Iraq War, with what you know now

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
So, I heard this discussion on the radio and the question was asked:

If you knew then what we know now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


It didn't make any sense to me then, so my answer hasn't changed.
 
No.

I wouldn't have supported it at the time time either...but I never said much about it.
 
I fully supported putting troops over there, on Saddam's doorstep. The night before the invasion I was having another argument with a co-worker. As normal, I was defending Bush, and he was trash talking him. He actually believed Bush was going to invade Iraq!

I told him there was not going to be a war. Bush has won. Saddam has admitted defeat, and everythings gonna be cool :)

What a fool I was :boggled:
 
I did not like it when at first the U.N. inspectors were in Iraq and progress reports were given to us, only for almighty Bush to pull the plug on this and decide to invade without a 'show of hands', so to speak. I always thought Bush had it in him from the start to try to clean up what his dad never finished.

*I* never felt threatened by Iraq in the sense that unless we defeat Iraq, Iraq would soon be taking over the U.S. and the world...or anything. I was waiting for all the evidence (WMD's and all that) to be disected first rather than rush to judgement. But Bush rushed to judgement.

And yes, we rid the world of an evil dictator. But did WE have that right to be the police force to do so? Did the rest of the world give us their blessing? Hardly.

And now look where this has got us, both financilally and in standing with the world. And 2012 beckons! (Gulp!)
 
Upchurch said:
So, I heard this discussion on the radio and the question was asked:

If you knew then what we know now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

It didn't make any sense to me then, so my answer hasn't changed.
Click to expand...
I'm in the same boat with you, but had I known the calumny that was used to justify the war, I might have been a lot more vocal in my opposition. I really did think they had a few WMDs, but not enought to go to war over.
 
Hmmm. I would have rather focused all of our efforts on Afghanistan to be honest. But I can't help thinking that Suddam would have been a threat to us or Israel later on...A man like that is never up to any good and we would have probably had to deal with him sooner or later. Just my .02
 
Upchurch said:
So, I heard this discussion on the radio and the question was asked:

If you knew then what we know now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


It didn't make any sense to me then, so my answer hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

"Then" was the first and only time I have ever gone into the streets to protest something. I think massive protests actually were a factor in my government's decision to stay out of the war. I will never forget when (then) Prime Minister Jean Chretien stood up in the House of Commons and said we would not be sending troops to Iraq. It was a proud moment for Canadian democracy. Knowing what we know now, (which is really just saying that the things many of us were predicting have come to fruition), that decision is all the more satisfying.
 
Upchurch said:
So, I heard this discussion on the radio and the question was asked:

If you knew then what we know now, would you have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003?


It didn't make any sense to me then, so my answer hasn't changed.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I thought it was a dumb idea back then, and hindsight hasn't improved the idea any.

At the same time, I also feel that having gone there, we've created an obligation to try to stabilize the area before leaving.
 
I favored the invasion. Mostly because I thought it was necessary to trust the president on a decision like this. I thought he had input from defectors, from the CIA, from some of the best Iraqi analysts in the world and that he was in the best position to make the right decision. Forcing out the inspectors made me suspicious, but not enough so that I didn't think trusting the president was appropriate in this situation.

At the time I didn't know about PNAC, the neo-conservative movement, and the huge impact that Cheney and his shadow government had on American policy. I didn't understand the depths of the Bush administration corruption and ineptitude. If I had understood any of that I would have of course opposed the war in every legal way possible.

With hindsight, the war has turned out worse than I might have imagined even if I had known about the issues in the previous paragraph.

Over the next year or so we are entering the final phase of this war I suspect. The Republican support is disappearing. I expect the Republican candidates who have cynically backed the war to gain favor in the primaries to work to force the president's hands to begin troop draw downs and to implement the Iraq Study Group's recommendations as the general election time approaches. Bushco has pushed on with a strategy that's main benefit seems to be to delay the time when he needs to admit to himself what a major **** up this whole thing was. I wonder how many soldiers Bush is willing to sacrifice to accomplish that. Or maybe the question should be how many soldiers Cheney is willing to sacrifice to accomplish that. I suspect the answer to that question is a whole lot.
 
I know now what I knew then, wasn't anyone paying attention to the weapons inspectors WE sent there??
 
I supported the war then but not because Pres Push said so. I was of the opinion Saddam should have been removed in 1991. I still share that opinion. That being said Bush I, II & Clinton have mismanaged policy on Iraq in every aspect since.
 
I was of the opinion Saddam should have been removed in 1991.
Click to expand...
Do you know why Bush 41 didn't "remove" Hussein in '91?

eta:
In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.

--From Wikipedia
More
 
Last edited:
jimtron said:
Do you know why Bush 41 didn't "remove" Hussein in '91?

eta:
In a foreign policy move that would later be questioned, President Bush achieved his stated objectives of liberating Kuwait and forcing Iraqi withdrawal, then ordered a cessation of combat operations —allowing Saddam Hussein to stay in power. His Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney noted that invading the country would get the United States "bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq." Bush later explained that he did not give the order to overthrow the Iraqi government because it would have "incurred incalculable human and political costs... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.

--From Wikipedia
More
Click to expand...

There is also the fact that Bush I had an actual very diversified coalition that included Arab states also. Going for an overthrow at that time would have not set well with that group. IMHO Bush I did what needed to be done, and no more. If only the son had learned from the father :boggled:
 
If only the son had learned from the father
Click to expand...

Why ask his dad for advice about dealing with Hussein, when he could consult God Himself?

Bush said he did not remember asking the question of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who fought Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But, he added that the two had discussed developments in Iraq.
"You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.
Click to expand...
 
Nobody seems to have pointed out the paradox in the OP.

As a result of knowing what we know now, we don't know what we would have known had no invasion occurred.

Surely the only sceptical response can be we really don't know whether the potential costs and loss of life might have been greater or less under some other path of events?
 
Geckko said:
Nobody seems to have pointed out the paradox in the OP.

As a result of knowing what we know now, we don't know what we would have known had no invasion occurred.

Surely the only sceptical response can be we really don't know whether the potential costs and loss of life might have been greater or less under some other path of events?
Click to expand...


Give me a break. Being sceptical doesn't mean eternally sitting on the fence.

The costs and loss of life would have been less had the invasion not occurred. The fact that this assertion is only inductively highly probable rather than deductively certain does not make it anti-sceptical.
 
Bush said he did not remember asking the question of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, who fought Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But, he added that the two had discussed developments in Iraq.
"You know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to," Bush said.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a much better father. One that never disagrees with him.
 
D'rok the Lacone said:
Give me a break. Being sceptical doesn't mean eternally sitting on the fence.

The costs and loss of life would have been less had the invasion not occurred. The fact that this assertion is only inductively highly probable rather than deductively certain does not make it anti-sceptical.
Click to expand...

It would seem to me that anything would have been possible. You and others are assiging subjective probabilities using your own priors. How else can you prove that a posited hypothetical alternative outcome would have been "highly probable"?
 
Geckko said:
Nobody seems to have pointed out the paradox in the OP.

As a result of knowing what we know now, we don't know what we would have known had no invasion occurred.

Surely the only sceptical response can be we really don't know whether the potential costs and loss of life might have been greater or less under some other path of events?
Click to expand...


Not quite - for example we now know that the intelligence that governments (and opposition parties) used to decide that an invasion was the correct course of action was not good intelligence.

So we can look today and say "if you had known the weakness of the intelligence would you have still supported the invasion".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom