English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

11 answers

Yes. I initially gave the president the benefit of the doubt. I still think he truly believed he was doing the right thing at the time. So, I don't fall in with the crowd that yells "Bush lied" or "it's all just a war for oil". But as I study the history leading up to the war, I just don't think it was a wise decision. Knowing what I know today, I would oppose going into this war on conservative grounds. That is to say that it was not a prudent decision. Conservatives have traditionally been skeptical about foreign interventions and the ability to transform large groups of people based on some utopian scheme. Also, they have always been mindful of the law of unintended consequences. So, while I think it was reasonable to believe that Sadaam had weapons or was trying to develop them (based on the intelligence at the time), I think it was naive to think that we could just go in there, take him out, establish a democracy and leave. There are too many variables that evidently were not considered realistically.

2006-08-27 07:20:42 · answer #1 · answered by Eric H 4 · 0 0

I was not opposed to the war.
Now I favour the occupation and delivery of democracy as it will place Iraq as a strategic ally of Europe in the long term, if the programme is effective that is. I am thinking along the lines of Turkey which is largely Muslim but not hard line Islamic, and wishes for inclusion in the EU. If Iraq takes a similar course then all's well that ends well. On the other hand we could be faced with a scenario like in Palestine with extremists being elected - which would spell trouble and bad news.
I recall a friend commenting "We're the self preservation society". Some say the war was a war for oil, the Italian job written large. If such is to be just then we must see the Iraqis as a threat to our security, and criminal, beforehand. Well the Muslims, where fundamental, are opposed to many of our Western values, and would enforce their opposing standards and laws upon us if they could - death for apostacy, dhimmi system and blasphemy laws spring to mind. If we can counter that threat, and take a little oil on the way then then who cares about dodgy dossiers and no WMDs? For in the present atmosphere of jihad and terror the Muslims are probably more fundamental than at many recent times. I only hope we've not played into the enemy's hands, and destablised a region when furment and religious zeal are waiting on the sidelines ready to run amok, which if one follows the news, seems like it could be the case. However the democracy, fledgeling though it is, still stands.

Luke.

2006-08-27 22:47:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Pretty much the same, even though the bad guys changed from the Baath party to terrorists. To the extent we are participating (training Iraqi police in ... Jordan, was it?) what opinion we are of the actual war doesn't really matter.

2006-08-27 06:45:15 · answer #3 · answered by dane 4 · 0 0

I hasn't changed at all.

I knew it was a fiasco to begin with fought under false pretenses.

And with Piss Poor Prior Planning.

I pray for the men and women on the ground paying the price for the administrations arrogance and stupidity.

2006-08-27 06:45:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It was`wrong to start with and its now become a complete dogs dinner, the only winners are iran. First Dubya removes part of the Taliban, then his old buddy Saddam, now iran is sabre rattling and the major power in the region, Nice one Dubya and your puppet Bliar, sorry Blair, and we thought you couldnt get any stupider.

2006-08-27 06:49:19 · answer #5 · answered by minesaphatone 2 · 0 0

The sort of lifeless in a criminal warfare of aggression pursued below fake pretenses is in simple terms one greater slap interior the face. Fewer lifeless may be very acceptable yet would not exchange the character of it.

2016-09-30 23:03:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think its made Amerrca more opta...opti...secure an sure about the war cuz Irakis are votin and democracy's happening an all is better in Irak without Sadam in power.

2006-08-27 06:44:14 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 1 0

The war is good for no one except the oil companies...... why do you think we are there? no one can tell me the US did not have enough elite soldiers to stop terrorist DEAD in their tracks if this was truly about terrorism & not oil.....

2006-08-27 06:52:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Nope. InIt2WinIt.

2006-08-29 07:35:28 · answer #9 · answered by JAMES11A 4 · 0 0

NO!!! Remained the same.

2006-08-27 06:44:20 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers