Changing mind on Iraq?

[Spartacus]

Prior to our invasion of Iraq most US citizens supported our actions. Polls at the time showed nearly 90% of the US voting public was behind the decision, supported by a vote in Congress, to invade Iraq.

Depending on what polls one looks at, support for our actions there now are somewhere between 45-60%. It is interesting to note that both Bush and Kerry indicate they will continue our efforts in Iraq....so no matter who wins our guys will still be there this time next year and the year after that and the year after that

Surely ther must be some here on this forumn who have changed their minds. If you are one of these people, can you please share with us why you have changed your mind? How is this change of mind affected by-- or affecting --how you will vote this year?

[Atticus]

I haven't changed my mind. I was against the war before it occurred and I remain against it. I seem to follow the direction that my government took prior to the war. I would have supported a UN-lead coalition to attack Iraq. However, I'm not American, so I'm not part of the 55-40% who disagree with it now.

[3rdPersonPlural]

I changed my mind because the rationale for overthrowing Saddam, at least the compelling part of it, turned out to be a fabrication. Further, I assumed that a bulletproof exit strategy was part of the plan, and it seems 'winning the peace' was a neglected afterthought.

[F1Fan]

I was in favor of international cooperation and letting the UN continue their work. I had a bad feeling about the rush towards war and the effects of becoming isolated in this action globally. Why so impatient, why the hurry?

In fact, the blow that revelations of no threat, no WMD to Bush and his decision has only made me feel correct in following my typical prudent questioning. Bush was wrong, I was right.

And that 90% of a population supports a government's initial action has a psychological explanation. That over time the action shows itself to be a bad decision, it is natural that the approval drops, as individuals begin to separate themselves from their government, and look at the action objectively. Social norms show us that few want to identify themselves with failure, and justify any action to feel good about one's nation. But time has a way of enlightening the populace to the true nature of failure, and eventually they want no part of that national icon.

[Spartacus]

I changed my mind because the rationale for overthrowing Saddam, at least the compelling part of it, turned out to be a fabrication. Further, I assumed that a bulletproof exit strategy was part of the plan, and it seems 'winning the peace' was a neglected afterthought.

So how, if at all, does this affect how you intend to vote? And would your vote have been different if we had not invaded Iraq?

[Spartacus]

I was in favor of international cooperation and letting the UN continue their work. I had a bad feeling about the rush towards war and the effects of becoming isolated in this action globally. Why so impatient, why the hurry?

SO would you have voted for the democrat candidate no matter how things turned out in Iraq?

[F1Fan]

SO would have voted for the democrat candidate no matter how things turned out in Iraq?
This makes no sense.

[BU-Rugger]

i was pro-war when we went to war and im still behind our president's position. Saddam needed to be taken out and his country needs to be rebuilt. The U.S. has done it numerous times before and we can and will do it again.

[kwinters]

Prior to our invasion of Iraq most US citizens supported our actions. Polls at the time showed nearly 90% of the US voting public was behind the decision, supported by a vote in Congress, to invade Iraq.

Depending on what polls one looks at, support for our actions there now are somewhere between 45-60%. It is interesting to note that both Bush and Kerry indicate they will continue our efforts in Iraq....so no matter who wins our guys will still be there this time next year and the year after that and the year after that

Surely ther must be some here on this forumn who have changed their minds. If you are one of these people, can you please share with us why you have changed your mind? How is this change of mind affected by-- or affecting --how you will vote this year?

Very typical of people-first they support (nay, demand) something after getting worked up by the adminstration, and now they say "What'd'we go in there fer?"

Ah, the mercurial mind of the electorate....

[Fyshhed]

Well maybe we shouldn't believe what we're told in the first place. That 10% is looking mighty wise to me, as I was pro-war when we first went. I changed my mind when we didn't get what we were told.

[Spartacus]

Well maybe we shouldn't believe what we're told in the first place. That 10% is looking mighty wise to me, as I was pro-war when we first went. I changed my mind when we didn't get what we were told.

I think this comment is probably pretty typical of many. However, anyone who expected our guys to be uncovering warehouses full of WMD has been watching too much Hollywood product.

When the US invaded Iraq Sadam had two options:

1) Deploy his gas and biological agents -- we have found dozens of Sarin Nerve Gas artillery shells. But this would have most likely been ineffective against modern forces well-trained and equipped to defend against such weapons and most like would have succeeded mostly in killing iraqis. This would have made Saddam a monster in the eyes of the Arab world outside Iraq, and US forces would have still beaten the Iraqi Army.

or his second option appears to be what he chose:

2.) Cache and/or ship to Syria al the WMd and fade into the terrian hoping to inflict enough US casualties to raise the frightening spector of Viet Nam and persuade the Americanpublic to withdraw its forces...at which time he would emerge vistorious.

After we entered Baghdad and no WMD were deployed the administartion should have been letting the American pubkic know it would now be extremely difficult to find it. Perhaps even before the invasion this should have been put out there for consumption. But would it have changed anything? I think not. Today the we have a Democratic party that is more concerned political power than policy. More concerned about i8mpressions than ideals.

That is why Kerry, Edwards and CLinton voted for the invasion -- it wasthe thing to do. Thatis why they now are now crying foul -- it is the politically expediantthing to do. Right or wrong makes no difference.

SHould Kerry win, this to will make no difference. We will still have soldiers in Iraq for years to come. Does anyone honestly think more nations will join us.

Spain ran away as soon as some of their citizens were killed in a terrorist attack. South Korea pulled out at the mere threat of one of its citizens being killed. Russia has problems of its own it can not handle. Germany is bogged down in the Balkans and its people will never tolerate a deployment to the Middle East. France?....who needs France anyway?

Anyone voting for Kerry think that will change things in Iraq is just not looking at things realisticly. That is why Zell Miller (D) will be speaking at the Republican COnvention. That is why Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman are not campaigning for Kerry and have publicly stated they support Bush. All these Democrats are more realiistic. The Democratic party sure aint what it used to be.

[Fyshhed]

My opinion on Kerry has nothing to do with Iraq, as it's obvious to anyone that we're stuck there.

However, you have this conclusion that means in order to get those WMD's back we have to go to Syria and Egypt and Iran and Saudi Arabia. Which I assume is the intention of the Bush admin. I understand your thoughts that this could become WWIII... so why not try to stop it before it happens?

[CC]

I think this comment is probably pretty typical of many. However, anyone who expected our guys to be uncovering warehouses full of WMD has been watching too much Hollywood product.

So was Powell then. He needs to quit watching fox news.

Deploy his gas and biological agents -- we have found dozens of Sarin Nerve Gas artillery shells.

That he from all eveidence no longer had. Even if he did, it would have been from the late 80's, and nerve gas does not have a long shelf life.

Cache and/or ship to Syria al the WMd and fade into the terrian hoping to inflict enough US casualties to raise the frightening spector of Viet Nam and persuade the Americanpublic to withdraw its forces...at which time he would emerge vistorious.

Any EVIDENCE of such?

That is why Kerry, Edwards and CLinton voted for the invasion -- it wasthe thing to do. Thatis why they now are now crying foul -- it is the politically expediantthing to do. Right or wrong makes no difference.

So that 90% YOU say was for the invasion of Iraq were also hypocryts if they pulled their support after finding out they had been mislead? Just like Bush gets bashed either way so does Kerry......he was for it when Powell was waving maps showing spots where there were WMD's and Bush flapping about Saddam being an iniment threat.......:O)

[KevinBrowning]

Prior to our invasion of Iraq most US citizens supported our actions. Polls at the time showed nearly 90% of the US voting public was behind the decision, supported by a vote in Congress, to invade Iraq.

That's true.


Depending on what polls one looks at, support for our actions there now are somewhere between 45-60%. It is interesting to note that both Bush and Kerry indicate they will continue our efforts in Iraq....so no matter who wins our guys will still be there this time next year and the year after that and the year after that

That's true as well. Neither candidate will pull the troops out of Iraq anytime soon; the situation is still far too volatile.


Surely ther must be some here on this forumn who have changed their minds. If you are one of these people, can you please share with us why you have changed your mind? How is this change of mind affected by-- or affecting --how you will vote this year?

I haven't changed my mind about the war. There are many advantages to being rid of Saddam, whether we find WMD or not. He was a cruel leader, he hated the U.S., and he definitely had and used WMD at one point. Now that he's imprisoned, we have the opportunity to help create a democratic Iraq. Success isn't guaranteed, but this is an excellent chance for us to help create a democratic outpost in the Middle East that's friendly towards the U.S., and a staging area to deal with nearby nations that are hostile towards the U.S. Iraq may not have been the biggest threat out of every country, but it was a country whose invasion and change of government was long overdue and justified. It was only the second step (Afghanistan was the first) in what will prove to be a lengthy, but necessary war concentrated in the Middle East.

[Booger]

I think this comment is probably pretty typical of many. However, anyone who expected our guys to be uncovering warehouses full of WMD has been watching too much Hollywood product.

Or perhaps they were merely listening to constant Bush administration charges about the imminent threat Iraqi WMDs posed to our national security.


When the US invaded Iraq Sadam had two options:

1) Deploy his gas and biological agents.

or his second option appears to be what he chose:

2.) Cache and/or ship to Syria al the WMd and fade into the terrian...

lol. Spart, read the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee Report: Iraq had no WMD. Besides, these two "options" to which you refer were repeatedly tossed about prior to the invasion. In other words, they are old theories which have been completely abandoned and have no credibility. Why? Because there were no WMDs.


Today the we have a Democratic party that is more concerned political power than policy. More concerned about impressions than ideals.

Coming from a conservative Republican, all I can say is "ain't that the pot callin the kettle black."


SHould Kerry win, this to will make no difference. We will still have soldiers in Iraq for years to come. Does anyone honestly think more nations will join us.

This is just spurious bullsh*t. Granted, Kerry isn't calling for the immediate withdrawl of troops, but we're there and it is in our national security interests to make sure that a power vacuum in Iraq does not develop, plunging the region into chaos. And the difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry wouldn't have gotten us into this complete mess to begin with. You can rest assured that should Kerry win, this hopelessly optimistic, Israeli-centric PNAC preemptive war doctrine adopted in full by the Bush administration will be abandoned. And that, my hopelessly misguided friend, is a HUGE difference.


France?....who needs France anyway?

Freedom Fries, anyone? lol.


Anyone voting for Kerry think that will change things in Iraq is just not looking at things realisticly. That is why Zell Miller (D) will be speaking at the Republican COnvention. That is why Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman are not campaigning for Kerry and have publicly stated they support Bush. All these Democrats are more realiistic. The Democratic party sure aint what it used to be.

:lol: Come on!

Re Zell Miller, Zell Miller is a conservative democrat from the deep South who is retiring from the Senate (and was elected in 2000 to replace a Republican Senator) and has been a reliable Republican vote on almost every issue before the Senate. This is (and should be) no surprise to anyone who knows anything about US politics.

Re Joe Lieberman supporting Bush over Kerry for President? Hmmm...I wonder how he'll toss this little surprise in when he speaks at the Democratic National Convention next week. GTFOH, foo. :p


Surely ther must be some here on this forumn who have changed their minds.

Not me. I was adamantly against the war before it started and am still adamantly against the decision to go to war. Partly because I know Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al were full of sh*t, partly because I knew American lives and $ would be wasted in an ultimately futile effort and partly because I knew that lies and brash preemptive war was not in the long term interests of this country.

In other words, I was right...and you were wrong.

[Booger]

Success isn't guaranteed, but this is an excellent chance for us to help create a democratic outpost in the Middle East that's friendly towards the U.S., and a staging area to deal with nearby nations that are hostile towards the U.S.

A "staging area"? A "staging area" for what, KevBo?

KevBo say:


A lengthy, but necessary war concentrated in the Middle East.

Hmmm. I see...

You're nuts, kid.

[Spartacus]

Freedom Fries, anyone? lol.

Allez Vous encoulez!

[Fyshhed]

Allez Vous encoulez!
Mais j'aime bien les frites quand ils sont francais. :(

[Spartacus]

Mais j'aime bien les frites quand ils sont francais. :(

Les pommes frites oui?

Je pense vous ne comprendez pas encouler...heheheheheheheheh.

[ShadowKnight]

A "staging area"? A "staging area" for what, KevBo?

a staging area as in an example or a standard in which other nations can see and might try out. Could be doubtful, but starting a democracy would really seem good for the people of Iraq, they weren't too happy with Saddam in power.



Hmmm. I see...

You're nuts, kid.

considering that we have many enemies out in the ME, it was a good step, and now we are developing two friendly nations (afganistan and iraq), to be our allys. with Saddam in power, no one's future looked bright.

[Atticus]

now we are developing two friendly nations (afganistan and iraq), to be our allys.

The US just loves it's little puppets.

[ShadowKnight]

yeah, that's why we left the control up to Iraq on June 28th to run their own government o_0

[F1Fan]

I think this comment is probably pretty typical of many. However, anyone who expected our guys to be uncovering warehouses full of WMD has been watching too much Hollywood product.
Is Fox News produced in Hollywood? I didn't know that.

[Atticus]

yeah, that's why we left the control up to Iraq on June 28th to run their own government o_0

I wasn't aware Iraq had democratically elected their president.

[Zenstone]

I hadn't made up my mind on whether to invade Iraq before we did.

However, I had decided that it was a premature shirking of Congress' constitutional duties to vote-away their war powers to the President in 2002. The Founders constructed several barriers to declaring war; specifically, they disallowed the Executive branch to make such a decision. Congress neatly scooted around the checks and balances. I think they did it primarily for a political boost. As usual, those who guessed wrong are back-peddling.

So, I haven't changed my mind in Iraq because I never made-up my mind. My opinion of how we're "handling" it is more to Spartacus' views, in general. Although I will continue to debate the justification in the abstract, I think Spart will agree that once one has committed...then one ought to commit in earnest.

I haven't decided how to vote in November. I keep hoping someone else will run for both parties.:)

[Telex]

I supported the war in the begining, but don't now. The lack of WMD's was the real kicker, plus the discovery that all information that lead to our invasion was faulty.

And Michael Moore. He has shown me the light and is my new lord and savior. I only wish that all conservatives would hear him with an open mind, because if they did they would agree with his views 100%. Then we would live in a modern utopia. Oh Mikey, when will they learn?

[FruitandNut]

I supported the war in the begining, but don't now. The lack of WMD's was the real kicker, plus the discovery that all information that lead to our invasion was faulty.

And Michael Moore. He has shown me the light and is my new lord and savior. I only wish that all conservatives would hear him with an open mind, because if they did they would agree with his views 100%. Then we would live in a modern utopia. Oh Mikey, when will they learn?

I agree about the extreme conservatives, but you forgot all the other extremists, whose intolerence and lack of humour are all competeing to make this world an unhappy place.

Your sentiment, oh, Mikey, WHEN WILL THEY EVER LEARN? smacks of the great Bob Dylan. To which I optimistically answer - try, 'the second coming of Christ'.

[Apollinax]

Why would you have supported a UN-led coalition but not a US-led coalition?

[FruitandNut]

I suppose that some people like to feel that full UN approval would lend an extra dimention to legitimacy, but two problems immediately spring to mind.

1/ Getting anything even slightly controversial past the various perceptions and agendas that make up the 'United' Nations is at best notoriously difficult and may take many years and millions of dollars and the suffering of millions of people before enough butts are stirred into action.

2/ As Uncle Sam would most likely be the largest contributor of personnel, it would be reasonable that US military and political leadership would be in the van/ lead/control anyway.

[FruitandNut]

I wasn't aware Iraq had democratically elected their president.

It will be interesting to see how the election goes, and what form of 'legitimate' government is allowed to crawl out of the primordial soup.