Zguy28 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 ****READ ME: IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT WHO HAS NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER OF POTENTIALLY VOTING FOR A GOP CANDIDATE, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE IN THE POLL. **** Do you think the Iraq War was the right thing to do knowing what we know now? This question was posed to the GOP candidates in a recent debate. I am curious what the folks who are likely to vote for a Republican candidate would answer. The question is a simple "Yes or No" and is not in regards to how it has been handled since. If you want to go into more length about that you can, but try to keep it brief, civil, and the thread on topic. PS. I ask that Democrats kindly refrain from voting unless you are seriously considering voting for a GOP candidate. PSS. This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. Let's keep it that way please. EDIT: Crud, meant to make it a public poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 It wasn't the right thing to do then, and it still isn't the right thing to do. Trust me, I understand the strategic importance of being in Iraq and if nothing else, love that we are all over the middle east right now. Stupid terrorists. But... We've lost 4000+ men, cost of oil has only doubled, Iraq is now a terrorists hot spot, the rest of the world thinks of us as criminal and we've spend over a $trillion dollars to essentially gain another foothold in the Middle East which may never be as stable as Germany, Korea or Japan. So yeah, it wasn't a good idea and it still is not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 To answer the question now. . .of course it is no. The real answer would come in 20 years, but again, I think it would be a resounding no. Iraq is to us what Afghanistan was to the USSR. We are in a much better economic situation, but there is no doubt in anyones mind. . .well other then the people fighting there and the right wing. . .that is was the wrong decision. I can simply ask this question, and I think you can figure out the answer. If Bill Clinton was the person who planned and did the Iraq invasion would it be a good move? Lest see Sarge try to answer that one. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 No. It wasn't even at the time. Ther PROPER thing to have done would have been to NUKE every reasonable sized population center in Iraq and save us all the time and trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I've voted no, but you can't separate was it the right thing to do w/ how it was carried out. IF it was possible to do it correctly (which I'm not sure we had the man power to do w/o Canada, France, Germany, and others) and it was done correctly, THEN this thread doesn't exsist. Essentially, nobody questions whether Reagan's invasion of Grenada, Bush I's invasion of Panama, or Clinton's war in Bosnia/Kosovo were the right things because they were done well, and we won. On the flip side, I heard Bill Bennet talk about Reagan and Lebanon this morning, and anytime anybody talks about something like Darfur, you almost always hear Somolia brought up. So to pretend that the idea if it was good or bad happens in a vacum of our success, which is directly related to how it was carried out is just ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 To answer the question now. . .of course it is no. The real answer would come in 20 years, but again, I think it would be a resounding no. Iraq is to us what Afghanistan was to the USSR. We are in a much better economic situation, but there is no doubt in anyones mind. . .well other then the people fighting there and the right wing. . .that is was the wrong decision.I can simply ask this question, and I think you can figure out the answer. If Bill Clinton was the person who planned and did the Iraq invasion would it be a good move? Lest see Sarge try to answer that one. . . Chomerics, are you thinking about voting for a GOP candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Iraq War = Good. Iraq Occupation = Disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 To answer the question now. . .of course it is no. The real answer would come in 20 years, but again, I think it would be a resounding no. Iraq is to us what Afghanistan was to the USSR. We are in a much better economic situation, but there is no doubt in anyones mind. . .well other then the people fighting there and the right wing. . .that is was the wrong decision.I can simply ask this question, and I think you can figure out the answer. If Bill Clinton was the person who planned and did the Iraq invasion would it be a good move? Lest see Sarge try to answer that one. . . Considering voting GOP this time are ya? (I haven't made up my mind yet, but the possibility indeed exists I'll vote Republican.) I think it's an inevitable conflict that happened now rather than later (or sooner). Islamic terrorism simply cannot be left unchecked anymore. Hoping the UN or economic sanctions or incentives will make the problem get better has been proven false. Unfortunately our politics get mixed into everything, and things become cloudy because we the people have no idea who we can believe or trust anymore. Partisan politics invades every aspect of our lives and it is poisoning us. As far as invading Iraq, I've detailed dozens of time why that is a priority if you're going to go to war in the middle east. It's simply a matter of looking at it strategically and tactically rather than politically. It really is too bad that is like asking most people to cut off their own hand. Essentially I'm with PeterMP. The war was a botched job. That doesn't remove the necessity of the job. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 I've voted no, but you can't separate was it the right thing to do w/ how it was carried out. IF it was possible to do it correctly (which I'm not sure we had the man power to do w/o Canada, France, Germany, and others) and it was done correctly, THEN this thread doesn't exsist. Essentially, nobody questions whether Reagan's invasion of Grenada, Bush I's invasion of Panama, or Clinton's war in Bosnia/Kosovo were the right things because they were done well, and we won.On the flip side, I heard Bill Bennet talk about Reagan and Lebanon this morning, and anytime anybody talks about something like Darfur, you almost always hear Somolia brought up. So to pretend that the idea if it was good or bad happens in a vacum of our success, which is directly related to how it was carried out is just ignorant. For historical purposes and my own curiosity, what do you view as the necessity of invading Iraq?Considering voting GOP this time are ya?(I haven't made up my mind yet, but the possibility indeed exists I'll vote Republican.) I think it's an inevitable conflict that happened now rather than later (or sooner). Islamic terrorism simply cannot be left unchecked anymore. Hoping the UN or economic sanctions or incentives will make the problem get better has been proven false. Unfortunately our politics get mixed into everything, and things become cloudy because we the people have no idea who we can believe or trust anymore. Partisan politics invades every aspect of our lives and it is poisoning us. As far as invading Iraq, I've detailed dozens of time why that is a priority if you're going to go to war in the middle east. It's simply a matter of looking at it strategically and tactically rather than politically. It really is too bad that is like asking most people to cut off their own hand. Essentially I'm with PeterMP. The war was a botched job. That doesn't remove the necessity of the job. ~Bang Same question to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 No, it wasn't right. Especially considering the Afghanistan stuff hadn't been finished (and still hasn't). Perhaps after that, but the timing was awful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Considering voting GOP this time are ya?(I haven't made up my mind yet, but the possibility indeed exists I'll vote Republican.) I think it's an inevitable conflict that happened now rather than later (or sooner). Islamic terrorism simply cannot be left unchecked anymore. Hoping the UN or economic sanctions or incentives will make the problem get better has been proven false. Unfortunately our politics get mixed into everything, and things become cloudy because we the people have no idea who we can believe or trust anymore. Partisan politics invades every aspect of our lives and it is poisoning us. As far as invading Iraq, I've detailed dozens of time why that is a priority if you're going to go to war in the middle east. It's simply a matter of looking at it strategically and tactically rather than politically. It really is too bad that is like asking most people to cut off their own hand. Essentially I'm with PeterMP. The war was a botched job. That doesn't remove the necessity of the job. ~Bang Our fight was with Islamic terrorists. What did Iraq have to do with it? We needed to give the Islamic terrorists safe haven to bring them out to fight them? Was that the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 I've voted no, but you can't separate was it the right thing to do w/ how it was carried out. Exactly what I was going to say. And yes, I'm thinking of voting for McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Regardless of WMDs or "protecting our freedom," Iraq is part of the geopolitical game of chess. We now have the Iranians surrounded on both their western and eastern fronts. We will continue to squeeze until that theo/autocracy collapses. Iraq secures both our short and long-term interests in the region. Now, if the lefty elitists want to leave that area and the reaped rewards to the Chinese or the Russians, which is essentially what an U.S. pullout would accomplish, then you really have no ****ing clue how this world works. Thank goodness you're sitting behind a computer instead of running this country. Not to mention, the thousands upon thousands upon THOUSANDS of terrorists that are no longer walking this Earth??? You can't tell me this was the wrong thing to do. And believe it or not, things are going pretty well in Iraq right now, to the dismay of countless traitors within our own backyard. Denying the successes at this point is nothing short of lunacy and treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 My opinion hasn't changed. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 Regardless of WMDs or "protecting our freedom," Iraq is part of the geopolitical game of chess. We now have the Iranians surrounded on both their western and eastern fronts. We will continue to squeeze until that theo/autocracy collapses. Iraq secures both our short and long-term interests in the region. Now, if the lefty elitists want to leave that area and the reaped rewards to the Chinese or the Russians, which is essentially what an U.S. pullout would accomplish, then you really have no ****ing clue how this world works. Thank goodness you're sitting behind a computer instead of running this country. Not to mention, the thousands upon thousands upon THOUSANDS of terrorists that are no longer walking this Earth??? You can't tell me this was the wrong thing to do. And believe it or not, things are going pretty well in Iraq right now, to the dismay of countless traitors within our own backyard. Denying the successes at this point is nothing short of lunacy and treason. So, our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was really to "put the squeeze" on Iran, ultimately resulting in the collapse of the Iranian government?Is that what you are saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 For historical purposes and my own curiosity, what do you view as the necessity of invading Iraq?Same question to you. Well, I don't see where I said it was a necessity. I don't think Reagan's invasion of Grenada was a necessity. From a logical stand point, I better support Bush's invasion of Panama, but certainly wouldn't have called it a necessity. I think the non-WMD arguements that have been laid out in various places for the invasion of Iraq are better than those for invading Grenada and AT LEAST about on par as invading Panama. Let's review: 1. Saddam was a bad man so was Noriega. 2. Saddam was acting in defiance of the international communit, the UN, and it was the UN weapons inspectors (can't think of his name right now) that said Saddam was in violation of resolution 1441, and was getting rich off of the illegal oil for food program and corrupting important people in different countries. Noriega was involved in drug smugggling, was supporting the Columbia drug lords, which destabilized Columbia, and was corrupting important people in different countries. 3. There was a longer term strategic interest in Panama related to truning over the Panama canal to Panama and creating a democratic country to which to do so. There is a longer term stratgic interets in Iraq w/ resepect to creating a true democratic, Arab, ally in the Middle East and securing a supply of oil. Was invading Panama wrong? I'm sure if pressed you can find some people that would voice that opinion, but I'll bet if you go back to even a similar amount of time after the invasion of Panama, you'll have a hard time finding people that were debating that topic. The difference has been in our ability to carry it out, which is directly related to the manner in which it was carried out. ***EDIT*** and so I'm just not picking on Republicans IMO, the arguements for invading Iraq are stronger than the arguements for our involvement in Somalia or the Bosnia/Kosovo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Yes, absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Of course not, any reality challenged person who thinks otherwise doesn't take death to seriously. There is zero link to 9/11 and Iraq. The direct link was in Afghanistan where we to this day have not found the main person responsible. Iraq was never a direct threat to the US. Iraq is NOT the 51rst state of the union and if they had a problem with a totalitarian dictator it's their problem, not ours, we are not the world police. There is no such thing as a finite number of terrorists to kill. If you believe that then the war on drugs and the war on poverty is going equally as well. This war has done nothing but bred more hatred for the US overall and potentially has given birth to who knows how many new terrorists across the region. Get an economic advantage in the region? Not according to my gas station. And thousands of Americans and who knows how many innocent Iraqi citizens have died because of it. A cluster**** from start to present day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 2. Saddam was acting in defiance of the international communit, the UN, and it was the UN weapons inspectors (can't think of his name right now) that said Saddam was in violation of resolution 1441, and was getting rich off of the illegal oil for food program and corrupting important people in different countries. Noriega was involved in drug smugggling, was supporting the Columbia drug lords, which destabilized Columbia, and was corrupting important people in different countries. You might be thinking on Hans Blix. I read his book. It was a quick read and I recommend to to anyone who is curious about the basic details of the 2002-2003 UN inspections. Dr. Blix claims Iraq was fully cooperating with the inspections until Dubya pulled the US inspectors, in effect, kicking all UN inspectors out of Iraq and breaking UN resolutions that clearly state the US has an obligation to share all intelligence on alleged Iraqi weapons locations (Bush did not) and that the UN security council has exclusive rights to enforce the UN resolutions. So anybody who claims Bush was enforcing UN resolutions is obviously extremely unfamiliar with even the basic outlines of said resolutions. To follow up this post I'm sure some chronologically challenged Republican is going to contradict me with a hundred Hans Blix quotes from the 1998 inspections. Iraq did not cooperate in 1998. But they did in 2002-2003 according to Dr. Blix. Read "Disarming Iraq." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Forget knowing what we know now, I NEVER thought it was a good idea. Afghanistan on the other hand, I was behind from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 Iraq secures both our short and long-term interests in the region. Now, if the lefty elitists want to leave that area and the reaped rewards to the Chinese or the Russians, which is essentially what an U.S. pullout would accomplish, then you really have no ****ing clue how this world works. Thank goodness you're sitting behind a computer instead of running this country. Of course not, any idiot who thinks otherwise doesn't take death to seriously. Gentlemen, please keep it civil and refrain from using words like "idiot" and profanity.Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinthePRF Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Gentlemen, please keep it civil and refrain from using words like "idiot" and profanity.Thank you. Sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 31, 2008 Author Share Posted January 31, 2008 Sorry No problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Absolutely yes. It just didnt go far enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.