| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Was the U.S. invasion of Iraq a mistake? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 24 2008, 12:02 AM (1,494 Views) | |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 24 2008, 12:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Inspired by the post regarding prewar false statements. Do you think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake? Why or why not? Obviously the reasons for invading were false, so in the sense of our knowing what we were fighting for, yes it was a mistake. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 09:37 AM Post #2 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I say no, even if we fail I would say no - the outcome (failure or success) of an action does not change the merits of that action. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 09:38 AM Post #3 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Obviously |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 24 2008, 10:18 AM Post #4 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Noah - your question is worded in a good way. But you ruined it by putting your "obvious" observation in the same post. You should have separated your own response from the question and I would suggest that IN YOUR OPINION it is obvious. Quite obviously to me that conclusion is not obvious to others or we wouldn't be arguing about it all the time :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 10:54 AM Post #5 |
|
Admiral
|
I think Noah separated his question from his opinion with the space in between. So, to me, "obviously" was obviously his personal opinion. ![]() My answer: Yes, it was a mistake. I thought so then. I've thought so all along. And I think so now. In light of the other thread of mine the Noah referenced, it's interesting that this poll has made me look back and recall that I thought even back then that the "urgency" of the situation wasn't at the level that it was presented to us at the time. I don't remember all the details now of what brought me to that conclusion back then, but I know, among them, was the lack of respect by the Bush administration for completing the UN inspections and the lack of world agreement that an invasion was the correct course of action. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | Jan 24 2008, 12:18 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
Yes, but not because of anything to do with the intelligence, or lack thereof, before-hand. I believe it was a mistake because we've continued a poor century-old (or so) policy of being the world's police force but only ousting the dictators that are convenient for us to do so, while ignoring the millions of others being oppressed by other brutal dictators around the world. While the belief we can help everyone is a dream, the reality of what we are currently doing is hypocritical. I also believe it was a mistake because there was no clear direction about what we are suppose to be doing there. Ousting a dictator? Build a nation? Fight terrorism? What's the end-goal? What is it suppose to look like? I also believe it was a mistake because we have spread our military thin and left ourselves vulnerable to other threats, who thankfully have not taken advantage of that. I also believe it was a mistake because we have our own domestic concerns/problems to deal with, to which the war in Iraq has diverted resources away from. I also believe it was a mistake because to think we can go into a country and culture that is thousands of years in antithesis to our way of life, and transform them to a working, peaceful democracy based on Western ideals is quite naive, if not the very verge of stupidity. I fear the lives (American and Iraqi) sacrificed for this cause will be wasted, though I pray I'm wrong. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 24 2008, 12:22 PM Post #7 |
|
Admiral
|
^ Great post HD.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 24 2008, 12:53 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
My comments in blue italics: The rest are HD's Yes, but not because of anything to do with the intelligence, or lack thereof, before-hand. I believe it was a mistake because we've continued a poor century-old (or so) policy of being the world's police force but only ousting the dictators that are convenient for us to do so, while ignoring the millions of others being oppressed by other brutal dictators around the world. While the belief we can help everyone is a dream, the reality of what we are currently doing is hypocritical. I don't think that the intent was to be a police force as in the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts, but rather to stop a country that is dangerous the USA. So, I don't agree with this. I also believe it was a mistake because there was no clear direction about what we are suppose to be doing there. Ousting a dictator? Build a nation? Fight terrorism? What's the end-goal? What is it suppose to look like? What are you unclear on. Oust Hussein, try to help the Iraqi people set up a free and democratic country. I also believe it was a mistake because we have spread our military thin and left ourselves vulnerable to other threats, who thankfully have not taken advantage of that. I don't know enough to know whether or not that is true. I think that we have far too many military commitments around the world regardless of Iraq. I also believe it was a mistake because we have our own domestic concerns/problems to deal with, to which the war in Iraq has diverted resources away from. Shall we wait until we have absolutely no domestic problems at all to think about before we do anything anymore? I also believe it was a mistake because to think we can go into a country and culture that is thousands of years in antithesis to our way of life, and transform them to a working, peaceful democracy based on Western ideals is quite naive, if not the very verge of stupidity. Yeah, that'll never work in a place like Iraq, or Japan... And I don't think that your antithesis comment is correct. Iraq was ruled by a military dictator that was basically a result of the cold war between the West and the Soviet Empire. I fear the lives (American and Iraqi) sacrificed for this cause will be wasted, though I pray I'm wrong. I hope that you're wrong as well. We should NOT have gone into Iraq without a congressional declaration of war for two reasons. First, the President should not have that much power. Second, gave the congress an out to go all wishy-washy and become the weenies that they are currently. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | Jan 24 2008, 01:21 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
And I don't agree that Iraq was a danger to the USA.
That is what it was suppose to be, but then it morphed somehow into the war on terrorism which should mean different tactics, strategies, and end goals. I believe it morphed because we had no clear plan on how to build the nation that we original kind of said we were planning on building. It seemed, from the outside looking it, that things unraveled all very quickly and we had little political or military response. I believe that is because the Bush administration, the State Department, and the Military were all unclear on exactly what we were doing and how we were suppose to do it. And I do acknowledge that part of the morphing into the war on terrorism is because the terrorists saw it as a golden opportunity to engage the USA on their own terms. This is another reason I think it was a mistake to invade Iraq, but that is more a result of hindsight, though I think the mistake illustrates the unknown nature of things fostered and exacerbated by the lack of clarity.
For sure, I can't say 100% we're vulnerable to every threat, because it depends on the "threat." And the fact we have too many commitments is what lead to my comment. I'm mainly thinking of North Korea. If they decided to push things (if they were capable), what kind of position would we be in?
Yes, unless attacked first - like what lead to our involvement in Afghanistan, which was legit and not a mistake.
Touche! And a good point on the surface. However, you know that I am talking about the centuries old animosity and conflict between Islam and the West. And while the Iraqi dictator was a result of the Cold War, the culture was/is still inextricably rooted in Arabic and Islam.And had we totally brought the Iraqi nation and people to utter destruction through a few years of constant fire bomding, strategic bombing, and two atomic bombs, and had them completely cut off from the outside world (like we did Japan) then we could probably rebuild Iraq in our own image, too, like we did Japan in '45. Essentially, we'd be starting from scratch.
Agreed. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 24 2008, 01:37 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
THat is a matter for debate, but that is the ostensible reason that we went in. Not to police the area. Is there a centuries old animosity between Islam and the west, or is it more like 6 decades? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | Jan 24 2008, 01:54 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
Another worthy discussion.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 24 2008, 01:57 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
If we focus most/all our attention/resources inward then someone/some country out there will eventually take care of our domestic problems for us. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 24 2008, 02:34 PM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
I think that Taleban in Afganistan have taken advantage. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| HistoryDude | Jan 24 2008, 04:13 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Shaken, not stirred...
|
I don't agree at all. Concentrating on and making our domestic situation stronger/better, coupled with healthy foreign trade/relations, will only make us stronger to defend ourselves when/if needed; both as a preventative measure to deter aggression against us, and in a capacity to strike back quickly and efficiently if we did happen to get a bloody nose as in 9/11. I think we should focus on our own problems because 1) we will deprive some of our enemies of the motive to attack us in the first place by not meddling in their affairs, 2) we do not have the time, money, people-power, resources, and knowledge to solve the world's problems, and 3) when we are clearly the defenders, our moral and ethical position is stronger, as well, which can be favorable in garnering foreign allies and building popular support at home for the war effort. Now, once having retaliated, I'm perfectly okay, in most cases, to make that retaliation total, mind you... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 24 2008, 04:23 PM Post #15 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I tend to agree. Perhaps it is time for the US to become more isolationist. This would include being less reliant on trade and significantly reduce humanitarian ad. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |





And a good point on the surface. However, you know that I am talking about the centuries old animosity and conflict between Islam and the West. And while the Iraqi dictator was a result of the Cold War, the culture was/is still inextricably rooted in Arabic and Islam.


9:17 AM Jul 11