War! Right or Wrong?

Redleslie2

Just wondering if anyone has changed their mind about the war since it started. If you were for it, do you think it might have been a bad idea after all, given that the bodycount is rising and that the WMD/Saddam=Hitler claims by the tinfoil hat brigade have turned out to be rubbish? If you were agin it, are you pleasantly surprised that the bloodbath has been much more restrained than had been feared and the ousting of Saddam has made it all worthwhile?

Does anyone think that the time and money (150 billion now is it?) might have been better spent on, y'know, other things? Like finding OBL, battling AIDS and malaria, providing access to water for those who need it, building schools somewhere, sending a spaceship full of democratically selected celebrities to colonise Mars, or even flattening another Bad Man led country like Cuba or Burma.

elivsvonchiaing

Redleslie2 wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has changed their mind about the war since it started. If you were for it, do you think it might have been a bad idea after all, given that the bodycount is rising and that the WMD/Saddam=Hitler claims by the tinfoil hat brigade have turned out to be rubbish? If you were agin it, are you pleasantly surprised that the bloodbath has been much more restrained than had been feared and the ousting of Saddam has made it all worthwhile?

Does anyone think that the time and money (150 billion now is it?) might have been better spent on, y'know, other things? Like finding OBL, battling AIDS and malaria, providing access to water for those who need it, building schools somewhere, sending a spaceship full of democratically selected celebrities to colonise Mars, or even flattening another Bad Man led country like Cuba or Burma.

We are descended from violent apes who once used brute force to enforce mating rituals. We have evolved into a post-ape society where females are emerging as the dominant sex... My vision of the future... My ancestors will jockinginly admit - so I'm the ancestor of an an amazoniam warrior. She was pro-choice - he didn't have one!

Redleslie2

I'll put you down as a "No" then.

mike65

Redleslie2 wrote:

Just wondering if anyone has changed their mind about the war since it started. If you were for it, do you think it might have been a bad idea after all, given that the bodycount is rising and that the WMD/Saddam=Hitler claims by the tinfoil hat brigade have turned out to be rubbish? If you were agin it, are you pleasantly surprised that the bloodbath has been much more restrained than had been feared and the ousting of Saddam has made it all worthwhile?

Does anyone think that the time and money (150 billion now is it?) might have been better spent on, y'know, other things? Like finding OBL, battling AIDS and malaria, providing access to water for those who need it, building schools somewhere, sending a spaceship full of democratically selected celebrities to colonise Mars, or even flattening another Bad Man led country like Cuba or Burma.

I doubt anyone will have changed thier views too much if at all. My feeling is that the only real problem was that the "big picture" was viewed by the US through the fog and mirrors of unreliable Iraqi exiles who sold the neo-cons a pup who were all too eager to belive them. The result being they were hopplessly naive about the likely post war environment.

I have little problem with the concept of regime change (anyone else think South Africa should topple Mugabe?) but clearly you have to be prepared. The US was'nt.

While Colin Powell will no doubt be feeling sore about what happened he can at least know his doctrine would have been the right one while Rumsfelds was wrong.

WMD is embarrasssing, but embarrasing for everyone. The UN and Hans Blix spent years looking for something that was'nt there.

As for spending money elsewhere, the US does'nt have to fund everything. The French and Germans etc could spend money they did'nt spend on Iraq on AIDS drugs, fresh water schemes, debt relief and so on. But I dont belive they have.

Mike.

Victor

Overall, I still think the war is wrong. It started out wrong and it's continuence is being done wrong.

While the media version is violent, it has focussed on western casualties, which are under 2,000 (with some fuzziness regarding "security contractors"), but to a large degree reduces Iraqi casualties to numbers and those numbers add up to 100,000 at the moment.

However, the soldiers need to stay there, their absence would lead to absolute anarchy.

Moriarty

In the abstract, something I'm annoyed about most is the administrations complete fúckup of post-war Iraq. It has unfortunatly vastly thinned out support for the policy of preemptive strikes / regime change, not just in the US but almost globally. That's bad news for the population of many failed states around the world.

SkepticOne

I don't think peoples' positions on the war have changed. Mine hasn't. But the debate has moved on now. The anti-war movement failed to stop the war going ahead and this needs to be accepted. Why it failed is a matter of debate. Possibly the reason is that it only got started after the point that war became politically inevitable. It doesn't matter now.

I think the real debate now is what should the be done in Iraq to ensure stable conditions conditions within that country so that US and British forces can withdraw without creating greater chaos in their wake.

By obsessing over the rights and wrongs of the war in the first place, important issues are being overlooked.

chill

mike65 wrote:

I doubt anyone will have changed thier views too much if at all.

I would suggest that it depends on the reason for supporting or not supporting.
If one supported it solely because of WMD then one might consider a change of mind on the issue.
Personally I supported it for the change of regime aspect irrespective of any WMD, though the incompetence with which the US has dealt with the post large scale military stage has been annoying.

My feeling is that the only real problem was that the "big picture" was viewed by the US through the fog and mirrors of unreliable Iraqi exiles who sold the neo-cons a pup who were all too eager to belive them. The result being they were hopplessly naive about the likely post war environment.

It seems to me that it was not just the neocons that were fooled, but almost every other intelligence agency. Who could have foreseen the incredible legths Saddam went to to pretend that he still had the WMD certified by the UN.

I have little problem with the concept of regime change (anyone else think South Africa should topple Mugabe?) but clearly you have to be prepared. The US was'nt.

Agreed 100%. I believe that the UN should consider a new rule whereby the concept of a country's sovereignty can be negated by a UN committee based on a lack of domocratic rights for the people. A dictator, fascist or similar regime should have no automatic right to sovereignty separate from those of it's people.
This would leave other Domocratic powers free to topple these regimes should they chose.

While Colin Powell will no doubt be feeling sore about what happened he can at least know his doctrine would have been the right one while Rumsfelds was wrong.

Agreed. Although this is a worthless reality in the current climate in the US where the extreme right has won and taken control of the spoils.

WMD is embarrasssing, but embarrasing for everyone. The UN and Hans Blix spent years looking for something that was'nt there.

Agreed again. The UN certified it's existence and no one has ever satisfactorily explained where it went. The extreme anti war lobby have nothing but bluster to offer.

As for spending money elsewhere, the US does'nt have to fund everything. The French and Germans etc could spend money they did'nt spend on Iraq on AIDS drugs, fresh water schemes, debt relief and so on. But I dont belive they have.

European countries will live to regret their hand wringing over this whole process and France among others wil have a lot of explaining to do about their relationship with Saddam and their benifiting from the Oil for Food program which is building to become a monumental outrage.

Victor

mike65 wrote:

The French and Germans etc could spend money they did'nt spend on Iraq on AIDS drugs, fresh water schemes, debt relief and so on. But I dont belive they have.

Oops, they just spent €90bn on forgiving a large chunk of Iraq's debt

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Victor

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Really, that article supports my point. It may not be 100,000 it may not be 99,999, it may not be 99,000 or 90,000. It is however a number of that order.

Pluffy Bunny

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I agree with victor, nipped in the bud or not, tens of thousands lie dead

Memnoch

this is just going to turn into another war was right vs wrong debate.

as sad as that is

no one has changed their mind, lets leave it at that

Gurgle

The only way Iraq is going to be stable & peacefull in the next ten years is if the entire country is carpet-bombed with high yield nukes.
(Two years ago the country was stable & peacefull.)
So that would be a 'no'.

What has changed is my understanding of just how badly an army of half a million fully trained professional soldiers can be organized.

Redleslie2

SkepticOne wrote:

But the debate has moved on now.

I know it has but I'm still curious to see if anyone on either side has changed their mind with the benefit of hindsight and I wonder what it takes in terms of casualties and cash costs to get people (pro-war people anyway) to admit they might have got it wrong.

Captain Trips

Memnoch wrote:

this is just going to turn into another war was right vs wrong debate.

as sad as that is

no one has changed their mind, lets leave it at that

Dude! That's the title of the thread!!! : "War! Right or Wrong?"!!!

My personal opinion is that it's very damaging to the US. Either Bush knows something we all don't or else the neocons are so deep in believing their own **** that they will drag their whole country with them.

Does it affect me? No....yes petrol has gone up in price so we are all paying a bit but that's inflation in one of Europe's richest countries.

The typical American has seen petrol double almost in places, with rising unemployment all the time (OK, yes new jobs but from cubicoid drone to McDonalds' isn't exactly a fair comparison). So the Americans will reap what they have sown - they voted for and supported by majority this war. Of note, the poorest and mostundereducated of the US supported Bush over Kerry, apparently full in the knowledge that they would have benefited most from socialised health care and more jobs.

SO the war is bad: it's led to more people dead in the 18 months of this 6 week war than Saddam would have by a long shot. It's destroyed exponentially more than even 30,000 dead given the amount of *injured* on top of that (e.g., around 1200 US dead, but 6000 injured - even if 30000 and not 100000 dead, it could be 100000-500000 injured). It's bad for Iraqis and bad for typical schmuck Americans.

MeatProduct

Regarding the figure of 100,000 dead, let's say it's off by 50,000. That's sickening. I can't comprehend that. I have trouble dealing with one unnecessary death but with ~50,000 I am horrified that the war continues. As a people I think we are in a very bad place. Imagine the impact that those deaths have had on the chilren in Iraq that are now fatherless or motherless?

I genuinely feel ill when I contemplate that. What are we doing to ourselves?

Nick

SkepticOne

MeatProduct wrote:

I genuinely feel ill when I contemplate that. What are we doing to ourselves?

And that's only a fraction of the total deaths by war in the world today. It is almost too terrible to contemplate. And we are responsible for all of it yet we do nothing. And it goes back through history too. OMG look at the second world war. All the bombing.

MeatProduct

SkepticOne wrote:

And that's only a fraction of the total deaths by war in the world today. It is almost too terrible to contemplate. And we are responsible for all of it yet we do nothing. And it goes back through history too. OMG look at the second world war. All the bombing.

Exactly right. Each one of us is responsible in a small way. It's takes a shift in the individual before the shift in nations occur.

Nick

Just wondering if anyone has changed their mind about the war since it started

Nope. I still believe that the US had no right to invade Iraq. Very few of their reasons stand up to any investigation.

If you were agin it, are you pleasantly surprised that the bloodbath has been much more restrained than had been feared and the ousting of Saddam has made it all worthwhile?

I never feared that there would be a bloodbath. Especially with british troops being there. Did i believe that there would be large civilian casualties? Yes, i did, but thats mostly down to the US reliance on Air Power in campaigns.

Ousting of Saddam making it worthwhile? No. I don't. He wasn't a threat to Western Nations, and the Occupation of Ira has probably caused more deaths on both sides, than if Saddam had remained in power.

Am I glad he's gone? Yes, I am. I just don't agree with the methods or lack of planning involved. I don't agree with the US determining on their own the invasion of another Sovereign Nation without any evidence of threat.

Does anyone think that the time and money (150 billion now is it?) might have been better spent on, y'know, other things? Like finding OBL, battling AIDS and malaria, providing access to water for those who need it, building schools somewhere, sending a spaceship full of democratically selected celebrities to colonise Mars, or even flattening another Bad Man led country like Cuba or Burma.

Sure. But its doubtful the money would have been spent in those areas anyway. At least in my opinion, it would have been spent on weapon research, expansion of existing WMD arsenals, and expansionism of the US armed forces. <Shrugs> Could be completely off base though.

Keano_sli

The War was wrong and still is Wrong, The Bush administration genuinely belived that they would be welcomed with open arms and flowers in the streets after tehy ousted Sadam.
Anyone claiming that they could not have predicted the chaos in Iraq at the moment is either lying, did not listen before the war or chose not to listen befroe the war.
I was at many anti-war protests and meetings before the war and many people predicted just this sort of Chaos.
Now if small anit-war groups in Dublin could see this then why could the US and Britian with all their intelligence resources not predict the consequenses.
Maybe they were blinded by their own righthousness.......who knows.
An American friend of mine had to serve in Iraq beause of Bushs decisions, thankfully he is now home and safe but with Bushes attitute how long before hes send off to fight another war of Aggression.
He joined up to protect his country; not detroy others!

Well I certainly haven;t changed my mind at all!!

The Corinthian

chill wrote:

European countries will live to regret their hand wringing over this whole process and France among others wil have a lot of explaining to do about their relationship with Saddam and their benifiting from the Oil for Food program which is building to become a monumental outrage.

Actually the only European countries living to regret anything are those who supported the war, in particular those who sent troops who are increasingly finding themselves in an unpopular and bloody quagmire. The rest of Europe is most likely chuckling in that superior count von Bulow sort of way.

As for those who have colluded with Saddam in the past? Let he who is without sin...