www.ditl.org

When it was launched, I supported it. But that was largely on the WMD threat,

With respect, High and Mighty Site Owner, it was never about weapons of mass destruction. That was merely a sales pitch. All along, it was about limiting the rise of Iran as a regional power, something they were doing long before 9/11. The idea was to forcibly convert Iraq into a regional front for American and Western interests, and use them to roll back Iranian expansion.

Personally, I don't know who to cheer for, so to speak. I cannot endorse the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign state, but at the same time I can safely say that a world with expanded American interests is probably a better place to live in than that same world with expanded Iranian interests. If the Bush administration had not botched the post-invasion period so badly, I might be behind them most vigourously today. But they didn't, so I'm not, and you're correct. It's a lose-lose situation, and they lose the least by leaving Iraq ASAP.

The biggest loss is not a surge in terrorist presence, or anything like that, it's the loss of American regional interests. America is no longer seen as a reliable ally in the region and for that you'll have Middle Eastern countries turning to China and Russia for aid in the future.

I Am Spartacus wrote:

When it was launched, I supported it. But that was largely on the WMD threat,

With respect, High and Mighty Site Owner, it was never about weapons of mass destruction. That was merely a sales pitch.

I'm not saying that was the actual reason for the war, I'm saying that was my reason for supporting it.

To be honest I never beleived a word about the WMDs.
The invasion of Iraq was purely for American interest, there are worse dictators than Sadam still out there and no ones done anything about them. I do like the fact that one more opresive regime has been toppled, but at what price will it be?

I don't agree with that in one opinion: I don't think that the treatment of troops by civilians is ANYTHING like it was with Vietnam.

I wasn't refering to the public opinion of the soldiers (in fact I'm glad they're not getting a hard time) but to the situation in Iraq. It's one big screwup and was FUBARed from the start.

Rochey wrote:there are worse dictators than Sadam still out there and no ones done anything about them.

True, but the fact that Mugabe, the Burman juta, Kim, the Ayatollas, etc, etc are still in place does not mean that removing Saddam was a bad thing. While the incompetance demonstrated after the war (compounded by the operational method during the war of bypassing rather than enveloping the Iraqi army) has led directly to the current civil war, I supported, and would still support, the war itself. Having said that, the only really viable option now is GTFO.

Oh, I agree that getting rid of Saddam was not a bad thing. I just have a lot of experience debating with the pro war crowd who like to use "Saddam was a dictator so we went in to restore freedom" quite a lot.

Rochey wrote:"Saddam was a dictator so we went in to restore freedom"

Oh don't worry, I'm not one of that lot by any means. Do you ever bring up "Operation Iraqi Liberation" - the somewhat Freudian original name?

Phew, *cancels nuclear airstrike on Captain Seafort*

Indeed I do.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

I Am Spartacus wrote:

When it was launched, I supported it. But that was largely on the WMD threat,

With respect, High and Mighty Site Owner, it was never about weapons of mass destruction. That was merely a sales pitch.

I'm not saying that was the actual reason for the war, I'm saying that was my reason for supporting it.

Ah, I see. I apologize for my momentary lack of literacy.

Aaahh.... so it begins....

To tell the truth, I don't really think the poll is that accurate; what exactly does it mean to 'agree with' the War? Does that mean you think we should have gone in, think we should stay, or both? My opinion is that it was mainly American arrogance that made us think we could destroy a regime, create a new one, and be out of the country in 2 or 3 years, and that in retrospect we would have been much better off if we had just stayed out. On the other hand, I also think that it would be the height of American irresponsibility to pull out just when it starts getting tough. So do I vote yes or no? Basically, I think that, if we're really serious about creating a stable nation, we're gonna have to be in for the long haul; not necessarily with the same troop levels, but we would definitly have to have a substantial force in Iraq for many years to come. Withdrawal, in my opinion, will only make the situation worse and undo whatever tenuous progress we've made. The question, really, in my mind, is whether America really has the guts to deal with our mistakes, or we're just gonna pull out as soon as the going get's tough.

Feel free to disagree with anything/everything in my post.

All I'm going to say is it's there country, let them deal with it. Saddam? Sure, he was a psychopath and a serious threat to humanity (my personal opinion) but frankly, we've been there too long. It is THERE country, they should be the ones doing something about it while we sort out or own probolems.

Captain Peabody wrote:Aaahh.... so it begins....

To tell the truth, I don't really think the poll is that accurate; what exactly does it mean to 'agree with' the War? Does that mean you think we should have gone in, think we should stay, or both? My opinion is that it was mainly American arrogance that made us think we could destroy a regime, create a new one, and be out of the country in 2 or 3 years, and that in retrospect we would have been much better off if we had just stayed out. On the other hand, I also think that it would be the height of American irresponsibility to pull out just when it starts getting tough. So do I vote yes or no? Basically, I think that, if we're really serious about creating a stable nation, we're gonna have to be in for the long haul; not necessarily with the same troop levels, but we would definitly have to have a substantial force in Iraq for many years to come. Withdrawal, in my opinion, will only make the situation worse and undo whatever tenuous progress we've made. The question, really, in my mind, is whether America really has the guts to deal with our mistakes, or we're just gonna pull out as soon as the going get's tough.

Feel free to disagree with anything/everything in my post.

"Oh, Captain Peabody.....I DISAGREE!!!!" (*channeling Family Guy 'Drive By Argument'*)

No, I think you're right. We SHOULD have stayed out, but now that we're there, it would be irresponsible to leave as long as there is any chance of some good coming out of it. We broke it, so we bought it, basically. If we leave now without accomplishing anything more, the situation will be ghastly (and we'd probably just have to come right back in to root out terrorists that have BY NOW taken over a-la Afghanistan, or at the very least at the behest of the UN to solve the humanitarian crisis).

So in response to "Do you agree or disagree with the war?" my response is "Yes" (fence-sitter I know...) [/i][/b]

ok. i think most of the people who have commented are from the US, so ill give my british perspective, wonder how many other brits willl agree.

first off...i am of the opinion that the war was essentilly legal.

secondly i think that the decision the british government had to make wasnt to go to war or not,but to go to war or not if the US was going to.

That the US clearly was, i think it was better for the premier european military power to chip in. the effect on geopolitics would have been less than goo dif the US had gone it alone.

WMD was a red herring, but thats by the by. Weknow that Iraq had certain weapons,as many satarist pointed out,we sold them to them.

Chances are that they were destroyed during the invasion.

The post invasion iraq that we have is regretable. but not totally unsurprising. Not to be too harsh,but US troops have a dreaful record of peacekeeping and nation building.

Goin in in the first place, I must say, was a good idea, mainly because while Saddam couldn't have launched an NBC strike on the west within 45 days, let alone minutes, the man was still a menace, to his own people if not to anyone else. His stockpiles were probably destroyed during the UN inspections in the 90s, but he was in the unenviable position of having to claim a lack of weapons to the west, to avoid airstrikes like Desert Fox in '98, and claim to have major stockpiles to deter an Iranian invasion.

Once the invasion was launched, Rumsfeld's stupid insistence on carrying it out with minimum forces prevented the US forces from enveloping the Iraqi army en route to Baghdad - with the result that they all went home and kept their weapons, rather than being catalogued, disarmed and locked up for the duration.

The critical mistake made was disbanding the Iraqi army in the immidiate aftermath of the war. This not only forced the coalition to provide all security themselves, but also left a huge number of unemployed squaddies with access to not-inconsiderable firepower in a country where poverty and malnourishment had been endemic for most of a decade. Their response - to go out and get what they and their families needed by force - was predicatable. Furthermore, when the coalition proved incompetent at providing decent security, again due to the lack of sufficient numbers on the ground in the period immidiately after the collapse of Saddam's regime, they took the likewise predicatable step of provding for their own security in the form of militias, perpetuating the cycle of violence.

Which brings us to today. The lack of effective security in the days and weeks following the war allowed the insurgency to become established, resulting in the formation of various militias to try and combat it 'unofficially'. This has ballooned into the current multi-sided civil war, with Sunni militia against Shia militia, various al-Qaida fighters against the militias, and all of them shooting at the coalition. Add in a fair bit of simple banditry and that makes for quite a mess.

The "Saddam was a horrible dictator" makes no sense whatsoever. There are dozens of other nations with horrible dictators leading them that America could have committed war crimes against without all the post-war nastiness that's occurred in Iraq.

If anyone actually thinks that the Bush administration cares about Democracy in Iraq or removing a dictator, they're out to lunch.

Yeah, I made that point earlier on. I'm happy he's gone, but if you think thats what the wars over then you're in for a shock.