Was it worth it?

View Poll Results :Do you still think it was a good decision to attack Iraq?
Yes! 24 66.67%
No, not anymore! 1 2.78%
No, never thought it was! 11 30.56%
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll

August 26th, 2003  

Topic: Was it worth it?

Several months has gone since Bush declared that the war in Iraq was over on (May 1).

But more US service members have died after the war was "over" than during the war.
And it's still no sign of Saddam, or any weapons of mass destruction.

Between March 20 and May 1, 138 US service members died, 116 in combat.
But from May 1 until today 139 has died (the last one today, from 130th Engineer Brigade), 61 in hostile actions.... (Numbers from cnn.com)
And we are seeing an increase in hostile actions against other nations too.

I'm just curious if you think it was worth it to attack Iraq at that point?

Is the world a better place now, is this a cause worth dying for???

My personal opinion is that the weapons inspectors should have been given more time....

Do not misunderstand me in this post, as a soldier who has been abroad several times I have the deepest respect for those who served, and those who are serving in Iraq now!
I just think that the trigger-happy politicians who decided to attack Iraq should have been sent down to the frontlines themselves to see what it’s all about!!

I know I would have been seriously pi..ed-off if me or a good friend was wounded, or even worse, killed, for some fake weapons reports and some hasty decisions…

....Phew.... Just had to let some steam out here, I tend to get wery upset everytime I watch the news and see that more good men has been killed or wounded down there......
August 27th, 2003  
To be honest, I wouldn't have cared if the reports were fake (which I must VERY strongly stress I do not believe to be the case), although it would have of course lowered those involved in my esteem, I still would have supported the decision to go to Iraq. I believe that what we have accomplished and will accomplish there has and will further justify the war. The thousands upon thousands who have died under Saddam and would almost certainly have continued to die as a result of his "reign of terror" demanded action. Our position as a super power makes it, in my opinion, our duty to act in the defense of those who do not have the ability to do so themselves (De Oppresso Liber, right?). Obviously there is no way for us to "clean up" the entire world, but when we have the opportunity to clean one corner of it while at the same time increasing international security (a point many would like to argue, but one that I feel must not be declared either way until more time has passed, neither Rome nor peace were built in a day), there is no excuse for NOT doing everything in our power to do so.
I know that it may seem as though I am playing armchair quarterback, and no doubt some will dismiss my opinion as the result of "not having been there," I am not wholly out of it. For myself, I am requesting a station in the middle east with the Armored Cavalry upon completion of my ROTC, and at that point it is in the Army's hands. One of my buddies that I grew up with WAS actually wounded in action during his service with the 3rd ID in Iraq, and many of my friends are still over there. I pray for their safe return, and I stand 100% behind what they are fighting for in Iraq.
(Not to say the war and the post-war situation have been run perfectly, but they are about as good or better than any such situation has ever been throughout history.)
August 27th, 2003  
I do partially agree with you Redneck....

If the main reason to attack Iraq was to help the Iraqi's I would have agreed with you, but I don't think it was....

"Saddam, the biggest threat to world peace to day" "Just one year away from having nuclear weapons" "Chemical weapons hidden around Baghdad (and the rest of Iraq), ready to be released in the event of an attack"...
Those where the reasons I saw on the news everyday before the attack.
If the reason for attacking Iraq was that Bush felt sorry for the people in Iraq, then I believe that there were several other regimes around the world, which threats their people much much worse than Saddam did, who deserved to be attacked first....

But they do not have oil!!

I have become wery skeptic to news from wars after serving in Macedonia and Bosnia before, during and after the Kosovo campaign..
What I saw down there, and what I saw on the news was two completely different things..
And I'm sorry to say that CNN was worst..
Euronews was the most "neutral" one, but the news wasn't right all the time there either.

I'm just saying that one thing is defending and dying for your own country, but one other thing is to be sent to a foreign land to fight for some unknown cause...

And again, I'm NOT anti USA, just a bit anti Bush.....
The war did happen, and now we must do whatever we can to stabilize Iraq, and make it a better country to live in! And I do support the troops down there 100% in their work!
I just don't support the reasons why to attack Iraq...

(And I'm curious about what you think in the States. It's easy to sit here in Norway and criticize the decisions when we did not have any 9/11 or any increase in hostility towards us....)
August 27th, 2003  
I am really very split. My feelings were mixed going into the war actually, and I thought the job could have been done differently, but still with force. As a Catholic, I really couldn't say I was for war, but also as a Catholic, I felt the world had a responsibility to free the Iraqi people. I say the war was needed, but Franks and Shiniski (spelling?) made blunders coming into the war. They fought it to conventionally, and should have turned to counterinsugency ops as soon as they new these Feddeyen guys meant buissiness. And if you wondering about the WMDs, check this new report out, Redleg might no a little about this place: http://www.military.com/Intel/Detail...,00.html#34782

Redleg, I can summon up US news...

CNN: Obviously a left-leaning news source until the war started and then they hired a bunch of Generals (Including former NATO Commander Wesley Clark) and telivised the war like a sporting event.

Fox News: Had one of there guys give away the position of the 101st and was expelled from the country.

And on whole this is what it looked like. It seemed all the sources took up anti-war and perhaps anti-Bush sentiments before the war, and then jumped on the Bandwagon once things started to look up again, declaring themselves are patriotic. Now they have gone back to there opposition. I cant stand getting US news anymore, cause they have istorted the wars image. Remember the smiling Iraqi kids? There still there, but the news has focused all attention on US opposition, which has made a real moral problem. I dont even listen to US news anymore, get everything I need off the internet.

Lastly, Redneck brings up a very good point, that we have an obligation to help, as I belive. Looking back at Clintons administration, you will see that he 1) Ignored genocides in Rwanda 2) Pulled out of Somalia without stabalizing anything 3) Intervened in Kosovo after millions were already dead.

I just don't belive thousands upon thousands have to die in far away places without us doing anything. This is my biggest gripe with the left over here. There always talking about being against war like there good people or moral, but they fail to acknowledge the killings in far off places, fail to show any compation. It's fine to say you dont like Bush because of this war, but put yourself in the iraqi's shoes. It's not all about us, and I think we need to take a step back and realize that if everyone is truely equal as they say, we have a responsibility to protect people subjected by tryanny.
August 27th, 2003  
Originally Posted by GuyontheRight
It's not all about us, and I think we need to take a step back and realize that if everyone is truly equal as they say, we have a responsibility to protect people subjected by tyranny.
I do totally agree with you there.

But I do not think that's the reason why Bush decided to attack Iraq.
When he said things like "I'm going to finish what my father started", he sounds too much like a cowboy to me...
I don't think Clinton would have done it, and even a veteran like Norman Schwarzkopf was against it.

If I had been asked to go down there I would probably have gone.
For as you say: "we have a responsibility to protect".
And as Patton once said: ”I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, (and I win where I fight.)".
And I could have pretended that I was there to liberate the Iraqi people.

As for the WMDs, I really hope that they find some evidence of that soon.
I do believe that he had something, but not that they were as big a threat to the world as we first were led to believe.
And they are probably hidden outside Iraq, maybe in the Bekaa Valley, or on ships (as reported before the war).
But the world needs proof now, or else I think there will be a heavy increase in hostility towards USA in the near future....

And it is good that we finally have a discussion here again.
And it's not just me and GuyontheRight chatting..

What do the rest of you think
All opinions are allowed here :!:
August 28th, 2003  
Remember that President Bush was targeted by assasination for Saddam, so in a personal matter between Bush and Saddam we probobly cant understand. Of course Clinton wouldn't have done anything, but how long would people like him just hit Iraq with sanctions. Like it or not, you cant stop the flow of everything into Iraq, and if action was never taking, 20 years downt he road we could have had Uday in charge with a whole new arsenal.

Theres a growing attitude in the US military community that Schwarzkopf was an idiot, mainly flowing from exageratted points in the first Gulf War and a lie he told in congress about the Gulf War Illness. So some would say his opinion doesn't mean much...

I do trust Bush for doing the right thing, even though it may not have turned out right. Bush is not the stereotyped cowboy or war monger the world can make him out to be. Remember he is a man of great faith and integraty, who was dropped in some of the most extrodinary circumstances after 9/11.

BTW Redleg, id love to here more about your experience in lebanon, in particular what you heard or know about the Bekaa Valley.
August 28th, 2003  
Just wanted to let you know that I am not ignoring this issue, I just realized that I probably should steer clear of political discussions now that I have identified myself as being associated with the U.S. military. It kind of stinks, seeing as how I have a lot more to say on the subject, but I'm pulling out.
August 28th, 2003  
Everything I post here is my personal opinions, and NOT the opinions of the Norwegian people or the Army...

Thanks a lot for your posts GuyontheRight.

It is very hard for me to have any opinions about the political situation in USA, I do not know enough about it.
Most that I know comes from the news, and as I said, I do not trust them much in matters like this.
They tend to be either for or against Bush and the attack on Iraq. It's hard to find good and "neutral" news.
So it's very good to learn from guys like you.
That's why I started this discussion in the first place.

Check your PM GuyontheRight. (Lebanon)
August 28th, 2003  
Hey Redneck, Id like to hear what you haved to say, i can deffinetly tell we think alike in ways

I feel you Redleg, neutral news is hard to get, thats why i stick to ESPN.
August 30th, 2003  
Neutral news (let alone anything pro-U.S. policy) is even harder to find in Europe I would imagine, my only experience there is with the BBC, which is vehemently anti-U.S., and more specifically anti-Bush, but it is also difficult to get it here in the States as well. My solution is to watch both CNN (liberal) and Fox (conservative) and kind of weigh their perspectives with the facts given in both their reports.
About Clinton, after his pussy-footing in Somalia (as GuyontheRight mentioned) that caused the unneccesary deaths of U.S. servicemen (by not allowing them the proper armored support, which was available in the area, or even full-fledged gunships for air support) and then pulling out, giving the Somali warlords a "victory" over the U.S. and thereby making the loss of these men's lives a futile one, I don't think his opinion in a military situation is worth the powder to blow it to hell.
However, I do agree with your point:
But the world needs proof now, or else I think there will be a heavy increase in hostility towards USA in the near future....
But in all fairness I do believe that what we have found so far (the empty warheads with traces of chemicals in them, the remote labs which had been strangely sterilized [probably the cleanest thing in the country haha], and the massive amounts of pesticides, considering the size of Iraq's agricultural area, as well as the illegal al-Samoud and Scud missiles found around the country) is enough to justify our entry on the grounds of Iraq's threat to the countries surrounding it.
One thing that I have to say really gets in my craw is the "blood for oil" argument, to debunk the whole empire-building-oil-grubbing thing (if that is possible in this short of a space) is this: we were getting no oil from Iraq in the first place (I believe France was the only Western nation to be in that position, but I may be wrong) and the huge influx of new oil, once we get the country stabilized and producing oil again, will swamp the market, causing a surplus of oil, leading to lower prices and greater competition between oil companies. I'm not saying that it will be entirely bad for them, they will have new room to grow and expand, but I am saying that per barrel they will be making less money than they are currently.
I appreciate your opinions, Redleg, even if they're not as good as mine and GuyontheRight's (just kidding), and I appreciate the fact that you did ask us what was going on over here rather than just assume based on what you have heard over there (as far too many people do).
By the way, I'm back in haha.