How did you reach your conclusions about the war.?

Question

I want to hear from any and all sides. I'd be particularly interested to hear from those who've gone against their parties ideology.

Answer 1

It's too early for me to reach a conclusion. That's for several years from now - perhaps a decade.

But my current opinion has come from a point of total support, to one of questioning how the strategy is actually being carried out.

That said, I never believed for a moment that there WEREN'T any WMD's because I think Syria, Russia, and perhaps a terrorist organization helped get them out of Iraq.

It is entirely plausible to me that for all his shortcomings, Saddam Hussein wasn't so stupid as to hold onto his WMD's in the face of impending military action when his choices would have been to either use them and show the world that we were correct in our assessment that he had them in his possession and are justified in our military actions or, to sell them to finance his war efforts and consequently show the world that we were wrong.

I don't know these things for a fact, remember that I said it was plausible. Until I, or someone, can prove that either scenario is 100% unlikely, I will continue to believe in them as being the most probable.

In light of actual developments I am very unhappy with how the Iraqi government has failed to step up and show that they WANT to police their own country. I don't particularly care if democracy can be realized in the Middle East or not. But we cannot continue to do their job for them. If we pull out suddenly, that would be bad for all involved and I don't see that happening anyway.

We have to gradually reduce our troop levels while concurrently increasing Iraqi involvement. They aren't ready for our type of society and therefore will always require our presence. If I've confused you that's because I don't see a clean way out of this mess.

The act of initiating a gradual de-involvement will most certainly come from the next Administration. Some genius reported this morning that the Bush advisors support the current strategy. Well excuse me, did anyone expect another opinion? I didn't. But I would hope that an acceptable and reality based solution can be realized. There is no actual winner in all this.

Answer 2

A few years before the Iraq war began, we saw the breakup of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a nation made up of several smaller nations, people who mostly hated each other. They were held together by Tito, a 'strongman' dictator. As soon as Tito died, the country broke apart and different parts began attacking each other and murdering each other.

When Bush began talking about regime change in Iraq, people began asking how he was going to keep Iraq from dong the same thing, since there are three distinct groups there who all hate each other. I waited for Bush to address this question, but nobody ever asked him!

Without seriously considering this question, I didn't think Bush had really thought out the consequences of the war! Also, though Bush said the purpose of the war was to create a western-style democracy in Iraq, it seemed clear to me that what he really planned to do was to impose another 'strongman' on Iraq, just like Saddam, who could hold it together, as Saddam did.

Also I didn't believe there were WMD in Iraq from the start. The WMD we sold them was way past its shelf date, and how were they supposed to have gotten more when there'd been a continuous embargo on Iraq from the time of the first Gulf War? As many as a million Iraqis had died from easily-treatable diseases because they couldn't get drugs, so how were they supposed to get the components for WMD?

When Colin Powell made the speech in front of the UN it sort of shook my faith. I trusted Powell, and the evidence he showed of WMD seemed very believable, so I thought maybe I might be wrong.

But within 24 hrs, newspapers around the world showed how all his evidence had been cooked up, it was all lies. NO American newspaper mentioned this! But foreign papers were full of it.

So I was against the war from the start. And I feel history has vindicated me. WMD have never been found, and the administration now says it wasn't about WMD anyway. And we haven't been able to stabilize or pacify Iraq, nor have we really tried to create a real democracy there.

Answer 3

I'm a conservitive - I reach my conclusions by staying involved in politics. Researching the actual documents and looking at history. This has been painful (because we have such a long history with Iraq and the middle east), but luckily I have been involved for about 10 years.

Answer 4

I reached my conclusion about the war when Colin Powell got up in front of the U.N. and told a bunch of tall tales and nobody in their right mind believed him then. Nothing much has changed since then, except that a lot of innocent people have suffered at our hands.

Answer 5

Observations of the "38th" parallel situation in Korea and
the resultant truce of the conflict (we ARE still at war with
N Korea), The Brits and their methodology in dealing
with the Falklands, first hand accounts of buddies from
Viet Nam and other world hot sports. Personal work
with unpublicized information policy makers rely on.
Evaluation of comments made by men and women
returning from Iraq, as well as a relative on his 3rd
tour of duty in Iraq. (It is of note the folks doing the job
truly feel our presence it needed).As well as reading
/listening to news broadcast and trying to get all the
different "spins" (the truth is in there somewhere)--
Deciphering the politicos speeches as to factual/political
campaign. And using my military background to determine
the desireability to follow the different Commanders -In-Chief.

I do feel qualified to state a somewhat educated opinion.

Answer 6

I have always been against a war that had nothing to do with 9/11 and Osama bin Laden.

Most people don't know how mismanaged this war was from the very beginning.

Answer 7

There are times when one must fight to protect themselves, but there is no glory, or righteousness in war. Once you see the devastation and death that war brings you will understand why anyone would oppose it. You don't know how lucky you are to be able to speak of it as "ideology".

Answer 8

During a State of the Union Address President Bush uttered the now famous sixteen words that critics have insisted showed he exaggerated his case for going to war with Iraq. Those words; “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” have been a focal point for those on the left who claim that Bush lied us into war. The fact is, President Bush did not say that Iraq actually had uranium, he only stated that they tried to obtain it. This information came from several intelligence agencies but it seems that in this matter only one source was considered reliable and that source was Joe Wilson.

Joe Wilson, a deeply partisan man, was recommended by his CIA agent wife for a trip to Niger to investigate the claims. Joe Wilson went to Niger, sipped some Mint Julep tea and then wrote a report stating that Iraq did not try to get uranium and that the administration lied about it. This led to a firestorm when the administration investigated Wilson after he lied by stating that the Vice President had sent him on the trip. In the process it was learned that his wife sent him and that she was an employee of the CIA. Wilson and his wife, Plame cried foul and said her supposedly covert status had been compromised(she was not covert) , a “crime” for which no one has ever been convicted (Libby was found guilty of perjury, not outing Plame).

Wilson’s central assertion — disputing President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger — has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent.

let us note that the lack of WMD in Iraq did not validate Wilson’s assertion because the President only claimed that Iraq was trying to obtain the material, not that they possessed it. Just because it was not there does not mean they did not try to get it. Amazingly, during all the noise made in this case, the Central Intelligence Agency remained silent. This is an intelligence agency that Wilson’s wife worked for, that sent Wilson on the trip and that Wilson was basically trashing because he said that the President lied with information he received from our intelligence agencies (including the CIA). Certainly they had information that could shed light on this. If they did they never said a word as Wilson became more vocal, the Plame case consumed more time and the moonbats became more and more convinced that Bush lied, people died. “The sixteen words” has become a phrase that people understand without further explanation but as it turns out, Bush did not lie about it.

A declassified memo from none other than the CIA indicates that indeed a meeting took place between officials from Niger and the Iraq regime of Hussein and the officials involved state that there is no doubt that the Iraqis wanted to purchase yellow cake uranium. The deal never took place because of Niger’s allegiance to the US and because of UN sanctions on Iraq. Niger does not want to sell its uranium to rouge nations. This memo which is about Niger denying any sales to Iraq, is here and paragraph 2 on the first page indicates that government officials believed that Iraq wanted uranium but that no such sales took place.

It would appear as if Joe Wilson was to person who has been caught in the lies with regard to this case. He lied about who sent him as well as his wife’s status. Given this memo, it is doubtful he received the information he claims when he went to Niger. George Bush was not lying when he said that Iraq tried to obtain uranium though no one on the left will ever admit that fact.

It has been around a while but most Liberals don’t want to see facts unless they support their claims. To the left, any information that shows George Bush in a favorable light is not accurate.

I know this is long past and considered old news but the more time that passes the more we are seeing that the administration was right and that Democrats/liberals have gone out of their way to bash this president and to harm our country.

Answer 9

I reached mine before the invasion, much like Obama.

I told my conservative acquaintances that:

Afghanistan wasn't finished
Taliban was an occupier, vs Saddam was home grown
Iraq was in too much debt for their oil to fund the war
The US invasion would create more terrorists
Iraq was not involved in 9-11
Iraq lacked the capability to be a serious threat
It would not be a "cake walk"

Low and behold, it all turned out to be true.

Answer 10

Having been in combat, I had a bit of idea of what it might be like.

Having seen how Isreal fared in Lebanon gave me a better idea of how things were going to go. The natives cheer when you throw out their government and then proceed to shoot at you when you don't leave fast enough.