NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, guys. It's really okay to admit you were wrong about this war. I did. I was in favor of the war leading up to it, or I should say I was in favor of the posturing. I even wrote an letter to the editor of the LA Times that got published that said that the only reason there were weapons inspectors in Iraq was because of the US threats and I still believe that. I became concerned when we jumped in so soon and became completely disgusted with the admins ineptitude when Abu Ghraib happened. It really is okay to change yoru mind as an ex-neocon icon explains here:
SEVEN WEEKS AGO, I published my case against the Iraq war. I wrote that although I had originally advocated military intervention in Iraq, and had even signed a letter to that effect shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I had since changed my mind.

But apparently this kind of honest acknowledgment is verboten. In the weeks since my book came out, I've been challenged, attacked and vilified from both ends of the ideological spectrum. From the right, columnist Charles Krauthammer has accused me of being an opportunistic traitor to the neoconservative cause — and a coward to boot. From the left, I've been told that I have "blood on my hands" for having initially favored toppling Saddam Hussein and that my "apology" won't be accepted.

In our ever-more-polarized political debate, it appears that it is now wrong to ever change your mind, even if empirical evidence from the real world suggests you ought to. I find this a strange and disturbing conclusion.

more (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-fukuyama9apr09,1,2307957.story?coll=la-util-op-ed)

Hey, guys. It's really okay to admit you were wrong about this war. I did. I was in favor of the war leading up to it, or I should say I was in favor of the posturing. I even wrote an letter to the editor of the LA Times that got published that said that the only reason there were weapons inspectors in Iraq was because of the US threats and I still believe that. I became concerned when we jumped in so soon and became completely disgusted with the admins ineptitude when Abu Ghraib happened. It really is okay to change yoru mind as an ex-neocon icon explains here:

more (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-fukuyama9apr09,1,2307957.story?coll=la-util-op-ed)

is the American left actually using Saddam's ousting as a negative aspect of the war/occupation?

Wow.

I could see the following claims being argued by the left:

1) War is only for oil
2) War is a personal feud
3) War kills Iraqi civilians
4) War leads to American deaths
5) War foments radical Sunni terrorism/insurgency
6) War costs money

I would argue that #1 cannot be quantified... #2 is ambiguous... and 3-6 are true, but worth the potential positives from a) Saddam being gone; b) Democratic government in place ; and c) Opportunity to kill terrorists -- our presence there acting as a magnet for violent Sunni fundamentalists.

... regardless of any counterarguments, 1-6 are seem (to me, at least) plausible negative aspects of the war/occupation.

But to say that Saddam's ousting is a NEGATIVE aspect of the war... wow.

But to say that Saddam's ousting is a NEGATIVE aspect of the war... wow.
Saddam's ousting was not a benefit, it paves the way for the country to desolve into total civil war and get taken over by a theocracy that fosters international terrorism in the name of Islam.

Saddam's ousting was not a benefit, it paves the way for the country to desolve into total civil war and get taken over by a theocracy that fosters international terrorism in the name of Islam.

Indeed. Things really haven't got much better.

Oh, I also hate Fukuyama. His books are complete crap and he's an idiot. I read The End of History, and I demand my two hours back, immediately

Feh... the war was a good idea, but it was executed like the Pentagon was ran by chimpanzees. Put some people with brains in there (e.g. non-Bush Cronies) and we'll see some good results out of Iraq.

Loyalty to the administration should not supercede ability to do a kickass job.

Feh... the war was a good idea, but it was executed like the Pentagon was ran by chimpanzees. Put some people with brains in there (e.g. non-Bush Cronies) and we'll see some good results out of Iraq.

Loyalty to the administration should not supercede ability to do a kickass job.
Not sure about the first part, but I absolutly agree with the rest. The fact is we're there now and, as Powell told Bush and Dumsfeld, "you break it you own it." We need to get some braisn in the civilian control now. We have no choice. We cannot let Iraq slide into chaos.

is the American left actually using Saddam's ousting as a negative aspect of the war/occupation?
Regime change is an illegal motive for war, I understand.

Pro-war, anti-stupidity. Until about the second week after the war when it became increasingly apparently how ineptly things were being done I thought it was a good thing.

Oh how we learned.

Pro-war, anti-stupidity. Until about the second week after the war when it became increasingly apparently how ineptly things were being done I thought it was a good thing.

Oh how we learned.

You believed the 45 Minute thing?

The War in Iraq...

The US did the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Heh, no. I believed Saddam had been making the UN look like a bunch of idiots for better than a decade thumbing his nose at international authority. Then we went and did the same thing.

Like I said, ineptly handled. Seems our gloryless leader isn't much on diplomacy. Then again considering France and Russia were on the take when it came to Saddam a useful UN resolution would of never passed. Though we can't use that as moral high ground anymore due to Halliburton's no-bid contracts and Cheney et al's rather odious money laundering methods from the war.

There were good reasons for going in to Iraq. I was in favor of it at the time. But it got bungled beyond repair, and it damaged our ability to deal with other threats *cough*Iran*uncough*.

I didn't have a problem with the war in Iraq. I have a probem with the timing. I feel, and have always felt that the war was rushed. Diplomatic solutions weren't exhausted, and there was no reason to believe that Iraq posed an 'iminent threat'. Or even a serious threat. Except to itself.

I like what Lewis Black said, "I knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction. How did I know? I was just sitting on my fuckin' couch. How can a comic know more than the CIA? It's almost impossible. But lately, the CIA seems to be run by people who wanted to be weathermen."

In fact, it only takes the slightest bit of cynicism to think that maybe the war was rushed to avoid a diplomatic solution. Only a week before the war started, several middle east nations were actively in negotiations with Saddam for him to go into self-imposed exile.

At the very least, we should have at least taken the time to convince NATO there was no other recourse before we went in. There really was no reason to attack when we did.

But I don't doubt that there would have eventually been a conflict.

I didn't have a problem with the war in Iraq. I have a probem with the timing. I feel, and have always felt that the war was rushed. Diplomatic solutions weren't exhausted, and there was no reason to believe that Iraq posed an 'iminent threat'. Or even a serious threat. Except to itself.

I like what Lewis Black said, "I knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction. How did I know? I was just sitting on my fuckin' couch. How can a comic know more than the CIA? It's almost impossible. But lately, the CIA seems to be run by people who wanted to be weathermen."

In fact, it only takes the slightest bit of cynicism to think that maybe the war was rushed to avoid a diplomatic solution. Only a week before the war started, several middle east nations were actively in negotiations with Saddam for him to go into self-imposed exile.

At the very least, we should have at least taken the time to convince NATO there was no other recourse before we went in. There really was no reason to attack when we did.

But I don't doubt that there would have eventually been a conflict.
...and if you just stop to think what could have been avoided if we had only let him go into exile...

...and if you just stop to think what could have been avoided if we had only let him go into exile...

That wouldn't be morally right. Saddam must face justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.

That wouldn't be morally right. Saddam must face justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.
...no matter the cost, right?

...no matter the cost, right?

No matter what the cost.

That wouldn't be morally right. Saddam must face justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.
I'm sure the 2000 plus dead US servicemen and their families as well as teh 20 plus thousand dead Iraqis and their families not to mention the terrified Iraqi civillians that live in a country that now has intermittant infrastructure and over 60% unemployment with a burgeoning civil war are happy they made that sacrifice so Saddam could go on trial. :)

I'm sure the 2000 plus dead US servicemen and their families as well as teh 20 plus thousand dead Iraqis and their families not to mention the terrified Iraqi civillians that live in a country that now has intermittant infrastructure and over 60% unemployment with a burgeoning civil war are happy they made that sacrifice so Saddam could go on trial. :)

I'm sure history will judge that it was the right thing to do, just at the wrong time.

I'm sure history will judge that it was the right thing to do, just at the wrong time.

Okay. So why don't we invade Zimbabwe and North Korea? Surely it's the moral thing to do, as they're worse than Saddam. Right?

Okay. So why don't we invade Zimbabwe and North Korea? Surely it's the moral thing to do, as they're worse than Saddam. Right?

We should invade Zimbabwe and North Korea for those reasons, but I will take what I can get.

I'm sure history will judge that it was the right thing to do, just at the wrong time.
And with the wrong stupid morons running it. The dead thank you for making them a foot note in history.

Trust me, history will judge just about everything this president does as stupid. Not just wrong, but done really, really stupidly and incompetant. In fact, that is the word that will most often be used to describe this administration in history books.

And with the wrong stupid morons running it. The dead thank you for making them a foot note in history.

Trust me, history will judge just about everything this president does as stupid. Not just wrong, but done really, really stupidly and incompetant. In fact, that is the word that will most often be used to describe this administration in history books.

I imagine they will say he was incompetant, but at least he was willing to take action. Unlike Clinton, Mr. I Did Not Know Anything About Rwanda. Or, Mr. I Left Somalia So That It Could Become The Great Nation That It Is Today.

I imagine they will say he was incompetant, but at least he was willing to take action.It's better not totake action than to take counterproductive, stupid action.

Unlike Clinton, Mr. I Did Not Know Anything About Rwanda. Or, Mr. I Left Somalia So That It Could Become The Great Nation That It Is Today.
What they Hell dose Clinton have to do with this? Its funny that you assume anyone who is against this war is a liberal. I'm not. If you read my OP you'll see that I backed the admin until it proved how stupid it was. This administration is not conservative in anyway except that it opposes abortion and gay marriage. Other than that its worse than any liberal government we have ever had in every way I can think of.

The worst possible outcome of the 04 election for conservatives was a Bush victory. I'm sure the liberals will relish taking back the senate and the white house.

It's better not totake action than to take counterproductive, stupid action.


What they Hell dose Clinton have to do with this? Its funny that you assume anyone who is against this war is a liberal. I'm not. If you read my OP you'll see that I backed the admin until it proved how stupid it was. This administration is not conservative in anyway except that it opposes abortion and gay marriage. Other than that its worse than any liberal government we have ever had in every way I can think of.

I was not attacking your political beliefs, nor was I claiming you were a liberal like it was a bad word. I think in the eyes of history, Clinton (among others) failure to action in Rwanda and the withdrawal from Somialia will be considered just as bad as the mistakes in Iraq.

That wouldn't be morally right. Saddam must face justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.

It might be prudent to remember at this point that 'morality' is a grey area. Certainly, there are certain 'moral' standards that typically apply to a majority of the global societies currently in existance-- however, not all things that you might consider 'morally right' will be considered 'morally right' to the next person.

Morality is simply the quality of being in accord with one's own standards of right or good conduct. Seems pretty simple, yeah? The problem with this is that what you consider 'good conduct' might be horrible conduct to someone from another society or culture. The people we know as 'terrorists' are martyrs in their own culture-- what they do is considered morally right to them.

...Mind you, I'm not saying Saddam was morally right in my view... or even that he was morally right in his own. I just thought it was worth pointing out. You may now feel free to drag me to your nearest place of worship and have me stoned.

LOL Internet Argument.

But to say that Saddam's ousting is a NEGATIVE aspect of the war... wow.

How did you get that from the OP? I really dont see it saying getting rid of Saddam was a bad thing.

That wouldn't be morally right. Saddam must face justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.

On the one hand, letting a mass murderer go free, on the other, killing thousands of innocents (even if you did it accidentally, it still counts) and many more thousands of soldiers plus losing a few hundred allied soldiers just to convict one man. Wow, did Saddam hurt you personally or something? It seems way to far just to get one man. If I was in favour of the war (which i wasnt) I would argue that convicting Saddam would be a nice bonus of the war, not its main reason.

I think in the eyes of history, Clinton (among others) failure to action in Rwanda and the withdrawal from Somialia will be considered just as bad as the mistakes in Iraq.
You're high. This debacle in Iraq is going to go down as among the worst decisions and subsequent excutions in the history of the world. If we don;t get some competent leadership from washington soon and turn the tide of this thing it will have ramifications that reverberate in every single aspect of our lives, Political, economic, social... This is the ultimate mistake. Iraq is going to crumble and the Shiites, the very ones that like to suck off Iran, will be left in power after they butcher the Sunnis and possibly the Kurds. This will form what Jordan's king called a "Shiite crecent" in the Middle East. Shiite's are uniformly more theocratic than Sunnis and are much more given to Shira law and radical interpretations of Islam. This Shiite crecent will be the new power in the Middle east and will eclipse Saudi Arabia as the world's oil superpower. They will not be shy about using that oil as a weapon. they will not be shy about gaining, using and possibly giving WMD to terrorists. This is going to be a catastrophy and the worst thing about it is that it didn't need to be. We could have gotten rid of Saddam without a war and even if we did have to fight we could have done it competently. What we did was make a bad situation WAY, WAY, WAY worse than it ever should have been and it got that way because of the rigid ideology and gross incompetence of G.W. Bush and Co.

If history has ended, why does he concern himself with these things?