Can people admit they're against the Iraq war because we're not winning, rather than on any moral ground?

Question

Early on that anti-war people were just the same old anti-Bush people. Even after we found no ready-to-use WMDs, support for the war didn't drop much and most people agreed we should stay and finish the job - Bush DID get re-elected.

But now the war drags on, our casualties mount, and the extremist factions continue their violence.

And now the criticism of the war mounts.

Sounds a lot like Vietnam.

In both cases we could have just bombed the opposition-controlled areas to the ground and won, at the cost of a few hundred thousand more 'civilian' casualties. When we went that route on a lower scale we did better in both wars and the President fared better in the polls: the Leftists became more vocal but the anti-war side was not more numerous. It became more numerous only when we LOST which is because we STOPPED bombing and DIDN'T cut the water supply to Tikrit, etc... Bush polls better when we do this in Afghanistan too.

Seems the real beef is with losing, not lies.

Answer 1

Yes, and it's a perfectly fair reason to be anti-Bush.

War is one of those situations where you can't tolerate mistakes. If there's any forgiveness to be given for mistakes involving war, it's after you've prevented the person from making any more mistakes.

In the case of the Bush administration, they bungled things pretty badly initially; they weren't removed; things have continued to get worse.

Answer 2

Depending on your definition of a 'war' it could be we did win. People have trouble distinguishing a war from an occupation- they're different things.

A War is between two or more defined sides- usually, but not always, nations. In this sense, the War in Iraq stopped when the governing body was captured and most of the opposing armed forces had given up or fled. So you point becomes invalid.

The Allied troops are currently occupying iraq- that is, they are militarily controling the country, and responsible for a deal of what goes on in it. Occupations of former hostile countries are never nice- the public hate you. The current conflict you hear about on the news is the equivilant of an expression of public opinion- people don't want their country to be occupied, so they rise up against the dominating force.

For an analogy- try Vichy France. in WW2, Germany occupied a portion of France. The French had surrendered, so Nazi Germany decided on how the country was run. They set up a new government to control the portions of France outside direct Nazi rule- but the french populace was not totally happy, so they would attempt to strike back. The government, like Iraqs, was working with the occupying force, but the populace still acted out.

As to public opinion being influenced by the conflict- well that may be because it's inflated by the media- they feel it important to increase the hype whenever a soldier dies. People think they're witnessing another Vietnam- but the opposition is much less stacked, and there is no opposing force (in Vietnam, there was actual military opposition, just being supported by heavy uprising)

People tend to be overly critical in hindsight- when they've had time to pick at the details and reverse their opinions.

Answer 3

Whether we "win" or lose, I will always believe that we went to Iraq for all the wrong reasons. I do agree that Saddam needed to be taken out of power, but I don't agree with the current Administration having made U.S. citizens believe that Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq. Nor do I think war was the only answer. The whole mess sickens me.

There has never been a war-time President who did not get re-elected. I suppose this only helped Bush stay in office. I have never voted for him, myself.

Yes, it sounds a lot like Vietnam: another war we should never have gotten into.

I'm not sure why you put quotations around civilians, because there are many innocent Iraqis, whether you'd like to admit it or not.

Seems the real beef is with morality, honor, and the neglect of OUR country, not losing.

Answer 4

I opposed the war , not because I was against having democracy in the middle east but because I felt that military invasion was unlikely to achieve what Bush wanted. I think that people are now coming to realize that and want to stop. But since we broke it it is ours to fix, or at least to minimize the damage we have done. Getting out and blaming the Iraqis for the chaos that will happen is not a moral position

Answer 5

People oppose this war, not on the grounds that we aren't winning, but rather because we cannot win. Not because we don't have the resolve, or the resources, but because you cannot win a war on terror. So with no finish line to strive for, people say "why run the race? Especially at a dead sprint."

Terrorism is dealt with constant police pressure and intel, not one big military encounter. It's like an allergy. You can't just "fix" it, or make it go away, but with proper care and attention you can make it so that it does not harm you.

Answer 6

sorry to have to completely disagree with you but this is no longer a left, right or liberal conservative issue.

bottom line - this war has nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with the larger war on terror and nothing to do with american security.

there was no reason to ever go to war in iraq and there is no reason to stay there - other than bush's personal ego reasons for wanting to stay there and his inability to ever admit he is wrong.

what frustrates americans more and more is that we're not GETTING ANY PAYBACK FOR 9/11 IN IRAQ and we want it.

redeploy the troops in locations where those who supported, planned and funded the 9/11 attacks...

Answer 7

if we cant then i should have gone to jail along time ago. I think it is unjust to engage more troops when we had no potentail threat from them. Where are though nuculear weapons now bush!!!!