Against the War in Iraq? Why?

[Warfish]

I think it would be interesting to hear the specific reasons why so many folks are against the Iraq War, conceptually speaking.

So tell us, why are YOU against the War (defined as "we should not have invaded Iraq at all and must get out ASAP").

I only have one request, please try to be concise. a 40-page manifesto is not what we're looking for here, more short-to-the-point bulletpoints on your issues.

[King Ryan]

what if we're against it but not for pulling out ASAP?

[parafly]

We stirred up a bee's nest.

[Sourceworx]

Because the true threat is in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Our efforts should be focused on them.

[PlumberKhan]

First off...I'm not against the war entirely. Invasion? Yes. War? No. It's the whole "more than one way to skin a cat" theory. This "idea" our civilian leadership had of an easy victory in Iraq was sadly a pipe dream. I think we would have been better off sending Tomahawk after Tomahawk until Saddam was in a million little pieces, letting the inevitable chaos ensue and watch it from a safe distance. After all the crazy people were done settling their century old blood feuds, then maybe we could of stepped in and officiated.

I understand that not all wars go according to plan and that you go to war with "the Army you have not the Army you want". But being unbendingly obstinate in the face of so many tactical errors may be considered by many to be a horrible character flaw.

Before the war started, there were many people who argued that the invasion and post war occupation wouldn't be as easy as the administration thought. Words like "cakewalk", "open arms", "flowers" and "liberators" never really conveyed the realities on the ground. We were told it would practically pay for itself and it wouldn't probably last more than 6 months. :confused:

Democrat VS. Republican.....kinda like choosing which one of the three stooges you want to conduct your brain surgery.

[Jetdawgg]

Against the Iraq war due to the following:

No WMD's - how could Iraq have built anything with the sanctions against them for years?

Saddam was not a threat to the US, he barely was a threat to region after 1991/92

Why did we not let the weapons inspectors continue to look for more (any) WMD's? What was the rush?

Saddam did not attack the WTC.

Getting into this war has caused more allies to leave our side. Most of our allies did not want us to invade Iraq. The "coalition of the willing" was pathetic. Now it is the "coalition of the dwindling"

It has also increased the risk of terrorism. There are more enemies that hate us that before. Also they are more willing to target our allies and former allies.
(GB/Spain)

Took our eyes off of Afghanistan.

Took our eyes off of CALA

Raised the price of oil drastically

Bush failed to protect our ports/airports/borders/railways etc.

War is a resource drain. Too costly, lives, limbs and dollars.

Now the fact that they are sending injured troops and don't have medical facilities to properly care for the wounded just aggravates the situation.

We now can see that the war was poorly managed with no clear cut goals.

Republican congress did no oversight and rubber stamped everything.

I have to stop now, the list may never end.

To get out immediately is just as irresponsible as getting into this mess. That is the difference in this congress and the last. Oversight, thought and responsibility.

I only hear the republicans really saying "cut the funds".Even on this board.

[quantum]

We should be killing alot more Sunnis than we are now.

[Winstonbiggs]

I wasn't against the war, I'm against the outcome.

[JetsFan2012]

I supported the war, but the execution was a nightmare. Complete tactical disaster. Rumsfeld should take most, if not all, of the blame for that. He was an example of complete arrogance and incompetence in liasoning (is that a word?) between the executive and the armed forces.

The "troop surge" is something we should have done from the very beginning. It's probably too late now to make a real difference. The immediate de-Baathification of authority positions in the country absolutely killed us, too.

[cr726]

I am and was against the war in Iraq.

One thing that happens in life, there aren't always easy answers for very difficult questions.

If you are asking questions just to look for YOUR ANSWER, then you shouldn't be asking the question at all.

This Administration took the PRIVATE SECTOR type of management and tried to apply it to the CIA, FBI and the military. Meaning if someone doesn't give you the answer you are looking for, find someone who will.

This Administration came into office believing that the CIA and FBI knew less than they do and steamrolled them until they found people who would tell them whatever they wanted to BELIEVE.

Now it is all coming full circle and we are all paying for it. We are all paying for this Administration's arrogance.

[Warfish]

I was 100% the Invasion of Iraq.

I believed that we had to finish Afganistan completely first (i.e. Peaceful Democratic State along the lines of post-WWII Japan).

I believed that Iran would ultimately prove to be the larger Middeastern danger.

I believed that fighting a split two-front War would be too much for even a post-9/11 American civilian population.

I believed that we would repeat our failures in Vietnam, and limit our forces and tactics too heavily.

I believed the Iraqi people would not fight for Freedom themselves.

And while I didn't think it then (after all, I am just a schlub) I should have known a few things as well:

I should have known the Left would use the War for political gain.

I should have known the Bush Admin would never split the nation a la Post-WWII Germany.

I should have known that the Modern Media would not be favorable to teh US Cause.

All told, the Invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea with a very limited amount of good coming out of it (Death of Saddam).

But once you're there......well, once we were in my feelings had to change. But that is a different topic.

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=Warfish]I should have known the Left would use the War for political gain.[/QUOTE]

Yeah the right didn't do that first and for several years before America woke up and realized that the left is right!

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=Tanginius]Yeah the right didn't do that first and for several years before America woke up and realized that the left is right![/QUOTE]

*sigh* :rolleyes:

The Party not in Power would use the War to gain power form the party in power.

Better? :rolleyes:

[Rich Miano]

Over 3,000 U.s soldiers killed. Over 10,000 seriously wounded. Ten's of Thousands of Iraqi's dead including innocent women and children.

J.F.K once said during the Cuban Missile crises when he was getting pressure to invade "How does a man get to such a point in his life where he can say those lives are expendable"

George Bush and all the other chicken-hawks in his administration[Cheney,Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz,etc]who never served in combat,and in fact did all they could to avoid it obviously felt they could decide who's life was expendable.

The non-existant threat didn't justify the human cost.

[bitonti]

-no reasonable way to win
-no clear or reachable goals
-doesn't make the USA safer

[King Ryan]

[QUOTE=Warfish]*sigh* :rolleyes:

The Party not in Power would use the War to gain power form the party in power.

Better? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

*sigh* :rolleyes:

the party in power would use the war to increase their power over hte party not in power before America woke up and gave power to the party not in power after realizing the HUGE mistake the previous party in power had made which set this country back big time!


better? :rolleyes:

[kennyo7]

1. Saddam was not a threat to the USA. He was a toothless tiger.
2. Saddam did not have Nuclear Capabilities nor was he even close to getting them. Outside of any leftover chemical/biological weapons that we sold to him, he had verry little if anything remotely resemling a WMD cache. He had no active WMD program.
3. Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and was not in any way working with Al Queda. Infact, AQ and Saddam were bitter enemies Each one tried to take out the other. (See the APB Saddam put out to capture Zarqawi).
4. Saddam, while an evil despot, provided a buffer zone between Shia Iran and the rest of the ME. It made no sense to remove the one natural enemy that bordered Iran. Why would we want to strengthen Iran's scope of influence into Iraq?
5. The goal of creating a "western style democracy allied with the USA" was not realistic. Any vote in Iraq would put a Shia govt in place. In all likelihood(and as we see today) that govt would have strong ties to Tehran and would never see them as a "terrorist nation" or an "enemy". How could we expect a govt to be friendly with Iran (a nation we have called a terror state and part of the 'axis of evil') and still be a partner with us in the WOT?? This makes no sense.
6. Sectarian violence was inevitable and a civil war was more than likely outcome of toppling Saddam. This goes down to the fact that Iraq was never a real country. It was put together by imperial England using artificial boundaries. It forced different tribe who hated each other to live together, and that was only accomplished by brutal rule. Saddam ruled with an iron fist, but he was hardly sectarian. He had both Shia and Sunnis in his govt. He was a nationalist. Didnt care about religion. He murdered all opponents whether Shia or Sunni. However he himself was Sunni, and that created a "mirage" of Sunni rule for some 35 years. Once Saddam fell, the leadership vacuum would be filled by the Shia majority, namely by the "religious Shia Leadership" and their militias. The Sunnis have been left out from any real power in Iraq. They have essentially no say. This has given rise to sectarianism and the civil war that we now see. This was all predicted before we went to war by ME experts. But no one listened.
7. Taking Saddam out only strengthens Iran, how could that be good in the fight for the WOT??

[sect112row36]

Cost > Benefit
By cost i mean American lives vs overall benefit to the US.

Despite the fact that I believe we had every right to invade, just because something is justified doesnt mean its the best course of action.

any of you college kids out there
looking to compile all the inane, incorrect, uneducated, unsophisticated,
anti-patriotic, un-American, political opinions of America/the world today
for a class essay
look no further than this thread-
all your materials right here

itll please your prof to no end

you wont be right but youll get an A-
thats all that matters

do a cost/benefit analysis and youll see

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=flushingjet]any of you college kids out there
looking to compile all the inane, incorrect, uneducated, unsophisticated,
anti-patriotic, un-American, political opinions of America/the world today
for a class essay
look no further than this thread-
all your materials right here

itll please your prof to no end

you wont be right but youll get an A-
thats all that matters

do a cost/benefit analysis and youll see[/QUOTE]

any of you drop outs out there
who dont care about the facts or the truth
who would rather blindly follow, rather than stop and think
who dont care about the consequences of your actions
who dont care about why you are asking the troops to make the ultimate sacrifice
who dont care if the outcome of your actions leaves america in a weaker position, so long as ya kill some "ragheads" even if they pose no threat to you.....

just listen to toilet jet