to his power.

you should repost this. It bears repeating

I reluctantly voted for the shrub in 2000. The whole Iraq thing--with the media cheerleading--was like a slap to the face. Something inside screamed, "DANGER!!!!"

with or without UN support I never supported it or Afghanistan - not a hippy peace-nik either just not a fan of war for profit.

I even had plans to make it to the big anti-war demonstration in Amsterdam but ended up taking the wrong bus and getting to the Damrak just as the crowd was dispersing.

and their only way home was through Bagdhad and I wished them the best. B$$$ had committed them early on and he was going to do it no matter what. If the resistance had developed early on it was going to be tougher. B$$$ of course gave it time to develop because he has no concept of what it is all about. The goal was to turn up WMD and prove his cause and his selfishness has cost us and them immensely.

I was foursquare against this mess from the outset.

And it's turned out to be everything it was feared to be.

It was so apparent to anyone paying attention that Iraq was never a threat to us or even his neighbors. We had him totally boxed in with the no-fly zones and the inspectors back on the ground. Scott Ridder
was very effective at explaining over and over there were no WMD left.

IMO, historically, the Iraq invasion will be seen as the worst blunder of any president to date. Our country will regret this great tragedy for along time to come.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I hate war. I believe it's wrong.

If two countries have a problem with each other, the leaders should go at it in the ring for 10 rounds, and not with the lives of innocent people.

Or, the leaders could just drop their pants. Whoever has the biggest one, wins. Rulers don't lie.

I watched the vote of democrats in the senate, thought they knew something I didn't.

I believed Colin Powell. He was the only person in this gang of * criminals I had some trust.

Used to be against it.

Then after having been to Iraq and seeing the people and hearing their stories, I have mixed feelings.

They had no freedom under Saddam, but now they have no security.

I just want them to have both.

it was way to obvious bush bought into the PNAC ideas. He was going to war WMD's or not.

i never supported this invasion or the people behind it, never! :grr:

I thought that the difficulties we would likely face in occupying Iraq and its destabilizing effect on the whole region would be so enormous that an invasion would be a bad idea even if some of the claims about WMDs were true.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I still can't understand how it can be so patently obvious to me that Bush is full of shit and Iraq was never a threat and yet 60-70% of the American population was duped.

And what really fries my ass is when they say "we were all fooled."

We were NOT all fooled.

it.

Why do I support a war which did nothing but to remove a dictator who has NOTHING to do with 9/11. The end result of this stupid war (a so-called "Post-Saddam free Iraq") is beheadings, killing of innocent people, the slaughter of our troops, the destruction of a defenseless country, and the resurgence of Al-Qaeda recruitment.

America should have listened to me, but half of them (republicans and Kool-Aid-drinking pro-war activists) are too stupid to do so.

God bless America (/sarcasm)

Make that God forgive America.

I went to protests and signed petitions, and I was horrified, though not surprised, when it started. I live in the Middle East right now, and no one brings the topic up to me, but the few people I have talked to about it tell me not to feel so bad about something I have no control over. It's the fact that the American government does things in my name, when it does anything, that makes me so ashamed. I am not personally responsible, but I hate being part of the group that is.

W's pResidency. Told them he would find a 'reason' no matter what it was, but whatever the reason, it would be revenge and oil whatever else they tried to sell it as. My aunt told me when it happend that she was shocked, said I have been right on a lot of stuff about W before it even happend.

At that point, I had read a lot of foreign media and they all concluded that the supposed "evidence" utilized by the Blair and Bush administrations was bunk. Heck, even the Italian media said the report of yellow cake uranium (which was purchased by the Italian secret services) was bunk!

I remain actively opposed to it now.

AND SHAME ON ANYONE WHO THOUGHT INVADING AND BOMBING IRAQ WAS EVER A GOOD IDEA

No one can find a favorable Iraqi leader that Iraqi's will trust.

Why grab the tar baby knowing you can't let go?

Iraq has become terrorist and insurgent central. Our soldiers have now become the suicide fighters. Enormously sad and costly, especially since Bush* Co.'s real objective is controlling middle east oil.

looked near impossible given the fact that it was Saddam's iron fist keeping the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites together. Terrorist connections with Saddam's regime were not significant enough. There was too much risk of causing further instability in the Middle East by invading Iraq.

I sympathized with those few who were leaning toward favoring war because they seemed sincere in their desire to see the Iraqi people freed, but I thought the end result would be as bad or worse for the Iraqi people, the United States, and people throughout the Middle East.

Way too many people fell for the idea that this would turn out like Germany and Japan during WWII.

that a people can not be free until they (themselves) decide to fight for their freedom. And then nothing will stop the inevitability of their freedom. The Iraqis might have reached that point and at that point we might have been able to help them; but we couldn't give it to them or anyone else for that matter

...no more than crimes of genocide, theft, and extortion. The Iraq invasion is/was no exception.

thing that GB 43 ever said was, "you know they even tried to kill my dad". This is not the reason that troops should be committed. I think that we are headed in the wrong direction when we start being the aggressor.

I may have been the only one in my class, but I was against it from the beginning. Problem is, now that its gone to hell in a handbasket, no one will believe that I opposed it.

I used to get in the most terrible fights with freeper-types on Yahoo message boards about it too.

I hated, but reluctantly supported Afghanistan. I knew people would get killed, but I thought we had to try and get OBL.

the closest I ever got to it was saying that it was complicated and that I could see how different people could disagree over it, which is not as staunch as some people were at the time - however, I personally could never accept it as just action.

Most importantly, I was suspicious and skeptical of our intelligence from DAY ONE, and I get pissed of when the media tries to rewrite history to act as though everyone was completely confident in the intelligence at the time.

to 10 or 20 posts before you get tombstoned. I need a laugh to brighten up my Monday.

I still have my signs in the garage!

I have been a pacifist and anti-war wince 1968, and I'm not about to stop now. Invading Afghanistan was the wrong approach to destroying alQaida. The Iraq misadventure was obviously naked aggression from the start.

During the time of the beginning of the "MILITARY ACTION", I was flying out to Norman, Oklahoma for training in my job. Once having arrived, I spent so much time watching the media broadcasts and shaking my head.

First of all, there was no proof of any of the allegations which Bush had made to Congress and the American people concerning WMD's, links to Al Queda, or, anything else which support a threat so alarming and imminent to evoke this country to pursue a pre-emptive attack upon Iraq.

Secondly, the attempts to gain support from the international community via the United Nations was only a process of "going through the motions"! As though, the US was saying, "we'd like your support, but, we're gonna do anyway" attitude. There was absolutely no respect for that body, and, certainly very little resolve on the part of the United States to utilize a "military action" as a last resort.

Thirdly, in not fulfilling the responsibility to stabilize Afghanistan and some of the neighboring areas, I found it quite astonishing that we would "over commit" our limited resources to a threat which was not imminent in Iraq.

Fourthly, I still like "French Toast", and, "French Fries"! I would certainly not entertain the notion of returning the gift of the French people - The Statue of Liberty!

We know there are no WMD. We know Iraq was no more linked to al Qaeda than lots and lots of other countries, including us.

So what's the truth? Why did the Bush administration really invade Iraq? And why now, as opposed to before?

There's many smart people on this board. What do you think?

Oil?
Halliburton?
Nation-building/remodeling the Middle East/Empire?
A changing of the Republican party guard with the neo-cons gaining supremacy over the moderate Republicans?

THE NATURE OF THE ENEMY

Do you remember that Mosque in Najaf where Moqtada al-Sadr was holed up for weeks? Al-Sadr's goons were firing mortars at American troops from inside that Mosque .. but American troops showed restraint and never stormed the place. Finally Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Muslim cleric in Iraq, told al Sadr to clear out.

Now we have learned while al-Sadr was hiding in his Mosque his Islamic goons were quite busy. Their assignment was to kidnap dozens of women and children and bring them into the Mosque. There they would be murdered. I think it's possibly safe to say that many of the women were possibly raped before, maybe after, they were murdered. When al-Sistani ordered them out, Al Sadr and his gang of murderers left the bodies of the women and children inside the Mosque.

So ... what was the purpose? The Islamic killers fully expected American troops to storm the Mosque to get to them. When that happened, and after the smoke cleared, the innocent and peace-loving followers of Al Sadr would be able to show the bodies of innocent women and children who were killed in the brutal U.S. assault on this place of holy worship. Clever plan ... didn't work.

Never forget, especially now, the brutal, murderous nature of the Islamic killers. They will murder their own sisters, mothers, sons and daughters if they think that they will then be able to use the western media to blame the deaths on American soldiers. And when the time comes, the Western media will be all-too-eager to relate the story just exactly the way al-Sadr wanted them to.

Thanks.

1. If, as I suspected most strongly, the war became a quagmire, then many people would suffer and die needlessly and the world's opinion of the U.S. would go straight down the drain.(Once the war started, I knew that I was right in my belief that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, because what better time to use them than when one's country is being attacked?)

2. If, on some off chance, the war went successfully and the Iraqi people really did love having American troops in their country, then the Bushies would become insufferably arrogant (having won even greater admiration from freepers everywhere) and start making designs on Syria and Iran.

Alas, we seem to have the worst of both predictions. Iraq has become a quagmire, the Bushies are insufferably arrogant, and they are making hostile noises about Iran.

At no time in the run-up to the war did I think this was a good idea.

Although I disagreed almost every step of the way with its prosecution -- from the type of resolution that was voted on to the lack of planning, etc.