The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Thoughts?

What are your reflections of the war?   Did you support it originally?   Do you think you were correct or incorrect?  Was the war worth it?

Where do we go now? 

I never supported the war. I think it is still too soon to really recognize what the effects of it are. In a few years I may be able to look back and see things differently though.

It was always going to be a risky proposition, as I saw it, but toppling Saddam Hussein (with or without nuclear weapons at the time) seemed like it might be worth it. The enormity of the mismanagement of everything that came after the initial "toppling" boggles my mind, however.

I'm not sure. Did we achieve any of our goals?

1) Capture Osama bin Laden  (nope)
2) Kill Allah  (nope)
3) Control more of the world's oil supply to ease our junkie fears of running out of our fossil fuel crack (nope)

May as well come home and rest up...there will be other countries to fuck with in the near future (here's lookin' at ya, North Korea).

Sounds about right.

I was against the war from the start.  My reasoning was that I thought war needed to be reserved for serious threats to our freedoms or those of our allies.  I didn't see that happening.

Things sure seem like they weren't worth it.  But, like Phish says, you can't really tell now.  I imagine we'll have to revisit this question in a year.  If the Iraqis step up and can set up their own government, perhaps it will prove justified.

I was always against for the reason that Al Qaida trained those 19 in Afghanistan and the Taliban was sheltering them from us.
We needed to secure Afghanistan before we should have ever thought about going into Iraq.
Now we have probably missed our window in Afghanistan and really accomplished anything Iraq, except remove the psuedo buffer Saddam's hatred of Iran provided.
Now Iran will control Iraq and its oil by proxy.

If our goals were:

Piss off our allies.

Unify and embolden our adversaries.

Have those who were ambivalent about the USA join our enemies.

Squander good will and universal support in fighting the Taliban and terrorism that we enjoyed post 9/11.

Have Iran control Iraq.

Spend billions in tax dollars.

Make Haliburton wealthy.

Increase the price of petroleum.

Over stretch our military.

Destabilize the middle east.  (more so than it already was)

Expand the Al Qaeda's influence to Iraq.

Then MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I think it's interesting that pretty much EVERYONE now claims they were always against the war.

Sure as hell wasn't like that early on.

^^^^ That is true.  At first I did support the war.

While I never like George W. Bush, he was the president of the country.  He had access to intelligence reports, photos, etc.  And while I didn't voted for him, I trusted him not to lie to me and the rest of the country regarding that intelligence data. 

I even went to one support the troops rally.  The handmade poster I carried read, "Blix couldn't find an Italian restaurant on Federal Hill."  The sign was very well received by other attendees. 

When it became apparent that the President had lied to the American people regarding our reason for going to war (as opposed to lying about his personal sex life) I ceased supporting the war, and supported impeaching the president and putting him on trial for treason. 

My deepest apologies to the honorable Hans Blix for the false and derogatory comments I made about him. 
 

I didn't support the war for one simple reason:

I do not believe in unilateral preemptive war.

Preemptive war is a Really F*cking Bad idea to begin with... historically, we call those who start "preemptive wars" aggressors.  Any nation can justify invading another country as "preemptive;" was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a "preemptive war"?

That being said, if you really think that the evidence for a preemptive war is THAT OBVIOUS AND COMPELLING, you should be able to get the U.N. behind it.  This is one of the major reasons for the U.N.'s existence.  The fact that American leaders were unable to convince the U.N. of the impending threat that Iraq posed was a giant flashing warning beacon, and given the actual results, the U.N. was correct not to be convinced.

Yes the screaming mob wanted blood after 9/11. Unfortunately we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and wasted a lot of time, resources and people in Iraq.

We still have soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know.  I was thinking the same thing.  But I swear that I thought it was a bad idea at the time.  I remember watching "Shock and Awe" and being sort of invigorated with the excitement of it, but realizing that we were tearing down a historic city.

Yeah, but we also have troops in Germany.  We have troops everywhere.  They aren't combat troops in Iraq any longer.

I have a friend in Afghanistan.  He is supposed to come home any day now.  I just want to make sure our troops out there in harm's way are not forgotten.  The troops in Germany are not being shot at.

^^ Afghanistan still has active troops in combat.

We were talking about the Iraq troops being gone.

^ There are still troops left there to help train the Iraqi military and police.  There are just no longer combat troops there.

Take a look back and see where I stood. I never supported the Iraq war and neither did Dave.

My statement was a general observation, not directed at any individual.

Board only goes back to Aug 2003.  War began in March of 2003.  Bush declared victory in May 2003.  I was among those whose opinion of the war changed in June/July 2003 when the evidence came out that George W. Bush had lied to the American public. 

So one can not really go back and see where you stood.  Not that I don't believe you, just saying that verification is impossible. 

I freely admit I have waffled.  Blix >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bush. 

I was actually for it, and am not ashamed to admit it.  

First, I believe we should be in the business of rooting out tyranny.  I think that, as powerful as we are, we should be a force of good in the world.  Leaders that mass-murder their own should be removed from power (forcibly, if necessary).  Any argument to the contrary is, in my view, sheer national cowardice in the face of a moral obligation to assist those who cannot assist themselves.  We shake our heads at what goes on, in, say, Darfur (or, more to the point, to the Kurds in Iraq), and say "if only someone could help those poor people...".  Well, we could help those people!  Anyway, I know this is a deeply unpopular view of things, as no one likes being called a coward, so I will end it there.

Second, I believe Bush Jr. and his people viewed Iraq as a chance to make lasting change in the Middle East by engaging in nation building of the one country with enough going for it (economically) to one day become a pillar, or model, of democratic life in the Middle East.  This was clearly not executed correctly, but it is tantalizing to think of what may be if Iraq successfully navigates the next 20 to 50 years to become a working democracy that helps to stabilize the region.

Fine make that case, BEFORE the war.  Lying about WMD and then playing the humanitarian angle after the truth about the fraud come out is wrong.   And if we care about the humanitarian rights, than Darfur is a higher priority.  The human rights abuses in Darfur are significantly greater than the exaggerated reports about the Kurds.  Protecting human rights might be a valid reason to go to war, it was the basis of our failed incursion into Somalia.   But it is the only time the country has gone to war for human rights reason. 


I hope you are right, but I think the Bills have a better chance at going 19-0 this season, than Iraq has of becoming a long term stable democracy. 

A couple of thoughts on this, and please don't mistake this as me being against or for anything...just rambling aloud here:

* Are we applying our own ideas of what is good and what isn't good?
     * Isn't our national determination of good dictated by the tenets of Christianity?
     * Wouldn't it be majorly presumptuous to apply Christian standards of "good" to non-Christian countries?
     * What part of "we want the oil under your country" gets placed under the "doing good" heading?

* Other countries are powerful as well...should we necessarily shoulder the entire burden of being the world's moral hallway monitor?

Aha, my bad. I just assumed it was about the comments in the thread.

If that is your position, fine. But you need to be beating the drum of invading more countries because there are several others out there (and I haven't heard you beat that drum).

To Hoodie:

No argument there.

To Sunstroke:

By good, I mean making sure your own government isn't trying to kill you, or standing idly by while someone else does.  I don't mean to make them good little Christians, by any stretch of the imagination.

As for other countries being powerful as well, I agree that they should also be involved.  Ideally, action to weed out a despot would be a multi-national undertaking.  The problem is that national cowardice isn't just our disease.  The UN doesn't get behind many military resolutions.  Africa gets abandoned, constantly.  It took so much for them to even get involved in the Bosnia / Serbia "ethnic cleansing"...basically, waiting on everyone else to offer up assistance is like watching middle school boys and girls stand at either side of a gym during a school dance (archaic reference?).  Someone's gotta have the balls to get the dance started.

I do beat that drum.  Constantly.  Were you to gravedig back to the RunToWin days, you'd see I've always proposed that we should be in the business of basically ending the existence of these brutal "leaders", in many lands, because we should feel morally obligated to do so.

Since we're only talking about tyrants committing genocide, I don't think the finer points of religious morality come into the mix. Some things are clearly EVIL, regardless of ones religious beliefs.


The burden isn't even the problem, IMHO, it's the politics of deciding HOW to accomplish the nation building in the first place and WHAT to install afterwards. This is also where religion comes into the equation, but democracy pretty much takes care of that, if you're willing to allow the democracy the ability to abolish itself.

And, just to express my own stance on the issue, I believe we are all (regardless of religion, nationality, whatever) morally obligated to step in when something like genocide occurs (whether it be the gassing of Jews or Kurds, the massacre of Bosnians in Srebrenica, alternate mass-killings of Tutsis and Hutus (by the other) in Rwanda and Burundi, the Sudanese-backed Janjaweed killings of ethnic Africans, or any number of other examples in recent history).

There's always the question of what the cost is, how likely one is to succeed, etc. and I do recognize that those factors need to be included when deciding on a course of action. Still, just standing idly by doesn't seem acceptable.

^ Genocide blows.

But I'm concerned with the "you break it, you buy it" that comes with invasion.  I think that stopping genocide (which we didn't do anyway) is all fine and good, but you have to make sure that you can restore order and that infrastructure and government are functional so that it's not just prolonged suffering.

^^^That should not be a reason to not step in, however.  I wouldn't not give someone the heimlich for fear of breaking his ribs, you know?

As ugly as it has been, Iraq may someday prove to be a model, of sorts, of how this should be done  (my severe happy goggles are on, I admit).  The fighting got messy.  Getting the government on its feet was and continues to be difficult and expensive.  If it works out, though, that country could be the bedrock upon which future democracies are founded. 

Nor should you be.

I wasn't saying that I was against it to say "I told you so" or anything like that.  And I wasn't even adamantly against it -- trying to convince people it was a bad idea.  I just didn't feel right about it.


It's one thing to provide support to another force.  It's another to go in militarily, yourself.  I think that's the difference, and why the heimlich analogy isn't apt.

One of the things I think (and this is where I might be wrong -- and hopefully, I am) is that you can't GIVE democracy away.  I think that people need to revolt and fight for these ideals themselves in order to cherish it and fully embrace it.  So, even if we instill democracy in Iraq, they will probably continue to vote for tyrants who will erode their civil rights.  I really hope I'm wrong about this.  The way the Muslim world treats women makes me want to puke.

^^^You may be right that we shouldn't give democracy away.  I certainly argue that Cubans, for instance, should have taken up arms years ago, and that if outright revolt ever happened, the US would/should step in to help. On the flip side, consider that our Democracy would either not exist or not be anywhere near 234 years old were it not for both direct (soldiers, ships) and indirect (weapons, funds) assistance that we received from the French.  Sure, they helped as much to spit in the eye of the English as anything, but the point is they actually lent troops to the cause, not just weapons (besides, that way of doing business failed spectacularly during the Cold War). 

As for the heimlich reference, my point is that fear of causing damage yourself should not deter you from doing what is right, unless the damage you will do is undeniably and irreparably worse than what a continued existence under the despot in question would be.  Hence, I wouldn't fear giving someone the heimlich for fear of breaking his ribs when the alternative would be to watch him die.  However, I wouldn't give the heimlick if my name were Edward Scissorhands and the effect of giving someone the heimlich would be to perforate his innards and kill him anyway.  Ugh...this is why I try not to argue by analogy.  See what you've done now, Dave?   ;)

I think Iraq is the model of how NOT to do it.

To strain an analogy, if the typical old-style coup d'état of taking out the leader, is cutting off the head, what happened in Iraq was cutting off the head, along with all the other limbs.

Okay, strained analogy aside, the point I'm trying to make is that "too much" was removed in Iraq. I really believe that the current mess was close to inevitable when the army and basically all government functions and services (including police) were dissolved -- or effective dissolved. It's neigh impossible, and Iraq clearly showed that, to remove all government functions overnight and replace them from the outside. It just doesn't work and the void it created allowed the country to plunge into anarchy.

Additionally, to tie this to Dave's "you break it, you buy it" argument, the more you can keep in tact, the less you are responsible.

True, maybe the outcome wouldn't be PERFECT, but (as Iraq clearly demonstrates every day) there's no guarantee that a complete cleansing results in a perfect outcome either.

In my opinion, the goal of this type of nation building should be to cut off the head (and maybe a few extra heads) and install what would basically be a puppet regime (without trying to hide this) and get some sort of election process up and running ASAP, with some sort of "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" work slowly getting started.

That "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" needs to handle all the subsequent "decapitations".

Yes, I realize that by only making the very top of the leadership responsible, you are leaving in place a lot of people who have done horrendous things. And while I'd love to just replace those from the outset, I just don't think it's possible (as I believe Iraq has shown).

I see your point.

And I agree, in large part, with your analogies to our revolution and help from the French.  But the French provided aid to a cause in motion.  I think that's the difference.  If a group declares their independence against a tyrannical force, and we want to assist (either militarily or through aid) because we believe in the values of that independence, I'm all for it.  I think the French analogy also works well in reverse.  Had we not gotten the point ourselves, where the Colonies' were self-reliant and functioning without need of the English, I bet the French's interference would've caused harm.

There's something about the sacrifices made to earn that democracy that makes the people embrace it.  Otherwise, it seems like another tyrant stepping in and making you adhere to their way of life.

Don't get me wrong.  By "Model" i mean it in the engineering sense that the first model is improved upon until it is ready for distribution.  I don't mean it should be the standard for nation building.  In some respects, what happened in Iraq was necessary.  In others, it clearly was not.

I think that "decapitations" are, in some cases, the way to go as well.  If a country has a history of democracy or other orderly government, then terminating the current head of state may be enough to restore peace (The fact that the UN would view this as illegal is another matter, as it is illegal to target heads of state [I'm not making that up, right?]).

Exactly, Iraqis who never liked Saddam supported him when the country was being invaded from outsiders.  Not unlike the way our country came together post-9/11 or after Pearl Harbor.  Folks that didn't like W (or even thought he was the legitimate president) or FDR supported the leader of the country when the country came under attack.  

I was in that camp, until we invaded Iraq.

^ Me too.

I definitely didn't like W on 9/10, and I didn't like him as a leader on 9/12 either, but I definitely had a strong sense of banding together for the common cause.