Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What would it take for you?
eu4ea    3/13/2007 5:21:01 PM
I have a question for the remaining war supporters; What, if anything, would it take for you, personally, to say "I was wrong: invading Iraq was a mistake, we shouldnt have done that". 'Nothing' is not actually an option - it's just a way of saying "reality does not affect my thought process", so in that case you might as well cut to the chase and say that. As for possibilities, it could be things like; - The 'surge' fails, and violence continues to escalate as it has for years - Sadr, backed by Iran, takes over in Iraq - Iraq becomes a failed state and a harbour for extremists in the heart of the middle east - Our casualties pass X number - The war's cost exceeds that of Vietnam (or Korea, or WWII) - Oil costs skyrocket as a result of continued violence and we get a worldwide recession - Republicans lose the Presidency in addition to losing the House and the Senate - We get defeated in Afghanistan due to lack of troops - Bush gets impeached over the manipulation of pre-war intelligence This is not a facetious question; a large majority of Americans (including myself) have transitioned from largely supporting the war to opposing it, and I'm wondering what (if anything) could make the remaining supporters change their view. Heart, eu4ea
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
Herc the Merc    U are forgetting another option   3/13/2007 5:23:33 PM
Basing troops in Kuwait with small force in Iraq, that is the likely outcome.
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       3/13/2007 5:58:36 PM

I have a question for the remaining war supporters;

What, if anything, would it take for you, personally, to say "I was wrong: invading Iraq was a mistake, we shouldnt have done that".

'Nothing' is not actually an option - it's just a way of saying "reality does not affect my thought process", so in that case you might as well cut to the chase and say that.

As for possibilities, it could be things like;
- The 'surge' fails, and violence continues to escalate as it has for years
That doesn't appear to be the case actually, in fact it appears that it is working. The SURGE is more than just increased troops, there are different tactics being used. The General now in charge, wrote the book on US COIN ops.

- Sadr, backed by Iran, takes over in Iraq

This does not at all seem likely, in fact the longentivity of the current Iranian regime as a whole conceivably can be questioned. Look at the news the last few days. Even Russia is begining to play hardball and there are rumblings of discontent within the Iranian government

- Iraq becomes a failed state and a harbour for extremists in the heart of the middle east

If we leave that WILL happen, the only hope of that not happening is staying there.

- Our casualties pass X number

Proportionately, causualties are 5x less then that of Vietnam, but hey, every life is precious. The troops beleive in what they are doing, (60 minutes did not show the entire story) overwhelmingly still. And the fact is that there are areas of IRAQ that are now quite stable, and yes areas that still have much work to do.

- The war's cost exceeds that of Vietnam (or Korea, or WWII)

I am sorry, lame argunent, whether we were wrong to go there or not, we are there and cost is something that is set in the cards.

- Oil costs skyrocket as a result of continued violence and we get a worldwide recession

Oil prices did sky rocket, there was no recession, to use this argument is to empower those who would attempt this argument. Basically. If they were to escalate to the point that a recession would occur, it would have happened tweo years ago. It didn't

- Republicans lose the Presidency in addition to losing the House and the Senate

A democratic presidency is not at all assured. Congress was won more by a flurry of highly publkicised scandals and immagration issues than it was the war. That is a fact clearly indicated in post election polls. Frankly, no matter what the dems say and are doing to embarases the white housee, they are not yet going to withdraw from Iraq, they KNOW the ramifications of that.. Politics is a wild sport.

- We get defeated in Afghanistan due to lack of troops

That is NOT going to happen, that is not anywhere near happening, and that is just a atlking point DEMOCRATS USE. We are as we speak adding forces to afganistan in anticipation of a sporing offensive, and have already started operations to stem it. That argument simply lacks knowledge of US Military Capabilty Lame Arguement. We are also placing special forces troops all over Africa as we speak, somalia, Etheopia and many more regions.

- Bush gets impeached over the manipulation of pre-war intelligence

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OF THIS AT ALL! PERIOD NADDA, ALL THERE IS IS ASSERTIONS FROM THE ANTI WAR WING OF THE DNC, THIS IS JUST NOT EVEN A VIABLE ARGUMENT>


This is not a facetious question; a large majority of Americans (including myself) have transitioned from largely supporting the war to opposing it, and I'm wondering what (if anything) could make the remaining supporters change their view.

I actually will dispute your claim that a LARGE MAJORITY of Americans  have. That is not what the detailed polls actually say, when asked if we should pull out, the Majority of americans say no, as far as it being a mistake your statement has some merit, but still irrelevent, we are there and MUST finish.

Heart,

eu4ea

My feeling is that George Bush will be treated very kindly when historians look back at this 10 years from now.
 
Quote    Reply

BadNews       3/13/2007 6:00:56 PM

Basing troops in Kuwait with small force in Iraq, that is the likely outcome.



Anyone with any miltary experience will tell you that that is the worst thing that could be done right now, It would just prolong the entire war
 
Quote    Reply

eu4ea       3/13/2007 7:51:10 PM
BadN,

That wasnt the question.  The question was what, if anything, would cause to re-consider your position (assuming you still believe invading Iraq was a good idea).

Those were simply a few examples of the kinds of possible developments that may cause people to reconsider their initial pro-war views. There's not much point in going through a point-by-point refutation of a set of examples - it doesnt much matter whether your opinion or mine is that any one of them is likely, unlikely or somewhat likely.

Heart,

eu4ea


 
Quote    Reply

anuts       3/13/2007 8:04:38 PM
>>"What, if anything, would it take for you, personally, to say "I was wrong: invading Iraq was a mistake, we shouldnt have done that"."<<-Eu4ea
 
Pardon my ignorance, but I still fail to see where this exercise in reflection offers anything of substance. Suppose 100% of all war supporters did this; what then...?
 
Quote    Reply

eu4ea       3/13/2007 9:37:44 PM
Just curious to find out what other people think, in more nuanced way.

I find that the debate can otherwise get pretty sterile: "I'm for the war" - "well, I'm against it" doesnt communicate much other than disagreement. 

Like most people I was initially in favor of the invasion - I believed Colin Powell, I had faith in the report he presented, I believed the Administration's estimates of how many troops/time/money it doing this would cost us, and I believed our policy was to come in, take out an inmediate threat and get out. Taken together, those things proving to be false was my personal tipping point. 

Now I look back on it and think "wow, I was wrong - this was a terrible idea, the writing was on the wall from the beginning and I failed to see it". I'm wondering what others feel - and what (if anything) would cause the remaining war supporters to re-examine their previous views.

Heart,

eu4ea


 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       3/13/2007 9:41:07 PM

 It would help if the opponents were more polite and made more of an effort to appear like they knew what they were talking about. Presumably a number do but the most visible voices are the most stupid. A lot of them seem like they don't know the first thing about war, international relations, or the Middle East and mainly yell insults.
And yes that does go both ways. Everybody can learn their subject and can at least pretend that they think their political opponents to be human.

 
Quote    Reply

Photon       3/13/2007 10:26:23 PM

The invasion of Iraq is not wrong, insofar as I am concerned, in a strategic sense.  For those who think the war is a mistake, they have not been presenting an alternative strategy.  Diplomacy not backed by force is not strategy.
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       3/13/2007 10:43:08 PM
This war somewhat crushed my spirit along the way, but if you're saying that you've found reasons why this war wasn't a  necessary, justified, legal, noble thing to do, then you also missed the writing on the wall for the previous 12 years. I could be against this war in the sense that I think it's wrong to send our men and women as underdogs into urban combat. I'm not sure if we need a humvee that's impervious to IED's(not that we couldn't produce one, we have vehicles that can sit on the bottom of the ocean and destroy the entire country, insurgency, terrorists and WMD's included) or if we just need to use the weapons and technology that we have at our disposal. We might have to actually look out for ourselves first, for once....
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       3/13/2007 10:59:45 PM
Not to mention our soldiers can't fire a single round in self-defense without filing a report and triggering an investigation. No exaggeration. I wonder whether they lay awake at night, more worried about terrorists, or being imprisoned for shooting a terrorist.
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics