According to this article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/17/crawford.protest/index.html Cindy Sheehan's core question is "What is the war in Iraq's intended objective?" (her way of putting it - what did her son die to achieve) I think it's a good question, and I'm curious to hear the responses from those who supported the war from the start and/or who support it now. (I can guess the war opponents' general views) And have your view of the war's goals changed between its start to now? Do you think those objectives are realistic now, and what kind of time frame do you believe we're looking at? Finally, do you believe Bush been clear about these goals? Please try to keep the political rhetoric to a minimum and actually give real responses. For me, I was opposed to the war as it was conducted because I feel you need a solid coalition with broad support (Gulf War I) to do something like this. I wasn't opposed to the concept of trying to remove Saddam and implement democracy, although I do believe it should have been planned out more carefully. I don't feel Bush has been clear about our objectives, using a variety of rationales at different times. That in itself isn't bad since there may be multiple objects, but they happen to come up when most convenient and rationales disappear when inconvenient, which is disconcerting.
main objective - WMD's side benefits - get rid of Saddam and put a more benevolent govt. in place. What I learned - that US military/intelligence is not omniscient nor omnipotent. Without the WMD's - I never would have half-heartedly supported the war.
If it would've lowered the oil prices I wouldn't have that big of problem with it (selfish Liberal, is that possible?). But as of right now I see it as a losing venture, I felt when we were doing reconstruction, it would've being wise to open it up to Europe. It might've being a bad deal that time, but some times you just got to cut your loses and move on.
Also, I'm not sure if I feel safer, I just don't see how something like this thwarts terrorism, especially if we have an early exist that turn that region up side down. I feel that it only created more ill will in the Arab world and I feel less safe.
I believe so. I also think that if more security for Americans was the goal, then we have failed so far, and have a long long way to go before we come remotely close to success. As to Sheehan's son. He died doing his duty, and she can feel proud because of that. She is right to be upset that his duty happened to be doing something not in the best interest of the U.S. and something that wasn't a vital interest.
The results were tragic, but I think if you think in percentage of chances something like that was gonna happen in 2001 compared to percentage of chances something like that was gonna be higher today, I personally feel that figure is higher today than in sep 10, 2001. I feel that the ill will caused in the middle east in the past 4 years, as well as pushing us further into to the spotlight in that region, have raised those percentages. Lastly, I feel less safe since I'm under 25 and can be drafted if another armed conflict breaks out. If you feel that it's lower great, but because of the reason I listed above I feel less safe compared to 2001.
how many attacks have occurred on america soil since 9/11, or since march 2003? how many would have occurred in the same time frame absent the war in iraq?
Considering that the plans for the WTC attacks were planned way before Sept 10, 2001, I think it is shortsighted and downright silly to think that Sept 10, 2001 was the pinnacle of arab extremist ill will towards the United States. I think we've moved beyond the days where you can trump any argument just by saying a specific tragic date in American history.
Well the question is how many attacks happened before 2001? How man attacks did not happen due to heighten security (i.e. another result of 9/11 that is not related to Iraq), and how much the invasion of afighanistan play into the who thing. We would never know since we did have the Iraq war, but each of us have our own views to the questions mentioned above.
Somehow I never believe the WMD claim. I always think it was disingenuous at best, manipulative and outright lying at worst. The real objectives: - More oil and higher profit margins for the oil industry, including the traditional big oil companies and products and services provider to the petroleum and energy industries such as Halliburton. Big oil execs as well as high profiled board members and consultants get largest shares of pie, hefty year-end bonus for mid-level exces next (we may have some posters in this bloc), and finally, if the trickle-down economy works its magic, American hoi polloi get a few extra drips of gasoline. So in the end, soccer moms are happy, truck drivers are happy, everyone gets something out of this war. - More profits for the defense industry, such as the high tech weaponry manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, and big tax dolloars subsidies to the defense-related contractors such as KBR. - To eliminate one of the thorniest adversaries of Israel in the region. Remember most of the original neocons are or of descendents of Eastern European Jewish immigrants. In additon, AIPAC anyone? - To satisfy the religious zeals of the most hawkish Christian conservatives, who believe Muslisms in the Islamic world have waged a war against them. - To most other Americans who initially supported this War, it was a time to seek revenge for the 9/11 and taste the blood of evil Arabs. The war in Afghanistan was far from satisfying for them. - Liberating Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam? This is just a by-product of the War. I stand by this claim on the basis of general lack of outcry on the part of American public towards the heavy loss of Iraqi civilians due to the War. - Establishing democracy in Iraq thereby setting an example for the rest of the backward world? Heheh.
I disagree, most American's I've encountered are fairly good people. They supported because it was what their party, what their leader, their peers, the media etc. made them few was a just war. They felt the war was justified or neccessary. I think Bono of U2 once said this about America, "love the people but hate the government".
Read my statement again. most Americans (without the qualifier) != most Americans who initially supported this war
I supported the war prior to invasion because going through the UN was the proper measure to contain Saddam's WMD program. I also believed that he had some radioactive material and compounds similar to the ones that were dismantled after the first Gulf War based on the convictions of both Bush and Clinton. The failure to find them in the UN weapons inspections cast doubt on war because we'd have to go at it unilaterally and against the UN's (and most of the world's) wishes. It was/is an act that would/has gone against half a century of American foreign diplomacy. The NeoCon vision of the ME has some method to its insanity. Though it isn't surprising to read articles on how they've lost out to corporate interests intent upon carving up Iraq. The supported corruption and political jockeying that has taken place in Iraq has severely diminished my outlook on Iraqi reconstruction, or US occupied occupation. However, I believe that pulling out now would cause more damage to Iraq and its citizens and would allow a power vacuum that would merit another intervention several years down the line. The war's intended objective, IMO, is to stabilize the ME with a weakened power that is totally capable of producing WMD. The benefits of stabilization are stabile oil prices, an ethnically similar regional ally, and lessoned dependence upon Israel and possibly Saudi Arabia.
