War on Terror - A Retrospective

[Bloodcinder]

The last eight years have been, well, war-filled. A lot of us used to have certain strongly-held beliefs about the issues. Some of us still do, some of us have changed, and some of us are apathetic. I thought it would be interesting to share how our opinions have evolved over time. I'm sure this will just spark a debate, hence the location of this thread, but I'd like to think of it more as a sharing experience.

I feel a little bit vindicated in my original stance on the war in Iraq, at least. I always thought the connection between Al Qaida and Iraq was very tenuous. I remember saying that I thought WMD was a red herring. Although, despite what anybody will tell you, certain WMD were indeed found, the ones we were told Iraq had were never found because they were not there. I thought then and still think now that WMD was just a ploy to finish the Gulf War after it ended in a fizzle.

I also voted for Bush in 2004, and don't regret my decision, despite the fact that I'm displeased with his conduct as president and how the war has been handled. I think we should have focused more on Afghanistan and Al Qaida than nation-building in Iraq. I'm also disappointed with what's happened to law in this country since the towers were attacked.

I also think, given what we knew at the time, that we were justified in going to war. People like Hillary who did, indeed, vote to go to war were in the right. We were given certain information. Whether it was accurate or not (and it turns out it wasn't), decisions in the legislature had to be based off of it. It's no good for politicians to retcon their decisions based on knowledge they didn't have at the time.

So... I would say my support of the war used to be mixed and still is. Anybody else have any thoughts on it?

[RonDo]

Well, I've been a bit conflicted over the years about the War on/of Terror in the middle east. Once the WTC fall took place, I can safely say I was pretty upset about it and had no problem focusing my hatred towards the terrorists of the middle east.

When we went into Afgan territory, I didn't really have any questions about it. When the momentum carried us into Iraq, I didn't think too much of it either based on the information that was fed. We were also going for Saddam, who I did not like at all, so no problems there either.

Then came the inconsistencies with the story about the WMD's. That is when I was starting to get wishy-washy on my support of the Iraq portion of the campaign. The Abu Grahib (sp?) incident was also lovely as well, not to mention Blackwater, soldier mis-deeds and the like.

Since then I've become a more critical about our involvement in Iraq and my support for it has weakened a great deal. Sure Saddam is gone and I don't see that as a bad thing..but I see it more as an effort to cleanup a mistake on the US' part as opposed to seeking him out for terrorism connections.


Eh, I don't think I was in the right mindset in responding at this point as my thoughts are getting a little jumbled.

I may come back to this later...

[Arainach]

We are far less secure now than we were when it begun. If it had been constrained to Afghanistan and direct surrounding areas like Pakistan, I would have fully supported it. Iraq is most certainly the biggest public policy failure in America since Vietnam, and in the grand scale of things with what it's done to our economy and civil liberties may come to be seen as the biggest failure ever.

[tjkitsune]

Problem is though, we're now so deep in it, it'd hinder us more if we pulled out fully now..

[Arainach]

I disagree. You cannot force Democracy on people. The Iraqi people have shown that given the choice they will elect essentially theocratic leaders. The only way you can force secularism is with a dictator like, say, Saddam. We are spending billions there each day - billions we don't have. We're devaluating our currency, destroying our world credibility, and getting indebted to nations we can't afford to be in debt to. Pulling out and letting it go to hell is FAR better than sticking around and destroying our homeland more.

[Frozen]

Why hasn't iraq attack america?

[tjkitsune]

America is netorious though for its debt. Since founding this country, we've owed money to Europe. It's already so much that we'd have countless centuries of interest and whatnot...

[RonDo]

I disagree. You cannot force Democracy on people. The Iraqi people have shown that given the choice they will elect essentially theocratic leaders. The only way you can force secularism is with a dictator like, say, Saddam. We are spending billions there each day - billions we don't have. We're devaluating our currency, destroying our world credibility, and getting indebted to nations we can't afford to be in debt to. Pulling out and letting it go to hell is FAR better than sticking around and destroying our homeland more.

I agree with this overall. We are spending way too many resources for Iraq as it is. If we pull out now, Iraq will be vulnerable to the swarms wanting to come in. So don't pull out and what will they do? They will just wait and pick away at us until we do leave.

There aren't too many more positives left for us in being there and the longer we stay, more we are gonna be vilified (sp?) for being occupiers and more ammo we provide radicals in gaining support against us.

EDIT: Sure we are notorious for having mountains of debt but that doesn't mean we need to keep increasing our debt to maintain some sort of status quo.
Double Post
Why hasn't iraq attack america?

At this point now, they are practically unable to, let alone defend themselves without our help.

[Bloodcinder]

tj, I believe the debt was reversed at WWII, so the U.S. hasn't always been in debt to Europe.

[Z]

At the time of 9/11, I was definitely for the war. So much so that I almost enlisted.

When we attacked Afghanistan, I wasn't ashamed and continued to support America's endeavor.

When we went into Iraq, I got confused but, with the momentum and the ease of our efforts in Afghanistan and the fact that Saddam was still around, I kinda shrugged and said 'Why not'? Needless to point out, I was not expecting this war to come out of our efforts in Iraq. I thought it was going to be quick. Maybe a year or so. Obviously, I was very wrong.

When they said they attacked Iraq because it had WMDs, it wasn't something that seemed unbelievable to me but if they had just said, "We're going to take out Saddam" or "We're going to seize the oil from this asshole of a dictator" I think they could have avoided a lot of hurdles. People get all pissed off with the idea that the US might have invaded Iraq solely for their oil but I don't understand why. History can tell you that shit happened all the time. Just ask the Native Americans.

In any case, when the WMDs weren't found, for the most part, again, this didn't phase me much. There were plenty of other reasons to take out Saddam.

And now, with Saddam dead, Osama MIA, and with our troops still in Iraq, I can't help but be disappointed. From the troops, you hear many good things about their actions in the middle east but you also hear some bad things. From the Media, it's nothing but bad news and how we fucked up and how we should have never been there to begin with and so on. That fixed mindset doesn't inspire a lot of faith in the idea of matter-of-fact news reporting and, with that said, it seems almost impossible to get a general idea of how we are actually doing over there. How the newly trained Iraqi police are coping. How the overall crime has fluctuated from when we began our invasion until now.

In short, I started off with faith in our cause and now I'm just confused about the entire situation.

[Seegtease]

I think we should have focused more on Afghanistan and Al Qaida than nation-building in Iraq.

Yes. I was never clear on why we really went to begin with. To turn them into a nation where the people have a better voice? To remove a tyrannical ruler? There are other countries with those situations, why not them? Well, we can't help them all, and although it's nice to do a service for the people, we really can't afford it.

But we can't just leave until we have some completion here. What bigger slap in the face can we offer our troops and families who lost troops than to tell them their sacrifice yielded no fruit? Maybe we shouldn't have gotten involved, but it's not a hopeless cause, and we're in it now.

[Gio Takahashi]

It's a tough dilemma. I personally believe that they should've gone to Afghanistan and dealt with al-qeada rather than Iraq, when there's little to no business. It's what I've always said, he's just finishing what his daddy started.

[Seegtease]

I don't know why everybody has to use the term "daddy" as if it's childish for him to want to finish something that was started. Heck, even if it wasn't his father he still might have wanted to finish it. It's an adult decision, I see no reason to phrase it so patronizingly.

[Arainach]

No, refusal to accept the brutal reality of what's around you and saying 'nyah, nyah, it's my way or no way' is childish - extremely so.

[Gio Takahashi]

I wasn't mocking Bush and his 'daddy' ina childish way it's just something that I've always said, only you know, to make fun of him. The only good thing I do see out of this, is the fact that Saddam Hussein is gone. IMO, just that the war is just so much of a mess than it should've been.