Knowing what you know now, and given what we knew before this war with Iraq, would you support going to war to oust Saddam Hussein? Did you support it before the war?

For myself, I was for this war, and remain for this action. Eliminating Saddam was had an array of legitimate reasons behind it. At least one (WMDs) is in question at this point, but the others still stand (dictator, murder/rape rooms, defying direct UN resolutions, regional threat).

I still maintain that it was reasonable to assume that Saddam had WMDs and the will to use them or sell them to terrorists. Others may disagree, but the evidence is there and was there at the time the war started.

What does everyone else think?

I voted against it then and now. The reason being has nothing to do with the evil Saddam Hussien, but rather the more imminent threat of OBL and North Korea. I personally think we should have taken out Saddam in 1991 when we had a more unified support and had the backing of the Shiites, whom we betrayed.

I'm still for the war, and was prior to it. The WMD situation wasn't really all that big of a factor for me. Sure, there was the strong possibility there that he had them. Granted that it's a factor that did somewhat contribute to my pro-war views, I was in favor of it mainly because he really was just a horrible person. Many people say that this isn't enough to justify a war. Well, it's certainly a catalyst for violent intentions at least. With the WMD situation factored in, I figured the war was for the best.

I wasn't in support of this war, and I'm even further away from ever supporting it now. Lie after lie has been uncovered, and more seem to surface everyday. What am I talking about? Here's the main points.

1. Mobile Labs: Even Kay's team are saying they are ill equipped for what the adminstration claims.

2. Niger Documents: FORGED and fake, and this was known back in 2002! Yet it was in the State of the Union speech.

3. Bunkers that were supposed to be there turned out not to be.

4. Centrifuge tubes: Even Kay is now stating they are used for conventional weapons.

5. Bush and his party stating over and over again how Saddam was developing nuclear weapons with such urgency, even though every piece of evidence found suggests otherwise.

6. The suicide of Dr. David Kelly and his "Dark Actors at play" comment.

7. The revealing of a Secret Agent identity who turned out to be the wife of a man who was questioning the Administration and its actions.

8. Greg Theirman, a former intelligence agent who revealed in detail what the intellgence agencies thought while watching Powell address to the union and their comments "They have nothing" Hmmm exactly what I thought!

9. The constant and continual "finger pointing" that goes on between the Bush Adminstration and the CIA.

10. NOT ONE STINKING WEAPON FOUND!

And those are just a few of them. And I could go on... and on.

I nulled my vote. I was a fence-sitter before the war, and I'm still sitting on the fence now. Most of my disagreements have had to do with methodology, particularly the manner in which the U.S. entered Iraq, but now that we are there, I can identify both positives and negatives to the situation, and I would not support removal of the troops from Iraq. We need to finish the job, and help to create some stability in the region.

Even more in favor now than I was back then. At some point in the not-so-distant future we're going to see a whole lot of people changing sides and claiming to have supported this war all along. It'll be like the 350,000 who claim to have been in the stands for Don Larsen's perfect game. I suspect the fearless former general Wesley (whose side am I on anyway) Clark will lead the pack.

Just like they try to take the credit for ending the cold war away from Ronnie, they'll never give Bush his fair due for winning this one either. That's ok though, real men don't need to be fawned over like rock stars. The knowledge that they've done what's right and just is enough reward.

Well, thanks to AD my position is on record and everything I thought about this war before still holds true today...maybe even more so.

I was against this war...although I do think some wars are justified and necessary this isn't one of them.

I was against it then and now.

I believe it was naive to assume that the population of Iraq would welcome our presence and ostensible 'liberation' of their country. They didn't like Saddam, but don't like us either. World opinion is lower than I expected, although I knew it would be fairly low.

I was against this war to start with, and I'm sickened by what's going on now.


Let's take these one at a time. Even David Kay, our own hand-picked inspector can't find WMD. But it was supposed to be such an imminemt problem that he had tons of the stuff just laying around, and could deploy them on our troops in 45 minutes. Oops. And I'm tired of hearing about all the other reasons, as listed below. The WMDs were what was sold to us as the major selling point. They came up 99.44% of the time, as opposed to all the other reasons. At least until they couldn't come up with them, then they say it was only a minor consideration.

Ok, he's a dictator. So are the leaders of about 40 other countries out there. We aren't invading them.

Torture/rape cells. Probably in about 20 of those 40 countries run by dictators. Again, I don't see a big rush to "liberate" those people.

Defying direct UN resolutions. You mean like Israel, and the good 'ol USA? Tell me Amlord, when do we invade Israel? Or, who do you want to have invade us to enforce UN sanctions?

Regional threat: You mean unlike Korea? Russia? China? Any one of a half dozen South African nations, some of whom also have those torture rooms and dictators you were talking about?

Your logic here has a certain merit, though it's skewed to one side. Whichever way this war turns in the long run, many of those who were on one side will twist themselves to the "winning" side. If Iraq turns out to be a humongous disaster (giving the benefit of a doubt to those who don't think it is already), there will be supporters of the war who will try and work frantic revisions on their own histories, to try and reflect well upon themselves. That's unfortunate, but it's not only politics, its part of human nature.

As for your second paragraph... I love your they. Isn't that a wonderful word? Do suppose this was the same "they" who faked the moon landing? When I was a child, "they" was ubiquitous. "They" say X, "they" say Y. "They" want all poor people to starve to death. "They" want to murder babies. "They" want to redistribute the money and stop people from achieving wealth!

Now that I am an adult, I have realized there is no "they." Lumping anyone with an even remotely similar ideology together and attributing to them all kinds of evil may be an acceptable form of discourse for the likes of Ann Coulter, but it doesn't fly in any serious exchange of ideas. That's OK, though, real grownups don't need to use blanket attacks against nonexistent people to bolster their arguments.

What is the evidence of this? If I'm not mistaken we were in fact greeted as liberators. Most Iraqis do not support the attacks or withdrawal of coalition forces and feel that the invasion was best for Iraq. We are being welcomed and/or aided by most...

I was for the war previously, because of the threat posed by Iraqi WMD. I am still strongly for the war, though a little doubt has opened in my position. I think these protesters calling for the withdrawal of troops are off their collective rocker...

I must have hit a nerve or something. There is a group of people, mainly liberals, who do adhere to the positions I mentioned and who will react the same way.

For the record, the only mention of that stance being 'evil' came from you.

I think we may have worn out our welcome. Some still love us and wave at troops when they pass by on roads (heard this on BBC Internet Radio by some Independent group from the UN)

It's the radicals that don't enjoy our company at all.

Anyways, i was for it then and still am now. I was a bit for it for the WMD because there is no evidence he has destroyed what Blix reported to still be unaccounted for. But it was mostly for the Human Rights issues like the torturing and the rapes.

The military initially wanted a higher level of troop strength (don't have a link, sorry...it was months ago I read that in the AirForce times). I believe the administration expected less resistance, and much less self-looting and crime.

The expectation of less looting was before we found out Saddam released all the prisoners from his jails

I was not for it and I still am not.

I hated having to see a playmate of my child's cry and cry because his mommy went to war...I hated having to explain to my little girl why his mommy had to go to war and I hated not having an answer when she wished out loud that she could help her friend get his mommy back.

I can think of many more things our nation's resources could be spent on, directed at and benefiting and as much as I care for the world and the population of the world as a whole..I just do not think this is should only be the cost of American's. I feel the world reaps the "benefits"of our stabilizing efforts in that region of the world as the many others and yet the world often wishes to not acknowledge their own responsibility and is more than happy to allow America the risks and the costs of these endeavors and yet is equally happy to enjoy the returns. I feel like Bush once again, and even worse, gave credence to their unwillingness to do the dirty work.

I guess it is somewhat comforting to others to think we did it for humanitarian reasons but if that is the case why are we not in the Congo where they claim THREE MILLION have died?

I just never felt any of the reasons for this war were ever compelling enough for any kid here in the US to lose a mommy or a daddy over.

Before the war I thought it was rushed into by the administration without proper support and without giving diplomacy a chance to work. (Plus a bad crass political move because if the war was put off one year after exhausting more diplomatic option and getting the international support we should have had, the war would have been done in 2004 instead of 2003. ) But that wad the dig comment aside, I don't think any war should be engaged in rashly and I think this one was. War is horrible and it should be a last resort and it was not in this case.

When the war started I thought it was a bad decision but that it probably was based on good intelligence. I suspected that we had not given the postwar occupation a close enough look. In fact I thought we deluded ourselves into thinking that an arab people would look at us as liberators as we bombed their nation (again) and occupied their territory (after inflicting the people (justly but nonetheless inflicting) the people with the suffering that went along with twelve years of sanctions and no-fly zone enforcement). I thought it also had nothing to do with the war on terrorism. I still do not and I think it has been both a distraction and it has created a new country in which terrorists can operate.

After the war I have become surprised at how poor the prewar intelligence actually was (fell far short of my low expectations) and I have been surprised at how slow we were to react in the reconstruction efforts. I thought shock and awe would resort in a similar military presence overkill that would provide better security for our forces and for civilian assistants. There again I was disappointed. I also hoped that we might defer postwar responsibilities more to the UN, because this is something they do have expertise at. I thought we might get Arab nations to play a larger role in postwar peacekeeping. I also thought that we would not so blatantly turn major contracts over to US firms without talking up an effort to build up Iraqi companies.

In short I feel that this war is one of the worst mistakes of the United States government in my adult lifetime. It depressed me when it was launched and it depresses me more as time goes by.

Yeah I'm with ye Eeyore,

And I cannot understand for the LIFE of me why some take the facts of this war ( like the ones I posted earlier ) and just plain pretend they don't exist! Instead they truly believe all of the coming forth and revealing of the governments dirty secrets are nothing but an evil liberal plot to remove a republican from office.

I really don't give a rats anus about politics and the games they play. I'm more into the right and wrong. And from what I've read and continue to read ( as more information comes forth almost daily ) this was DEAD WRONG.

Yes, Saddam was a monster, but do you really want a president to LIE to you repeatedly to build support for removing him? How will we ever trust him on anything he ever says again? I didn't have any major problem with him before this mess, but that's not the case anymore.

And don't ask me where did he lie. We've covered over this many times before, it's just another piece some choose to ignore.

I sure would love to get my hands on some of the German papers before and during WWII. I wonder what propaganda flooded thier city streets.. to get an entire nation to support invasion after invasion.

Being that I wasn't much into politics during the original invasion into Iraq, I can't really claim that I was for one side or the other.

At the time, however, I remember hearing a UN members plea to continue sanctions against Iraq instead of risking war. It seemed like a good idea. So, I took a position against the war for no other reason besides that one plea.

Well, I guess I am a (little) bit more enlightened about the war and have taken a much stronger position against it.

[QUOTE=Amlord,Oct 27 2003, 03:51 PM] At least one (WMDs) is in question at this point, but the others still stand (dictator, murder/rape rooms, defying direct UN resolutions, regional threat).



What does everyone else think? [/QUOTE]
in my opinion, the WMD question has been answered. there are none, there were none when this war started and there were none prior to the war (meaning since dumbya started threatening Iraq) the inspectors had found NOTHING of any real merit, as wertz pointed out on another thread, in the mid ninties hussien had destroyed all of his weapons, the only thing kay has discovered (as far as ACTUAL "weapons go) is a small vial of botox, which has many MEDICAL uses, as well as cosmetic uses (perhaps saddam didn't like his wrinkles?) the types of bio and chem weapons would now be useless sludge now anyway (according to ritter, head of UNSCOM, his weapons had a shelf life of about five years for stuff produced by 91. don't forget he said they destroyed a verified 90-95% of the weapons)

as for your other points, I'll take them one at a time:
[QUOTE]dictator,[/QUOTE]

it is known that the kingship of saudi arabia rules as a monarchic dictatorship, as is kuwait, and pakistan is run by a military dictator, do you advocate invading these countries as well?

[QUOTE]I still maintain that it was reasonable to assume that Saddam had WMDs and the will to use them or sell them to terrorists.[/QUOTE]
let's not forget it was pakistan that is responsible for north korea's nuke technology (though technically N.K. isn't a terrorist, but KJI is a nut job) [QUOTEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_nuclear_weapons_program] (ENRICHED URANIUM) ...Pakistan, a nuclear-capable country, supplied key technology and information to North Korea in exchange for missiles to use in the India-Pakistan conflict around 1997, according to U.S. intelligence officials. This program was publicized in October 2002 when the United States asked about the program to North Korean officials and to the surprise of the United States, the North Korean officials admitted the existence of the program[/QUOTE] so not only is pakistan run by a dictator, but they gave tech that help north korea get nukes!! they actually DID what bush said iraq MIGHT do. (I think pakistan even used american supplied C-130's to transport the tech)

[QUOTE]murder/rape rooms,[/QUOTE]

I don't know if any of our "allies" have rape rooms, but israel has been known to torture people. [QUOTEhttp://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde15.htmTorture] and ill-treatment continued to be officially sanctioned and used systematically during interrogation of security detainees. Israeli security forces killed at least 20 Palestinian civilians in circumstances suggesting that they may have been extrajudicially executed or otherwise unlawfully killed.
----
A bill regulating the General Security Service (gss) passed its first reading in the Knesset (parliament) in January; the law failed to outlaw the use of torture or ill-treatment.
----
In May the un Committee against Torture examined Israel's second periodic report. It stated that hooding, shackling in painful positions, sleep deprivation and shaking of detainees _ interrogation methods which Israel admitted using _ constituted torture as defined in Article 1 of the un Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. (note: these are the "stress and duress" tatics used in interrogation of AQ Prisoners.)
----
Torture and ill-treatment continued to be officially sanctioned and used systematically during interrogation of security detainees. Official secret guidelines allowed the gss to use “moderate” physical and psychological pressure.[/QUOTE]

oh and don't forget, it is law in muslim countries such as saudi arabia and kuwait to cut of a hand for stealing.

[QUOTE]defying direct UN resolutions, regional threat[/QUOTE]
israel to this day, has defied no less then thirty UNSC resolutions. about the sam number have been vetoed by america (america has used it's veto more then any permenant member) israel also is the only nation in the mideast that is CONFIRMED to have nuclear weapons, they can even launch nuclear tipped "harpoon" cruise missile we gave them (they provided the warheads) (they actually have a missile that reaches further then the harpoon, makes me think we gave them something else) israel can hit pretty much any country on earth now, and have shown to be agressive. (it was israel who started the six day war) and with the latest attack on syria, I see israel as more of a regional threat then Iraq was.

[QUOTE]Others may disagree, but the evidence is there and was there at the time the war started.[/QUOTE]

can you back this statement up with a SINGLE shred of evidence? it has been shown again, and again, and again, (here and elsewhere) that Iraq had NO WMD in march, or even 3.5 months prior to that.

I didn't support the war to start, and I will never support this war.

#1

temporary bandaids on long term festering situations just weren't doing it anymore. There was no "rush to war." 12 years is a long time. Saddam was going to have to be addressed aggressively sooner or later or why bother, just give up, let him and then his sons run their country as their personal chamber or horrors all funded by his allies.

this is the way I saw it pre-war. Given time and support, Iraq could eventually be the jewel of the neighborhood. that would be my hope.

It would be wonderful to state unequivocally that war is wrong under all circumstances or to be able to hold that position. I can't. But war is definitely wrong when it is undertaken under false pretenses and all diplomatic solutions have not been exhausted.

The invasion of Afghanistan made sense to me, right up until Osama bin Laden slipped through the military's fingers and George W. Bush downplayed it. It made sense to destroy the terrorist training camps and pursue the ringleaders.

When Osama bin Laden wasn't captured, even though his medical condition mandates that he undergo hemodialysis for his renal failure, I started suspecting that highly-placed members of the Bush administration had some tacit agreement with him. You stage the 9/11 attack, giving us an excuse to kill some thorns in our side and justify our invasions so that we have a staging area in the Middle East to take over the oil-rich, anti-American countries, and we'll give you the bully pulpit and somehow allow you and your family to escape. After all, bin Laden had well-established connections with the CIA since he and the Taliban forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan. One hand washes the other...

All right, time to move on to Iraq. While there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein and his sons were tyrants, there was no real connection drawn between his regime and terrorists, except for his pledge to remunerate the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (and I think that was more of an "in your face, Israel and America!" than a concerted effort to wreak havoc in either country).

Something about the presentation of the "evidence" of the alleged shopping for uranium and the so-called al Qaeda connection rang hollow, even when it was delivered by a man whom I respect, Colin Powell, to the UN general assembly, incredibly hollow. It was so light on specifics, ostensibly to protect the intelligence gatherers. I couldn't understand why the British determined to help us; it seemed like some arm twisting was going on.

Why were we rushing headlong into this? It felt to me like the Bush administration feared that if the invasion weren't undertaken right away, that the desire for revenge for the 9/11 attacks would be lessened and more people would be asking questions.

And really, did we plunge into this invasion because some women were being raped? This has got to be one of the most disingenuous arguments I heard.

Obviously, I was against the invasion of Iraq from the get-go, especially since I believe we did such a sloppy and incomplete job in Afghanistan.

And wonder of wonders! Saddam Hussein suffered the same fate as Osama bin Laden! He wasn't captured or killed--he's just hiding out somewhere and continuing to make life miserable for the troops. What about that?

Maybe we should have sent out the Canadian RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) to get our man (men), because our crack forces certainly didn't!

NO!

Perception Management and the 'War' Against Terrorism, an article by by P.M. Taylor, Director, Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds (England) in the Journal of Information Warfare Volume 1, Issue 3 (2002) is excerpted here in part:

The article raised the question of whether or not the propaganda coming from America was well enough managed to remain credible.... Oops, it stated that the war against Iraq was "justified" because we needed the crude oil from the Gulf region. That was the position the author of the article was taking when the article was published in 2002, the year before we went to war!

I have been told, "Gore could never have handled the events of 9/11." The world watched as Mayor Giuliano organized efforts in New York City, talked to the press, calmed the world's fears... ...and George W. Bush listened to an aid, nodded his head, and went back to listening to a child read a book. Then, when he finally left the elementary school, Air Force One took an "evasive" path back to Washington so that the world's most well guarded airplane would not risk being captured by a hijacker.

Someone at the White House, "acting in the interests of national security," removed the Vice President to an "undisclosed location." While that should have effectively removed him from the loop, Halliburton, his company, is benefiting immensely from the war efforts.

The Constitution, which a President swears to uphold, gives the responsibility to declare war, "and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" to Congress. Nevertheless, "King George" declared "war on terrorism," saying "You're with us or against us." and then looked around for an enemy. After safely evacuating all of Osama Bin Laden's relatives from the United States so that they couldn't testify that he had been in business with them, GWB stated that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 and we attacked Afghanistan. Approval ratings soared in the Polls as the news media told us it was unpatriotic to question a President's actions in wartime.

The war effort dragged on, and... We weren't able to find Osama Bin laden. (Has anyone checked Walter Reed Medical Center to see if that's where he's going for his dialysis?)

Mr. Bush's ratings began to slip in the polls...

The Bush administration began his re-election campaign, turning not just to the American people, but to the United Nations to say, "There is another enemy, more evil, more threatening, more dangerous... We need to rid the world of the man that kept my daddy from being re-elected!"

As I listened to people act as though the poll numbers and approval ratings reflected the landslide that George Walkabout Bush was elected by in November, 2000, I called my minister. I asked,"Is there anything we can do to get rid of this idiot?" She said, 'Are you talking about George Bush?" and then gave me directions to the next Peace Group meeting.

We were not able to stop the war on Iraq. We all knew from Colin Powell's presentation to the united nations that Saddam Hussein had 100's of tons of Chemical and Biological weapons, SCUD missiles, and maybe even untested atomic weapons. Ultimately, it was suggested that Saddam might even try to light some crude oil on fire to stop an invasion as well publicized as the possibility of computer problems on January 1, 2000.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction were never used against the invading forces, despite GWB's often stated call for a regime change. Saddam Hussein had everything to lose, and threw nothing back against us. When the Weapons of Mass Destruction weren't found after the widely publicized "end of hostilities," the "WMDs were never the reason we went to war to begin with. We had to rid the world of a bad guy."

"We haven't found Osama Bin Laden yet." has been answered with, "We found someone in Iraq that we think sold Osama Bin Laden on the idea of using planes as bombs. He is the real mastermind behind 9/11!"

Wearing the flight suit he had been reluctant to wear while serving in the reserves, our "nation's leader" was flown to an aircraft carrier, which had been turned around for a better camera angle when he emerged from the fighter plane. He declared an end to hostilities; but we have continued to see American soldiers, UN delegates, and civilians killed on a daily basis. Suicide bombers continue to be the most effective weapon Saddam Hussein is able to throw against us. That's right, Saddam Hussein has not been found!

I have seen more and more of the administrations claims of why we went to war disproved, and even scoffed at. I have listened as this "president" has consistently devalued the people in the military, asking them to extend their time in a war zone while he was asking Congress to cut their wages and benefits. I have heard 10 different Presidential candidates discuss different actions that we could have taken, and actions that we still should take.

The way we are fighting this "war on terrorism" is by becoming the world's worst terrorist organization; and the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is a stain on our history that will feed anti-American sentiments and groups for decades to come.

As a youth, I often heard the term "The Ugly American" tossed around when Foreign Policy and International politics were being discussed. I think that is a term that ultimately should be revived to describe the man who, in December 2000, was appointed President by the Supreme Court!

I have not yet found an acceptable reason why we went to war against Iraq this time!

The Iraqi people should have been the ones to deal with hussein aggressively. a large majority of them WANTED to revolt against saddam and highly resented him and especially his sons. the problem was that the Iraq people were so busy simply not starving, and suffering from a variety of ailments that prevented them to rise up. there was no shortage of weapons, (you used to be able to buy AK47s in the street markets) and there probably was no shortage of hatred and contempt for hussien.

the problem is the Iraqi people were mostly too sick to fight him though. the reason they were in no condition to fight was (mostly) because of clinton, (for his refusal to let sanctions be lifted while hussein was in power) and bush (for continuing that policy) I wouldn't even had minded had we given them protection in the south and north or even went so far as to take out saddam's airforce (to "even the score") if anyone should have changed Iraq's government, it should have been Iraq's people.

but had that happened (Iraqi's rising up) Iraq would likely have become an islamic republic, which is why we will never let them have an actual democracy. instead we invaded, for no REAL reason (some of the reasons stated here would force any reasonable person to think we should invade:

• pakistan (dictator, proliferation of nukes to "rouge" states, destabalizing and threating the region)
• israel (inhumane treatment of prisoners, possession of WMD, threatening other states, destabalizing and threating the region, ignoring UNSC resolutions, etc...)
• saudi arabia or kuwait (monarchal dictatorships, inhumane treatment of prisoners)

there is no evidence Iraq had WMD, NONE!!! there was none prior to the war, just questions (which bush refused to allow to be answered through UN inspection teams)

the reasons the pro-war people seem to be coming up with now could apply to a good number of our allies. if we are going to change one regime for certain behaviors, leave the ones which carry out some of the same acts and behaviors alone, and let them stay in power then this war is IMO, immoral, and I can't support it, nor the occupation, or the puppet government we have installed. (isn't that the same thing many people were critical of the USSR for in east europe?)

What war? This was just one battle in the war on terrorism.

Mission accomplished!

Don't look, don't tell.

The real questions are whether we are against the occupation, the rebuilding efforts, and whatever else is going on like profiteering.

"The War" is over.

And damn the media for reporting nothing but negative!

All of Iraq is hunky-dory except for Baghdad. Troops should be coming home any time soon!

Um, well, maybe not.

I was against the war (battle) before and after. But then, who am I to raise a fuss? It didn't matter then and it doesn't matter now.

One of the nice things is that I don't have to rationalize. Minor consolation. The crappola level remains the same.

Will an admin or someone please fix unabomber's first post. No offense to unabomber it is just too confusing and I am too tired to easily decipher it

The way I see it, the war has been beneficial in the end. Forget all of the controversy and whatnot for a minute. We now have one more country free from the rule of a cruel dictator. According to estimates, the new government should be firmly in place by 2004, and then we can pull out of Iraq. In retrospect, the battle (Author made a good point, it's only one battle in a war) went quite well. This has also established us as a nation that won't really take any crap.

This doesn't mean we have to become an imperialist nation and go around invading everyone we feel like. It just sets it out there that other hostile countries should cool down a bit, because if at worst it comes to war, we'll go.

I supported the war then and I support it even more now.

Andrew Sullivan says it better than I ever could:





The Iraqi Survey Group has only been in Iraq for 3 months and yet has already uncovered the above information. There are hundreds of sites to investigate. They have looked at only a fraction of those sites. I heard opined that some information may be being withheld until closer to the election.

I like everyone else will have to wait and see.

I cautiously supported Britain's involvement the war, in the light of the information given out by the government in the weeks and months leading up to it.

Now that much of that information has been shown to be either unproven conjecture or even downright lies, I think with hindsight that we were wrong to go to war.

I also think that the USA, who never made much of the WMD argument, instead preferring the "regime change" line, was always wrong to want to go to war for that reason. Civilised states cannot simply remove foreign leaders that they do not like, no matter what atrocities they have committed, particular since many of those atrocities were committed while those leaders were treated as allies for the political convenience of the time. Why is Mugabe still in power if our actions were humanitarian. Opponents may say "you have to start somewhere", but I see no evidence yet that the US military, which bragged before engagement that it could fight simultaneously in four or more theatres, is anywhere near disentangling itself from Afghanistan - an action I fully supported and still do - let alone Iraq.

Also, the evidence that Saddam was part of the much-vaunted "War on Terror" was and is tenuous, at best. We have stronger evidence against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Syria yet they go unmolested, or even actively befriended (if they have oil and/or nuclear weapons).

However, we did go to war, and to my mind the worst thing we could possibly do now would be to withdraw immediately. We need to build a new Iraq, or else those left in the rubble we created will simply be added to the (increasingly long) list of people with reason to hate us.

It isn't the people of Iraq that need to be punished further, but Bush and Blair and their cohorts. At the polls will do (much as it pains me, as a Labour member, to "dis" my own leader), but in the law courts would be better.

to which post do you refer, the first (with messed quotes) or the second one that kind of runs on (sorry I am sort of tired myself, I haven't slept for at least 24 hours) just in case, I break the second one up so it makes a bit more sense.

by the way bucket, here is the second post, revised. hope it helps.

unabomber it was the first one with the quotes..can not follow who says what and it was really distressing this morning while I was still awakening.
I do not mind rambling because that makes me feel at home.

I voted against here and now. Frequent posters of AD know where I stand.

I agree that it was a good thing to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. I agree that it was a good thing to come and bring democracy to a country which used to be a dictature.

However, I didn't agree with America's brutality with its own allies. I think America betrayed its allies somehow. Since then, my admiration for the US as the example to follow has vanished.

Furthermore, too many schemes and plots have been played by too many people. I'm waiting for the day when America sends her troops to China to rid the Chinese people off of the Communists, or come to Africa to stop the ethnic slaughters... I'm waiting for something comparable in size to what is curently done in Iraq to trust the US again.

Might is not justice.

This war was a lousy idea when it began and 351 dead American soliders later it's still a lousy idea.

Wow, almost missed this one. You do know that Kelly was outspoken in his support for war in Iraq do you not? His article on the subject is one which I think most closely mirrors my own view:

'Only regime change will avert the threat'

The war was grounded on false information and speculation.
It was achieved through misinformation, outright lying to the security council, and PROPAGANDA.
Now, so far in the future from the war's opening shots,
At least 8,000 Iraqi civilians have died.
More than 350 US soldiers have died.
1,486 rapes by US soldiers have been confirmed.
522 of these confirmed rapes were targeting children.
Water purifiers viewed as "legitimate military targets"... Typhoid, Cholera, Diarhea, and Dysintery run rampant.
So.... Saddam raped and murdered his civilians. Looks like we did, too. Plus, we destroyed facilities vital to the general health of the population.... a violation of the Geneva Convention, AND of the US Army's Field Handbook.
Saddam was a tyrranical dictator. But, unfortunately, we haven't established a reputation of doing such a bangup job in what was Saddam's hell, either.
So... I still oppose the war. I always will.

Speaking of propaganda, Shinwa, could you provide a link detailing the alleged 1,486 rapes by US soldiers?

And a link to the US Army's 'Field Handbook'?

woah! where has this information been hiding?

One of the handiest ...for lack of a better word..useful maybe? artillery for those who support the war to be given by those who do not support the war is the idea that there is no moral difference from that of Hussein and his followers and Bush and his. Kind of makes me shift around uneasily in my chair looking for a new place to sit.

Hmm... I want to know more about this one as well. Source? My understanding is that we didn't even go after the power grid except with temporary-acting electro-magnetic pulse-style bombs. I'd also like to know what the rates for these diseases were from before we attacked.

Shinwa,

Please provide your source for this information.

After googlizing combinations of "Iraq, US troops, Iraqis and rape," this is ALL that I have found.



WorldWideNews is down until Oct 31st for whatever reason. ALL the INDYmedia websites ran the same story. The e-news prides itself on...

And what of the legitimacy of the allegations as put out by the Sunnis? I searched through Al-Jezeera and found nothing. It would seem that they would have at least some vested interest in running a story such as this.

In any case that leaves 1,484 rapes left unsolved and probably just as unlikely to have been committed.

Up to 15,000 dead in Iraq war.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1073070,00.html

Source2: http://www.comw.org/pda/0305iraqcasualtydata.html

Add this to your hindsight.

Though one might want to make a distinction for civilian deaths.

Iraqi war deaths 'total 13,000'

Actually Turnea, your own link says it may be as low as 11,000 and as high as 15,000, so they used 13,000 as a mid-point. It could be higher than that. Of course, it could be lower too.

We may have hit it or Saddam and his cronies may have sabotaged it and made it look like we did it. If we did hit it, oops we'll rebuild the thing.



Confirmed by who??? Only 1 incident with 2 victims have been in the mainstream from what's been revealed by SoCaliente_1. And those were sceptical. Where did you get the other 1,484?



Where did you get this info?? Along with your enormous number of rapes in general??

NiteGuy:

We aren't talking 15,000 civilian deaths. Most of those are dead republican guard soldiers. 4,300 civilian deaths in the major combat phase and many after that, most of which has occured from terrorists targeting civlians like the incidents in the past few days.

Do you have any solid proof that supports this statement that MOST of the civilians were killed by terrorists?

I was mildly in support of this war before it happened.
Saddam's regime were obviously not serving their people, but that is not a good enough reason to invade another country. The war was sold as being a necessary preemptive action (which at the time seemed different from naked aggression), but the fact that we were lied to about WMDs and we obviously had no long range plans make it pretty clear that this was naked aggression.
I am particularly offended that we dropped the hunt for OBL to attack Iraq claiming it's a "war on terror". There are more pressing threats than Iraq if you want to fight a war on terror, and living up to the worst fears of the fundamentalist nutjobs by launching a crusade does not seem like an effective way to end terrorism.

Yes, that's true. The purpose of my posting that link was to point our that only a fraction of that total represent civilian deaths.


Why do you believe this?

Here's another site with different numbers.

Iraq Body Count

It shows 7776 minimun and 9587 maximum.

There is also an article asserting over 1,500 violent civilian deaths in occupied Baghdad.

After the major combat phase of the war. read my post!