2007-08-01 05:30:44 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If the motives were honestly laid out and explained, I doubt Congress would have given the approval to go ahead.
2007-08-01 07:03:42 · answer #1 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If there were actual motives stated -- and a clear definition of what we were trying to accomplish and how to do that -- maybe.
The single biggest group right now opposing the Iraq occupation are those who only see Americans (and Iraqis) dying, do not see any significant progress toward national political stability, and don't see any path that will lead from where we are to that undefined goal.
In other words, they don't see any point in "staying the course" when it's completely unclear where the course leads or how long it will take to get there. These people want facts, and clear honest discussion, not claims of blind faith.
Given those answers, if the answers are reasonable, many people might change their minds about the occupation.
Some obviously won't -- some have the blind faith necessary to keep believing in Bush, and some will oppose the occupation on their own moral grounds regardless of how likely any sort of positive effect might be. But both of those groups, are a minority.
So yes, given honest answers about the goals, and clear objective facts about how those goals could be achieved and how long it would take, some might change their minds.
2007-08-01 05:40:51 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the motives were honestly stated, the US never would have gone to war. That's why the Bush administration had to make up the lies about Sudan's nuclear program. Focus group and market testing had shown that it would take a nuclear threat for the public to back the invasion.
2007-08-01 05:36:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Some would.
IMO, the real motive was a naive belief in "the domino effect". They thought that if we bring democracy to one ME country, the rest would see how wonderful it was, and would follow suit all by themselves.
So, some would (or at least they wouldn't be able to claim they are only mad because they were lied to), but most rational people would see that it was a stupid idea to begin with and we wouldn't have gone in the first place.
2007-08-01 05:41:18 · answer #4 · answered by Fretless 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I doubt it . This war has been so badly managed that by now, I don't think the truth makes a difference anymore. They can say whatever they want and there is nothing we can do about it. Sorry Repubs, Bush does not have any credibility left on this war.
2007-08-01 05:39:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably, but those motives would also have to be legitimate. "We're going to war with Iraq, instead of Al Qaida, so that my friends and I can make barges of cash." wouldn't have gone over very well either.
2007-08-01 05:37:07 · answer #6 · answered by Beardog 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They would be MORE hostile if the motives were honestly stated.
Republicans, think about THAT!
2007-08-01 05:34:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Probably...I think people are partially upset at the course the war has taken, partially upset that the intel that got us in there was faulty, and partially upset that Bush refuses to listen to alternatives to his plan.
2007-08-01 05:34:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Nope.
2007-08-01 05:32:56 · answer #9 · answered by Dull Jon 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
yes. Noble lies were told to cover deadly truths.
2007-08-01 05:50:12 · answer #10 · answered by Page 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋