Iraq: Would you do it again?

[Rodeo]

Ok, I know it's not over yet ... There is still a government to be formed, and no one party got a majority so there will have to be some coalitions formed before it all shakes out.

But we do know that the "Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq" got the overwhelming plurality, while our guy Chalabi and the rest of the secularists are pretty much out in the cold.

If the name "Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq" sounds familiar, think back to Iran immediately after the Shah. Think hostage crisis. Or think of Iran today, where many of the leaders of the "Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq" have spent a great deal of time.

Was it worth it? If you knew then what you know today, would you invade Iraq?

[Moses]

Originally posted by Rodeo

But we do know that the "Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq" got the overwhelming plurality...

That's freaking great, huh?

Bush is quickly moving from "worst president in our lifetime", to "biggest dumbass in the history of mankind."

[arcsine]

Originally posted by Rodeo
If you knew then what you know today, would you invade Iraq?

Not knowing then what I know now I still would not of gone into Iraq. There never was an obtainable objective nor a concretely supportive tactical reason.

Originally posted by Moses
Bush is quickly moving from "worst president in our lifetime", to "biggest dumbass in the history of mankind."

What makes me shake my head in disbelief is that to some this will be a surprise.

[Nathans_Dad]

This one to me is pretty much a no brainer. If you stipulate that we knew then what we know now I don't think many would make an honest argument to invade. The argument might be made by hardline partisans but it would be a weak argument.

[Mulhollanddose]

Absolutely...Bush will go down as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Ok, I know it's not over yet ... There is still a government to be formed, and no one party got a majority so there will have to be some coalitions formed before it all shakes out.

But we do know that the "Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq" got the overwhelming plurality, while our guy Chalabi and the rest of the secularists are pretty much out in the cold.

If the name "Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq" sounds familiar, think back to Iran immediately after the Shah. Think hostage crisis. Or think of Iran today, where many of the leaders of the "Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq" have spent a great deal of time.

Was it worth it? If you knew then what you know today, would you invade Iraq?

I was opposed to the invasion as soon as it was obvious that Bush intended to invade, something like September, 2002; or perhaps earlier.

My opposition prior to the invasion was based on:

1. Knowledge that Iraq had no connection whatsoever with the attacks of September 11, 2001.

2. That Hussein and the Ba'athists were secularists, and were hated by the theocrats of Iran.

3. And that all WMD's, including chemical weapons (which aren't really WMD's), had been destroyed by 1998, and none existed in Iraq in either December 2002 or in March 2003.

4. The War in Afghanistan had already turned into a nation building enterprise; and assistance for the Northern Alliance, the primary heroin smuggling cartel in Afghanistan, making them bitter enemies of the Taliban.

There's more, but those are the big things.

[stuartj]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
If you stipulate that we knew then what we know now I don't think many would make an honest argument to invade. The argument might be made by hardline partisans but it would be a weak argument.

Very interesting point, that. Imagine you are a hardline partisan- lets say you are Paul Wolfowitz or Big Dick Cheney or Richard Perle, and you are bent on going to war in Iraq- but all have is the aforementioned weak argument, one thats never going to attract electoral and popular support.

What might you do to bolster that argument?

[Shaun 84 Targa]

Originally posted by Moses
That's freaking great, huh?

Bush is quickly moving from "worst president in our lifetime", to "biggest dumbass in the history of mankind."

so I'm guessing you also saw this morning's press conference? that performance pretty much sealed the deal on the latter.

[Moses]

I missed the press conference. They are becoming too painful to watch.

[FrayAdjacent911]

Some of the comments regarding our president make me wonder... and I'm sure I could do research and find out....

I know for fact that about 70% of Americans polled OPPOSED war in Europe in ~1941. How many then thought Roosevelt was a moron? How many peaceniks protested? How many said the blood of our soldiers was on Roosevelt's hands?

There were probably a few, as society was very different back then, but that's not the point.

The point is, we didn't know the whole truth about the war, and the evil that was perpetrated by our enemies, for years after the last shots were fired.

Those who decry the war and the loss of life now, must then be able to ignore further evidence of evil and wrongdoing on the part of our enemy as it arises. Such as the recent information provided by an Iraqi officer claiming that chemical weapons were transported to Syria.

[aways]

If we knew then what we know now, we might not have invaded, but if we did, I'm sure we would have done things somewhat differently. But that is not the real world, and the question posed is kind of silly. In the real world you do what you think best at the time, which is what Bush did with the support of most of the Democrats. Hell, I wish I had tomorrow's newspaper today. I'd buy the right stocks, bet on the right horses, and be a billionaire by now. But, that ain't how the world works. I wish the Democrat leadership would quit the second-guessing and start offering real soultions to real problems [i]in the present[/], and not offer "advice" on what we should have done yesterday.

[coloradoporsche]

I know for fact that about 70% of Americans polled OPPOSED war in Europe in ~1941. How many then thought Roosevelt was a moron? How many peaceniks protested? How many said the blood of our soldiers was on Roosevelt's hands?

When in doubt, compare the "war on terror" to WWII....the last known "good war". A strategy the administration will play up as much as possible.

I don't believe a lot of peaceniks protested in 1941. Maybe you are off by about 27 years?

[stuartj]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
I know for fact that about 70% of Americans polled OPPOSED war in Europe in ~1941. How many then thought Roosevelt was a moron? How many peaceniks protested? How many said the blood of our soldiers was on Roosevelt's hands?

Well, that wasnt going to happen after Pearl Harbor, was it? Pearl Harbor allowed the polictical justifcation for US entry in to WW2.

Trouble is, there's a strong school of argument that Roosevelt knew PH attack was going to happen, and allowed it to happen for that very reason.

[aways]

Originally posted by stuartj

Trouble is, there's a strong school of argument that Roosevelt knew PH attack was going to happen, and allowed it to happen for that very reason.

A "strong school of argument" or a weak school of cynical conspiracy nutters?

[stuartj]

Originally posted by aways
A "strong school of argument" or a weak school of cynical conspiracy nutters?

Thats entirely for you inform yourself and decide, should you be be cursed an inqusitive mind.

I read a paper on it some time back which originated from within a US military college and was written by a serving officer. There's plenty around on the topic.

Churchill knew, too.

[rrpjr]

Originally posted by aways
If we knew then what we know now, we might not have invaded, but if we did, I'm sure we would have done things somewhat differently. But that is not the real world, and the question posed is kind of silly.

Sanely and nicely said. I once told a girlfriend that hypotheticals were silly. I was never forgiven. She lived by them. She thought the responses to even the most outrageous or improbabe hypotheticals were telling and important as to character. I said that by definition the response could not be trusted. The hypothetical question begs affect and distortion, partly because it is itself a distortion, and also because it appeals to the urge to be God. The essence of the human condition is limit -- of circumstance, information, truth and time. That is, of not being God. All of life is an aching incompleteness to the sound of a ticking clock.

But I agree with Mulhollanddose. So, I'm answering the question but also predicting. I do so partly out of faith. I need to believe. I also believe we had, and have, a moral brotherhood with Iraq, and were required to act. I also believe that the freedom of 35 million people from tyranny is a unique and inspiring thing and will reverberate across humanity through time and into hearts. I also believe this action was the one hope of changing the landscape of terrorism.

[pwd72s]

Rodeo, did you learn how to ask poll questions from Dan Rather and the See-BS news staff?

[dd74]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
This one to me is pretty much a no brainer. If you stipulate that we knew then what we know now I don't think many would make an honest argument to invade. The argument might be made by hardline partisans but it would be a weak argument.

So, in a sense, are you saying Bush was wrong about Iraq?

[dd74]

Originally posted by FrayAdjacent911
Those who decry the war and the loss of life now, must then be able to ignore further evidence of evil and wrongdoing on the part of our enemy as it arises. Such as the recent information provided by an Iraqi officer claiming that chemical weapons were transported to Syria.

So doesn't that mean invading another country (Syria) based on poor, or at least questionable intelligence?

[RoninLB]

Baghdad's real estate prices are rising. Kurdish provinces are already high priced.

The International Monetary Fund's [IMF] two annual reports on Iraq predict that a liberated Iraq could emerge as "the engine of growth" for the whole mid-east in the next decade.

fwiw.. Schroder, Chirac, and now Canada's Martin are joining Kerry's "community of nations" doing water sports in Nantucket this summer discussing the reality of firing blanks.