Who would you vote for

[John317]

The 4000 *have* died for nothing! (Not to mention the hundred thousand or so Iraqis that are so seldom mentioned.) They should never have been there in the first place! Keeping the troops there longer doesn't 'honour their sacrifice' - it just means more deaths for nothing!

Dying for a people's freedom and dying as a result of our nation's call to duty and to defend the freedom and way of life of its people is never dishonorable or for nothing.

[lazarus]

I think the point is that since there were no WMD's this war was unnecessary. It should not have been fought. It was a tragic and costly error in judgement.

Those 4,000 men and women would still be live if Bush had not decided to go to war. Those thousands of Iraqi's who died would still be alive.

[Woody]

I think the point is that since there were no WMD's this war was unnecessary. It should not have been fought. It was a tragic and costly error in judgement.

Those 4,000 men and women would still be live if Bush had not decided to go to war. Those thousands of Iraqi's who died would still be alive.

Tell that to the thousands who were raped and murdered by Saddam.

[Neil D]

Dying for a people's freedom and dying as a result of our nation's call to duty and to defend the freedom and way of life of its people is never dishonorable or for nothing.

I have a question here.....Who's "people"? The Iraqis? When ever you ask an Iraqi whether the Americans should stay or go, the answer is always "go". And if they are fighting for the US, do you feel safer abroad?...Cuz I didn't.

Last time I checked, any foreign power that fought on foriegn soil was either an agressor, or a mercenary. Well, our political leaders insist that we are not the agressors, but that sure don't look that way from here....And that only means that we are mercenarys.....and since the taxpayer is footting the bill, as usual, the taxpayer is getting *s*c*r*e*w*e*d.

Ok, so I am being the bad boy here, and have voiced some pretty agressive stuff....So maybe I had better go sit in the corner for a while...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I think the point is that since there were no WMD's this war was unnecessary. It should not have been fought. It was a tragic and costly error in judgment.

That is easy to say in hindsight which is always 20/20.

• Saddam was misleading the world to believe he had WMDs by sending "defectors" out with leaks.
• The CIA advised Congress and the Bush Administration that Saddam had WMDs.
• Brittish, Russian, Israeli and other foreign intelligence services believed Saddam had WMDs.
• The Twin Towers still laid in rubble and the Pentagon was being rebuilt at the time. The shadow of 9/11 was still quite dark and the threat of terrorism was real.

  **********

• Saddam was involved with bribing UN Security Council members to lift the sanctions.
• Saddam had plans to resume his WMD programs - including going nuclear - once the sanctions were lifted.
• Saddam was actively supporting Palestinian terrorism.
• Saddam was allowing Al-Queda safe harbor in northern Iraq.

So while the threat of Iraq was not an immediate treat, it was a threat. With hindsight we can see better ways it could have been dealt with. However given the information available at the time, the US acted responsible and with honorable intentions.

[Bravus]

Nope. Could have waited and let the inspectors do their job. The key one of the dot points you adduce above is the shadow of 9/11, and that was irrelevant in terms of Iraq being a threat, since it is clear that Iraq had less than nothing to do with causing 9/11. The reason it is the most relevant is because Bush attacked Iraq when he did as revenge for 9/11 for domestic political purposes, and that was simply and fundamentally morally wrong. So do not talk about honorable intentions. This war was dishonorable to the core.

[Dr. Shane]

The inspectors themselves admitted Saddam was not being forth coming. There had been years of inspections already and Saddam had never provided the inspectors with what the cease-fire agreement required him to. The Oil-for-Food scandal revealed Saddam was actually bribing Security Council members to get sanctions lifted so allowing the inspectors back in was only a means for Saddam to buy himself more time.

Iraq didn't have to have anything to do with 9/11 for 9/11 to be relevant to the decision to invade. Let's say I have a neighbor threatening to kill my son for years. Then one day a man from across town kills my wife. The next time my neighbor threatens to kill my son, I kill him. Even though my neighbor had nothing to do with my wife getting killed, the fact my wife had been killed created in me a resolve not to take such threats lightly any more. While Saddam was not behind 9/11, 9/11 changed the way the US dealt with terrorism.

Saddam was supporting terrorism. He was giving safe harbor to Al Queda. He was trying to get sanctions lifted so he could resume his WMD programs - including nuclear. And he had attempted to assassinate a former President of the United States.

America is an honorable nation and its intentions were honorable. That is why over 30 other nations joined it in the action.

[olger]

Saddam's pride & rebellion led to his destruction. Let each of us remember that the same thing happened to Israel, and Isaiah predicted that God would use another nation to bring punishment upon them.

As to Iraqis wanting us to leave, I do not believe that ! I recently spoke with an Adventist who was in Iraq and asked him about the people there. He related many stories of gratitude among the Iraqi people, all things that he has personally witnessed.

btw, I agree with Paulsen's article on Non-combatancy. Remember, the magistrate does not bear the sword for naught.

[Bravus]

Anecdotal evidence does not beat scientifically conducted opinion polls, I'm afraid.

[CyberGuy]

Iran is shites and Al Qaida is Sunni like Saddam Hussain was. Bin Ladin believes that Shites sects are infidels and need to be exterminated. So it is unlikely that Al Qaida will tolerate Iran going into Iraq.

It is the sunni sect or Saddam Hussain sect who are doing most of the suicide bombing of Iraqis and Shites and American Soldiers. Most Iraqis agree that when the american troops come into the area peace is restored very quickly and they are thankful for that.

We cannot allow Al Qaida to get a foothold in Iraq. They know Afghanistan is lost. Nato is there along with the U.S military. If we leave Iraq will fall into a secterian war of Shites and Sunnies with Iran backing the Shites and Saudi Arabia and Al Qaida backing the Sunnis. It will become a test of wills of who can sustain the deaths long enough to endure to victory or submission.

[CyberGuy]

Quote:

for the US president to announce to the whole world that these are our plans seems very naive to me. This takes us back to the issue of Obama's judgment and preparation for the office.

Obama's military judgment does worry me. I have a few thoughts.

1. A lot of the anti-war rhetoric has been necessary for him to get the nomination. The Democratic Party has been taken over by the anti-war liberals as the Joe Lieberman case so clearly demonstrates.

2. Obama has said he will govern from the middle and not from either extreme. His record in the Senate has been to the extreme left but that is also explained by his political ambitions and needing to vote as the leadership wanted him to.

3. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are going to give the same advice regardless of who is President. The advice they are giving Bush now will not change because the President does. Obama can say a lot of things but when he sits in the Oval office and the head of the Army, the head of the Navy, the head of the Marines, the head of the Air Force and the head of the Coast Guard start giving him advice he is going to get a reality news flash.

4. Character is what matters. If the Joint Chiefs of Staff present a compelling case to Obama that his preconceived opinions about war and peace were wrong, does Obama have the character to do the right thing despite positions he has already taken? That is what I have still not decided and what Obama must convince me of before November.

If Obama is saying stuff just to get elected then he cannot be trusted as being truthful. He will say ANYTHING to get elected and after that he will do what he wants even if it means going back on his word.

Already word has leaked that he has assured Canada that he will not do away with the Nafta treaty as he was only saying anti Nafta things to get elected. When that leaked Obama denied it but I think it is true. Which goes to say that Obama is not as honest as he holds himself up to be.

[Bravus]

I think he's absolutely sincere about these things. Being antiwar as a principle does not mean being stupid in practice. On the other hand, being prowar in principle does, IMO.

[CyberGuy]

Obama has said he will withdraw all the troops within 30 days. The military has said that it will take seven months to withdrawl otherwise it will be a rout meaning leaving everything behind tanks guns food ammo and jets and helicoptors. What kind of person would make such a promise unless he was foolish on the reality of things.

[Dr. Shane]

I think he will start withdrawing within the first 30 days. I doubt we will completely pull out regardless of who is elected.

[Planey]

Iran is shites

I think that should be "shi'ite" (pronounced "shee-ite")

What you have written is phonetically way too similar to a much more basic Anglo-Saxon word. This may lead to unpleasant confusions by readers.

Why, they might think you were referring to American soldiers...

Graeme

[WayneV]

Anecdotal evidence does not beat scientifically conducted opinion polls, I'm afraid.

That's an interesting statement. One of the first things I was taught in statistics was, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." And since then, I have observed that almost every "scientifically conducted opinion poll" is driven by someone's agenda.

[Bravus]

Absolutely. But in terms of whether Iraqis want the Americans to leave, a telephone poll of 1000 randomly chosen people all across the country is simply a more reliable gauge than conversations with half a dozen people in one particular part of one particular town who are benefiting in certain ways. If you wanted to gauge Bush's approval rating in the US, talking to people at the Republican convention would be a less accurate method than conducting a well-designed poll.

And multiple polls tend to even out any issues with a particular poll. There are multiple polls showing that a large majority of Iraqis want the Americans out. The comment that was made was 'I don't trust the polls because my friend just came back from Iraq and everyone s/he talked to wanted the Americans to stay', or words to that effect.

My statement was too sweeping, but it was intended to get us back into a reality-based way of thinking and talking: far too many people, on far too many issues, are saying "I don't care about the evidence, I know what I know".

[John317]

Absolutely. But in terms of whether Iraqis want the Americans to leave...

How would you like to see the Americans get out? Immediately? A phased withdrawal?

And if we were to leave there tomorrow, what do you see as the short-term result and then the long-term results?

Would it affect the war against terrorism?

What kind of government and situation in Iraq would you then see there in 5 years?

[Bravus]

OK, let's stipulate that I believe they should never have been there in the first place, and that any increase in terror threat caused by a withdrawal could have been avoided by staying out.

Given all that, the situation is what it is now, and the question is how to proceed. An instant withdrawal would, as has been said, be a route and makes no sense. But a *fast* phased withdrawal - as fast as practicable - seems to me the least evil of the evil courses available from here. It stops the Iraqis focusing on the Americans as the enemy and forces them to focus on building a country for themselves. Much of the anticipated 'ethnic cleansing' in the provinces has to some extent already taken place, but a stable democracy is a long way off and it's even possible that a single country is no longer viable and Iraq will split into 3 regions.

The *most* evil of the evil courses is McCain's 'still there in 100 years'.

[John317]

OK, let's stipulate that I believe they should never have been there in the first place, and that any increase in terror threat caused by a withdrawal could have been avoided by staying out.

I hear people say this, but for me it's as if they don't realize that 9/11 and the Cole and the bombings of the various embassies occurred before the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

Given all that, the situation is what it is now, and the question is how to proceed. An instant withdrawal would, as has been said, be a route and makes no sense. But a *fast* phased withdrawal - as fast as practicable - seems to me the least evil of the evil courses available from here. It stops the Iraqis focusing on the Americans as the enemy and forces them to focus on building a country for themselves. Much of the anticipated 'ethnic cleansing' in the provinces has to some extent already taken place, but a stable democracy is a long way off and it's even possible that a single country is no longer viable and Iraq will split into 3 regions.

I don't have any fundamental disagreement with you here. I do think, though, that if we don't stay there, we will find a Muslim dictator in there fairly soon, and probably one that is anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-freedom, pro-Iranian, pro-Syrian, and giving the terrorists a bed to sleep in. And of course, any withdrawal that doesn't strengthen what has been built there in the last several years, will be widely interpreted as a defeat for America. That only encourages Al-Queida and other terrorist organizations.

Quote:

The *most* evil of the evil courses is McCain's 'still there in 100 years'.

Of course McCain has in mind something like the situation where we have thousands of troops in Germany in Europe a lifetime after WWII and because Germans want us there, and like we have them also in Korea after the major fighting there has been stopped for over half a century. I don't think even Obama would be able to take all Americans out of Iraq any time soon. What he is saying now is much different from what he would actually do as president.

[Bravus]

Quote:

I hear people say this, but for me it's as if they don't realize that 9/11 and the Cole and the bombings of the various embassies occurred before the invasion of Iraq.

No, I know that - terror as a tactic has been around for a long time. Just ask our British friends about the IRA, the Spaniards about the Basque separatists, the Sri Lankans about the Tamil Tigers, ad nauseum. America had been a terrorist target before the invasion of Iraq. But my point was that any *increase* in the terrorist threat that is *now* caused by leaving Iraq would not have occurred had Iraq not been entered in the first place. Iraq was *not* a haven for terrorist training in the way Afghanistan was, and I think it's pretty undeniable that Al Qaeda was a miniscule fringe presence if it was there at all. The present strength of 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' (which I believe tends to be massively overstated) can be laid at the door of the misbegotten invasion.

[Dr. Shane]

Most Iraqis Ambivalent About the War, But Not Its Results

...Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high.

...the first media-sponsored national public opinion poll in Iraq also finds a strikingly optimistic people, expressing growing interest in politics, broad rejection of political violence, rising trust in the Iraqi police and army and preference for an inclusive and democratic government.

More Iraqis say the United States was right than say it was wrong to lead the invasion, but by just 48 percent to 39 percent, with 13 percent expressing no opinion

Poll Shows Dramatic Decline in How Iraqis View Lives, Future

March 20, 2007

Asked to compare their lives today with conditions before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, the proportion of Iraqis who say things are better now has slipped below half for the first time. Forty-two percent say their lives have improved, down from 51 percent in 2005 and 56 percent in 2004. Thirty-six percent now say things in their lives are worse today, up from 29 percent in the 2005 poll, which was taken during a period of relative optimism ahead of parliamentary elections. Twenty-two percent say their lives are about the same.

Poll: Most Iraqis favor U.S. pullout in a year

September 27, 2006

"Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like U.S.-led forces withdrawn 'within six months,' while another 34 percent opt for 'gradually withdraw(ing) U.S.-led forces according to a one-year timeline.'

..."Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position -- now 6 in 10. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq."

Poll suggests Iraqis 'optimistic'

17 March 2008

More than 50% of Iraqis think their lives are good, more than at any time in the last three years, a survey says.

The poll for the BBC, ABC, ARD and NHK of more than 2,000 people also suggests that a majority believe that security in their area has improved since 2007.

And while most Iraqis still believe US troops are making things worse, the number who want the Americans to pull out immediately has fallen...

While 55% of all Iraqis believe that their lives are good, only 33% of Sunnis are happy with their lives, compared with 62% of Shias and 73% of Kurds.

[text taken from links]

[Bravus]

Same with the argument about 'emboldenment' - if America withdraws, it will be seen as a defeat. But if America stays it will still be an on-going disaster. Both strengthen America's enemies, and the occupation is more of an irritant than a withdrawal would be. Iraq is broken beyond fixing - and America broke it. Who knows what will be built in its place... but the chance of that being a shining light of democracy for the rest of the Middle East is vanishingly slim.

[Bravus]

Just a note that that first post Shane linked above is from 2004.

[Dr. Shane]

Iraq's problem go back to colonialism and artificial lines being drawn to create nations. It was broken from its very beginning - long before America got involved.

The invasion was brought on the nation by Saddam. He is the one that didn't comply with a cease-fire. He is the one that wasn't forthcoming with weapons inspectors. He is the one that sent out "defectors" claiming he had WMDs. He is the one that supported and trained terrorists. He is the one that gave safe harbor to Al Quaida. He is the one that refused to leave when President Bush gave him 48 hours to do so.