Has your opinion about the Iraq war changed?

[ACPlayer]

Three people were opposed to the war before and are now for it.

Who? Why? When?

[Frequitude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can anyone not be for getting rid of a guy like Saddam?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the alternative (chaos, religious war, the loss of our international standing, the exposure of the limits of our military, ultimately the potential loss of our hegemony, rampant terrorism, murder, torture, starvation, the death of children in the crossfire, lack of even the most basic services for iraqi citizens, the waste of 200,000,000,000+ dollars (at least), and, oh yeah, 1700 dead americans and 25k wounded) is a lot worse.


[/ QUOTE ]


You pretty much summed it up for me. I'm not against what the USA did, but I am very against how they have done it...(or not done it for that matter). The lack of post-war planning is absolutely ludicrous.

[lastchance]

Me, of course. I didn't say this, but I did expect postwar to be bungled up more than it was. I didn't expect the Iraqi government to have a 70+% confidence at any point, and I didn't expect to actually have a functioning (however incredibly limited) government at this point.

Also, it isn't about doing what should have been done in the past, it's about doing what should be done after you've made a mistake.

[ACPlayer]

Your post is a bit confusing.

So, before the war you were against the war because you believed that we would bungle the post war period. Now you are for the war because we have not bungled it as much as you feared.

Also, it isn't about doing what should have been done in the past, it's about doing what should be done after you've made a mistake.

What does this particular thread have to do with what should be done after you made a mistake -- which if I understand your post was not a mistake (but the lack of post war planning made it a mistake???).

I am confused by your post.

[lastchance]

The Bush Administration made a major mistake going into Iraq. But some of you are still in that mindset, of not being there, of not already having deposed Saddam, of not having built a government up to the point where it is now.

Going into Iraq, everyone underestimated how bad the occupation would be. I understood that going in, in fact, I think it was primary reason not to support the war at that point, and probably is still a great reason not to have supported it at that point.

But, we're not in 2001. We're in 2005, and we're in Iraq right now. The situation has changed, and this is the spot that we're in right now. Backing out of Iraq would signal great weakness to Al-Qaida. Also, Iraq could very easily be a satellite nation of some other foreign power who is more dangerous than Saddam. It could also be a destabilizing factor in the region, which would be dangerous down the line.

None of those are going to happen if Saddam stayed in power, or if we had better postwar planning or waited for the backing of the UN.

And so, I was against the war in 2001, but understanding the situation as is, 2005, you've got to be for it right now, because the alternative sucks too much.

[ACPlayer]

I think you should consider characterising your position as: I was against the war in Iraq and am still against the war in Iraq, but now that we are there we cannot pull out.

As I understood the OP, the question is whether your opinion about going to war has changed. I dont think you have changed your mind about the war in Iraq.

The way I would have changed my mind would have been if we had discoverd huge caches of WMD ready to be deployed, evidence found of Saddam sending money to AQ, training programs for terrorists (like afghanistan). Then I would have had to say that I changed my mind and the Bush admin did the right thing. But I would have wagered my entire bankroll that this would not happen.

Incidentally, you are wrong about our need to stay in Iraq.

[lehighguy]

Aren't we the benefit of 20/20 hindsight here. Before going to war I did a lot of my own research, read intelligence reports from various world governments, examine the history or Iraq and Saddam. After all that I came to the conclusion that he probably had weapons.

When Hans Blix came to lecture at my school that actually reinforced my view that the world community by and large believed he had weapons. Even Blix said during his speech that Saddam's uncooperative attitude made it impossible to verify he had disposed of his weapons. He had his own opinions about the war, but the impression I got from his speech was that if anyone was responsible for the impression Saddam had weapons, it was Saddam.

If you were really confident enoguh through your own analysis to say before the war that things would turn out this way and there would be no weapons I think the posistion is consistant. But don't mix up outcomes with proper action, after all you lose on AA vs KK 20% of the time.

[player24]

Include me in this camp (mostly).

In one sense, we are fortunate that the initial phase of the war did not result in a greater loss of American life (our troops did not encounter chemical or biological weapons as many had feared.)

Unfortunately, however, France/Germany/Russia etc...decided that they should benefit from our efforts to clean up the middle east without pickup up part of the tab - so we have expended more resources than necessary and are having a difficult time finishing the job.

I blame the Bush administration for the executional errors in prosecuting the war. Yet, I'm not sure how much of the Bush administration's failure to underestimate the present difficulties relates to the White House's inflated belief that the UN would have been more supportive (committing troops, money and moral support) once the war was underway.

In any event, Bush miscalculated. I believe that pulling out now would magnify past mistakes. Finish the job.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
raq needed at the very least, better post-war planning going in, and this was obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehhh I haven't kept up on the news as much as I should of when it comes to Iraq. After Bush got reelected my main source of news is from friends and family that are in theater.

Would you care to explain elaborate more on this claim?

[Roland32]

The one question I would love Iraq war supporters to answer in regards to why we had to go in because of WMD. It is a known fact that Neo Cons like Wolfawitz and Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq regardless of any terrorist or enemy threat. The heart of there political beliefs that as the winner of the cold war and lone Superpower it is now the duty of America to spread democracy and saw Iraq as a perfect start in the middle east. The whole arguement of W went in to protect us based on intelligence on terrorism and WMD is completely false. They decided to premptively attack Iraq AND THEN MADE A CASE FOR WAR BASED ON INTELLIGENCE to sell to the American public and the rest of the world. Please answer how misleading intelligence in any way excuses the President of his judgement?