Did you ever support the Iraq war?

Question

And do you still support it?

Answer 1

No. I remember wondering why they were even contemplating this when the job in Afganistan was far from complete and there was no evidence Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. It just smacked of hubris and finishing Daddy's perceived mistake.

I also remembering watching the initial invasion and saying to my spouse that this was going to be a complete disaster...I hate being right all the time.

Edit: to those of you who support it because you support "our president no matter what", would you be as steadfast if the president were a Democrat? I doubt it.

Answer 2

I supported the war in the beginning, but not because I believed the WMD story.

I supported the war because I had read several books about what Saddam had done to his people; had listened to several Iraqi's, here in the US advocating for assistance with his removal, and thought that the Iraqi people would welcome US intervention. Quick & easy.

I could see the value of a stable Democracy and ally in the mid-east; a counterbalance to Iran, and felt Iraq would be a useful ally in the "war on terror."

I thought the WMD excuse was just that. Did not believe Bush for a second.

The justification before the UN looked weak, and it seemed obvious to me that Colin Powell's presentation lacked conviction. Colin Powell looked uncomfortable, and Woodward's book does a good job of documenting those Administration conflicts leading up to the war, the shoestring planning, and the military warnings that were ignored by Rumsfeld.

Nevertheless, without this knowledge, back then, I favored intervention.

What I now understand is that there is a major internal struggle for control fueled by Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia.
The Iraqi people were never sold on the idea of US assistance, and that the larger regional states view this as a struggle for preminance in the region.

Foreign policy experts certainly would have known this stuff in advance.

I understand that the conflict has been used by radicals to recruit extremist youth into Al Queda, and we're now in the middle of a civil war. Rather than helping fight terror, we've put 140,000 of our young men in harm's way, and Bush seems unable to accept the realities.

The Iraq Study Group offered a way out. - It recognized the regional aspects, and called for a regional peace conference to settle the status of Iraq. It explained in detail why this was in the interest of all neighboring countries.

Seemed to me the only logical solution, since the alternative is ten years of civil war with a regional solution at the end anyway. Of course, this conference was the only part Bush immediately rejected.

Obviously, I've turned against the war. This "fight them over there" rationale is absurd.

(and btw, everyone supports the troops - don't get confused.)

Answer 3

Actually I'm a "love the troops, hate the war" kind of guy. I could never figure out why we didn't finish the job the first time we were over there (you know, the Kuwait thing). We had the support of most of the world, we had all the troops and equipment in place and we should have done it then if we were going to. Kind of makes you wonder if there are other, less legitimate reasons for the second war.

Answer 4

I wanted us to let the U.N. inspectors finish their job first. Sadaam always played it up to the cameras. He would have never done anything so stupid as to start a war with WMD's.

Besides, we never found any WMD's.

So, with all that said, I supported overthrowing Sadaam so that the Iraqi people could be free. Once that was accomplished, we should have left.

So, I guess to some degree, I did support it in the beginning because I had so much disdain for Sadaam. Now, (and for the longest time since his overthrow from power) I have been against us being there.

Answer 5

I never supported Saddam as he was a CIA agent nor I have ever supported invasion of Iraq, don't say it war. War is always between tow equals but when another country's army occupies one country that is occupation. USA in the name of De MO Crazy and purportedly to oust Saddam with a hidden agenda to control the oil pipe line occupied Afghanistan than Iraq. Was there any real fight between the invading forces and the forces of these countries. USA created Mujahedeens, Talebans, Al-Qaida, Laden, Saddam and Shah of Iran just to protect their interest through these stooges but when they failed the USA occupied these countries. Once F. Marcos said if USA is friend you need no enemy. Saddam realised this only by paying in terms of his life.

Answer 6

As a sister that has a brother in the army yes I do! I may not always agree with the way things are handled but yes I do support the war and the troops fighting in it!

Answer 7

Absolutely never did and never will.
I was surprised and ashamed at the gullibility of the American people who "got behind" this war. All it took was Bush repeating "terrorism" and "Saddam" in the same sentence, over and over.
I was a teenager in the Vietnam war era, and my first husband served there. I am VEHEMENTLY anti-war.
I'm probably also more poltically astute than most Americans; I suspected that Iraq would be in a million pieces without a dictator to hold together such a disparate group of people. So if an ordinary person like me knew..what are we paying our government officials for?

Answer 8

I am very proud to say I am in the minority, never supported both wars, saw them for what they are and that has turned out to be correct and I do not support these wars now.

Anyone who can't see the folly of these wars and how we are breeding terrorists like flies is not dealing with reality.

A good point to ponder is this. A congressional study in 2005 said we are supplying 35% of the worlds arms. Some independent studies put that figure at over 50%. If we didn't have that hydra to feed, how would we have reacted to 911?

I have said this a thousand times, when it comes to conflict and war, follow the money.

(I have noticed that those that support the war can not articulate why, but those that do not support the war seem to articulate the reasons well. Therefore, I'd say the pro war group has no ideological balls to support an obviously failed policy, except with Rah Rah my $hit doesn't stink but yours does. In any case, when a position is based on failed supposition and fooling themselves, the only ones that are looking foolish is the ones who are fooled into thinking this is still just.)

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 9

He wasnt allowed to vote for the conflict because of the fact he wasnt even in politics on the time, remember he's new. additionally the conflict is unlikely properly so of path hes going to declare hes going to make it greater useful, hes attempting to win the workplace and no person fairly is conscious what he helps, no person fairly is conscious lots of something approximately this guy, however the black human beings must be attentive to somehting 0.5 the international dont becuase they're balloting for him like hes going to purchase them a sparkling abode or something.

Answer 10

Never! I was suspicious right from the beginning but could not say why. Later I discovered Dick Cheney's connection to Haliburton and it was very clear. Eisenhower, one of the greatest republicans, warned us to beware of the military industrial complex. Now we know why. This is the most dishonest, corrupt administration we have ever had.