Be honest, when all those hippies were against the war in 2003, what did you think?

Question

I specifically remember people telling me how the Iraq War would end up being long, there were not going to be the WMDs made after '98, cost a lot, and ultimately fail. This was before the war even started. Now it hasn't ended yet, so that last one is still open. But I honestly thought, "hey, it's just Iraq, we should be able to destroy their army, control their country, and help them install a new government in less then a year." I thought all those saying different were just nay saying. But it turns out they were right.

Do you know anyone who was mostly accurate in their prediction of the war? What did you think about that then? What do you think about it now?

The real point wasn't that they were right or wrong about not supporting the war. The real point was they accurately predicted things like 1. the war would take years, 2. the war would cost a lot, 3. we wouldn't find the WMDs we went there for.

Answer 1

Yo Aviator dude
I will admit right here and now that when this thing was first brought to the table--with all of the "evidence" in tow---the Colin Powell's -- UN presentations etc--- I thought that we had the case for at least a genuine case of the kick butt to serve up to Sadaam---- BUT--- I still was VERY reluctant to give approval to an INVASION without a set aggressive action against us !!
Then when most of the country bought into the "FACTS" that were presented and decided wholesale that this was the way it was going to be --- I stood (with my reservations) along with everyone else and waved the flag !! But, the people who were screaming HELL NO --- really didn't stir me hardly any --because I have ALWAYS been extremely proud of the FACT that America (to me) had always stood for diversity and freedom to SAY what you feel -- no matter what that is !! I have always loved this country's diversity !!

Of course it wasn't for some time ---before the information that Junior had received from the "experts" on Iraq -- became more or less public knowledge--- the FACT being that they had repeatedly told him of the absolute chaos that would ensue once the centralized authority in that country had been taken out !!! And, even later yet, before we learned of some of the statements that had been made by high ranking personnel within the administration VERY early in it's assumation of the Oval Office (way before 9 / 11) that more or less laid out a view of the new White House doctrines that pretty much had a frame of mind to take Iraq out WAY WAY early in the settling in period (well within the first 100 days)
So, there is case to see at THIS point --a preconceived notion within the Bush administration to do this thing before there was any "evidence" at all that Sadaam was ANYTHING BUT a "neighborhood bully" !!!

In retrospect I wish I had voted my conscience at the time and said what I felt in my heart--- which was--- what are we doing here--- setting this kind of precident of invading a country who has not actually attacked us---and doing so under the guise of A PRECEIVED THREAT ---- very shaky ground here for a real cause for INVASION !!!!

I learned later of the Wolfowitz doctrine---a little piece of Republican garbage that had been conceived and adopted as a policy directive by the Republicans as early as the Reagan years and written by the man who is NOW at the helm of the World Bank--- Paul Wolfowitz------- It states that because the United States is SUCH an Awesome country and because it is SO great and marvelous --- IT HAS A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO INVADE AND TAKE ANY COUNTRY THAT OPPOSES OUR VIEW ----PERIOD---- now how scary is THAT ???

Answer 2

1. Whether there were no WMD just before we arrived is still up in the air. When all the major governments of the world were convinced that Saddam had them, the opponents of the President found a chain to pull when they were not discovered in a timely fashion. These same folks, if their boy was still in power, would have argued precisely as the administration had done-in fact did so during the prior administration. Resistance to the war was and is more a matter of political opportunism related to who is in office and when.
2. the cost is bearable if your eventual outcome is victory and liberty. The left want neither.
3. Wars are never politically correct if your boy is not in office. this is what is fracturing the country. Opposition for political sake. Even the Islamic fascists applauded the democratic victory in November. If that doesn't say something, your not listening very well.
4. Wars are not video games you can predict in even the best of times. The opposition realizes that generally the American public has a very short attention span and very seldom supports any military adventure over 6 months. That have worked that to their advantage as expected. What they did not expect is the full support of the Democratic Party in helping them achieve their goals. They should have. The Vietnam War was a perfect example. History repeats itself. The naysayers have oozed out of the woodwork once again and are energized by the smell of burning flags and effigies. Let the hand wringing and hysterical screaming begin if it hasn't already.

Answer 3

I was accurate and still am so far, I figured the war would be about 4-6 years long, I figured that the cost would be a lot, but freedom isn't cheap and I was hoping that we would pay for it by stopping foregin aide at $480 Billion a year, I knew that people would lose sight of the fact that building a nation after such event takes a long time, look at Germany and Japan, I knew the Amrican left would use it as a politcal tool like they did in Vietnam, I knew that they would through up the American loses there, whatever it would be at the time, and not remember the battles that took place all ove rthe world in the other wars that to more life in 15 minutes than what we have lost in four years....come see me I got more!

Answer 4

Well. I though they're right. Although very likely not
deliberately. The chances that the governments plan
would fail where about 99:1. And it's not that we didn't
get warnings about this. The Europeans told us more
than ones. Bush sen. knew it in the 1st Gulf War and quite
a few in the military had "serious doubts" about that
plan. But it doesn't really need much knowledge. Being
able to read statistics is enough. Every single military
operation in this part of the world ended in years,
decades and centuries of violent occupation. The
Europeans fought down there for a time that spans
more than a millennium. Israel, after more than 20
years after the last conflict, is still a complete mess
with violence at every corner. Quite a few are already
pissed that it's taking *this long*. "This long" is just
the beginning. It will end up in two ways:
(1) We pull out and go home with a bloody nose. After
a few years things will be either exactly as they were
before or worse. If we pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan
tomorrow it will not only be worse but it will be much
worse.
(2) We spend a few decades babysitting those
instable goverments and eventually we can deal with
important things....like terrorists.

Answer 5

No, I didn't ever think that we would just walk in and leave. We never did leave Japan or Germany. We are not out of Bosnia yet. The only one I know of was Somalia. We ran away when they killed two of our soldiers. If you are going to do something then do it right.

I hate it though when people say that this war is dragging on. The war ended in about two weeks, as far as I can tell . The rebuilding and policing is still going. Yes we have lost lives, but lets get real. How many wars have we been in where we have lost more than 3000 in one hour? We are loosing several soldiers every week, but almost that many die in regular training at home. At least in Iraq they are dieing for a cause.

Sorry, I guess I'm off of your original subject but it drives me nuts when they use the Iraq situation as a political tool. Its not right to juggle with people's lives and the future of another nation just for political gain.

Answer 6

The funniest I heard was from a Republican--she said "I know what you're gonna say--another Bush, another war, another recession, another oil crisis." She didn't think it would happen, but she was totally on the money. As for the hippies--I thought the same thing I did in Gulf War I--where were you weeks ago? Why do they always wait until bombs are dropping to start protesting a war? It would be so much better if I saw anti-war protests BEFORE we were at war.

If you have never read Ted Rall, check him out--he complains all the time that he was right, while everyone who is wrong gets paid a lot more than him. (And when he says we should get out of the war, he points out that Afghans love Russians, but still wanted to kill them all while they were an occupying force--people just hate for someone else to come in and tell them how to run themselves, no matter how many roads and schools they build.)

But think about it--if the entire U.S. Military, including weapons, transport, and personnel, were magically eliminated and some other country walked in and tried to control us, how many years would that take? With nothing but ordinary citizens, private transportation, hunting weapons, and yankee ingenuity and stubborness--how many years would it take to get us under control? Military action isn't always army vs. army, sometimes it takes more than winning to achieve victory.

Answer 7

I was opposed to the invasion, believing that it was beyond the terrorist's dreams that Bush would be so foolish as to invade Iraq. I said that this serious mistake would be extremely detrimental for America, would require great sacrifice by our troops, at a horrendous cost both in lives and dollars, and rather than bring democracy to the Middle East, would actually escalate terrorism there. Unfortunately the cake walk predicted by those promoting the invasion, turned out to be more accurately forecast by those who opposed the war.

Answer 8

To answer "hey, it's just Iraq, we should be able to destroy their army, control their country, and help them install a new government in less then a year."

When you were thinking that, did you take into account that we barged into a country where more than half the population was just trying to live their way of life and that they were not involved in terrorism in any way and basically tried to "control them"?

In 2001, I did not believe we should attack anyone. Since then, I still do not think we should have hurt so many people--yes, it is good we captured so many terrorists, but we killed SO many innocent people, American soldiers, Iraqi civillians, even some of our allies got killed.

I wish there could've been a better way to achieve our objective--"eliminate terrorists" not "get oil"-- but unfortunately, I doubt there is one. And looking at the current percentage of support for the war, I say it's already failed, even if it hasn't ended.

Answer 9

The same I think today - Your wrong hippie, no go play frisbee football and leave to war to us soldiers.
It took a few weeks to defeat Iraq's Army. It has taken longer than expected to stabilize the region, but it is not for lack of trying. It is totally unconventional warfare and therefor hard to predict. You can't accurately forcast what one person will do let alone an entire region. We are making progress.

Answer 10

I still support the war. Back in 2003, I knew it was going to take a while and even told some of my friends it could take up to 5 - 8 years before we could leave. We have to remember, this is a war, and wars are long hard processes that take time and require patience. Thinking it would be over in a year was just a pipe dream.