Why do you oppose the war in Iraq?

[antiimperialist]

I see two kinds of anti-war people.

1-)Those who think invading another country unilaterally is morally wrong regardless of how well the war goes, and
2-)Those who focus on waging war with the least number of American casualties possible, and base their war support on whether or not we can crush our enemy.

Those in group 1 ask themselves the question, "What did the Iraqis do to us"?
Those in group 2 ask themselves the question, "Did we send enough troops"?

Group 1 opposes the war because it's morally wrong.
Group 2 opposes the war because we screwed up so far.

We are hearing about a split in the Democratic ranks as to how to proceed if David Petraeus reports that the war is going well.

This poll is intended to measure the split, if any, in the Democratic Underground.

[MadMaddie]

1. It should have never been about winning...or us versus them

it should have stayed in Afghanastan where we would have taken out criminals who committed a crime.

[Skip Intro]

2. The attack/invasion was an effing lie and however this ends, those responsible

have to be held accountable, in a court of law.

We, as a nation, sweep this under the rug, we, as a nation, are corrupt.

[Bill McBlueState]

3. good analysis

DU's mostly going to support option 1, but the reason Americans at large are against the war is because of number 2. Otherwise Bush's popularity would have tanked long before 2005.

[journalist3072]

4. My opposition to the war is quite simple: there was no real threat from Iraq to the United States

Let me say first, that I do believe in a doctrine of pre-emption. I believe that if a country has solid, rock-hard evidence that another country is preparing to attack them, they have every right to pre-emptively attack that country.

But if your doctrine is going to be pre-emption, there are very strick standards that must be met. The threat must be real and and the evidence must be unimpeachable. For example, I believe that in light of the evidence he had before him, President Kennedy would have been justified to attack the Soviets.

Iraq does not pass that test.

[ProudDad]

25. You mean the part about...

"I believe that in light of the evidence he had before him, President Kennedy would have been justified to attack the Soviets. "

You mean the part about the U.S. siting missiles in Turkey, just a stone's throw from Moscow...caused a retaliation by the USSR siting missiles in Cuba -- followed by Khrushchev taking the initiative to contact Kennedy and offer to remove the missiles from Cuba in exchange for (the quiet) removal of the missiles in Turkey?

That part?

Then you're saying that Nikita had a right to lob nukes at the U.S. instead of putting missiles in Cuba...eh?

[calteacherguy]

5. Your OP is overly simplistic.

First, it's not a war, it's an occupation. Secondly, it's not a question of merely the U.S. winning...what is needed is a win/win/win situation for Iraq, the region, and the U.S. Or at least, and probably more realistically, the least worst possible outcome. That will surely not be achieved with a simplistic, immediate withdrawl. It's much more complex than that, and there are no easy answers. To call for the immediate removal (at least as fast as physically possible) of all U.S. forces based on whether or not the initial invasion was right or wrong is morally unjustifiable. We must deal with the world as it is, not how we would have preferred it to be.

I do not despise Patreaus; he is trying to make the best of a very difficult situation. Now, if after he reports his findings and makes recommendations, and if the administration refuses to heed what he says, then the only honorable thing to do for him to do would be resign. But, that point has not been reached yet. More importantly, Patreaus alone cannot solve the problem, what is needed is real engagement of Iran and the other players to find common interests. If the administration refuses to do that, then Patreaus would also be justified in resigning. In fact, it would be the right thing to do.

[antiimperialist]

6. I estimate that 100% of anti-war Democrats in congress belong to group 2

Even Obama, who was the only initial opponent among the top Democratic candidates, said this was a dumb war, but if we do invade we should be asking ourselves how to stabilize Iraq, this and that.
Even if deep inside he belongs to Group #1, it would be political suicide to pretend he cares for anyone other than American soldiers.

[calteacherguy]

11. There cannot be a win for the U.S. without a win for Iraq

and there cannot be a loss for the U.S. without a loss for Iraq.

Either both countries "win," or both countries "lose." More likely, it will be something in between..."the best of the worst" at best. It is a tangled web we have woven.

[ProudDad]

26. I get sick of

USAmericans and their patronizing attitude toward other folks.

The "Iraqis" have been governing themselves for over 20,000 years.

What the HELL makes you think they need us or our fucking storm troopers to "help them" govern themselves again?

What patronizing bullshit...imho :shrug:


The U.S. fucked up... End the illegal occupation now and the Iraqis can take care of themselves. The U.S. WILL owe them reparations but beyond that, get the F*ck out...

[calteacherguy]

30. The moment we invaded

we tied ourselves to their fate. What we do affects them, for good or for ill. We are in this together with the Iraqis, like it or not. That is the consequence of our actions.

Of course, if they ask us to leave, we must leave. However, many Iraqis do not want us to leave.

It is not going to be as simple getting out in the best way possible as it was getting in.

[That Is Quite Enough]

7. I oppose the war because it's morally wrong *and* we screwed it up.

Oops, I oppose the occupation. Keep forgetting it's not even a war anymore.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Does the phrase "Waging aggressive war"

mean anything to you?

This means, in case you don't know, that a country goes to war when it has no quarrel with the country it has invaded...

We used this against Germany in the Nuremburg war trials.

It is a war crime, and now we are just as guilty as Germany was.


My apologies, if you already did know.

[quinnox]

9. My opposition

was based on that Bush didn't prove his case that Saddam had anything to do with Sept. 11th.

But also on the doctrine that United States doesn't attack another country without being attacked first.

And since Iraq didn't attack us, it was wrong to attack them. We were the aggressor and especially since we have overpowering military force in the world, we have to be more careful when using our power.

With great power comes great responsibility as the saying goes.

I can support limited military strikes, for example against terrorists in remote locations. But a full scale war has to be justified.

[Solon]

10. The fact is that this was a war of aggression and occupation...

Iraq is our Poland, so to speak. It was morally wrong to go in and legally questionable at the very least, in fact, I would say it was criminal. After all that, however, we broke it, we do have to fix it, however, NOT with our military. This isn't a military problem, at least for us, because our military is a destabilizing element in this occupation, there will not be peace, or a stable government for as long as the U.S. Military is in Iraq.

We need to withdraw, somehow, and have someone else take over the security situation, while we will have to pay for it in cold hard cash. Most likely it would be the U.N. coming in and not NATO.

[Sparkly]

12. "Other" -- #1 without the "Screw Petraeus." It's not his fault. nt

[antiimperialist]

13. it means Screw what Petraeus has to say in September

Nobody's blaming him.

[calteacherguy]

14. What you have to ask yourself is, what are your values?

Are you values leaving Iraq in the "least worst" state possible, or opposing the administration's policy irregardless of future events?

[Sparkly]

16. Right, it's #1 but having made THAT mistake, we can hope for #2

-- making the least possible disaster out of it.

[Lifelong Protester]

17. Actually I got a kick out of the page you are sent to which says:

You chose "Screw Petraeus" . Made me laugh.

But seriously, no war predicated on a LIE can be one we can support. It is morally corrupting. The whole fabrication of the WMD, the yellow cake purchase, the implied connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and on and on, it disgusts me.

NOT IN MY NAME!:grr:

[laststeamtrain]

15. Deliberate wars of aggression are illegal.

Those behind this one should be charged, tried & punished if found guilty.

The US should support the ICC. It would a step in the right direction. You know, toward peace & justice & all that jazz.

[angrycarpenter]

18. group one I suppose

All of Americas' big wars have been fought on moral grounds and as such enjoyed wide popular approval. However since WWII wars have been fought with political ideology as the prime motivatator. Moral arguments no longer have any bearing on whether a war gets fought or not, witness the Darfur crisis. That is more in keeping with the state of the world before American ideals came along to hamper the absolute monarchies of Europe and else where.

[TankLV]

19. It was wrong from the beginning - nothing that follows is good...

GET OUT NOW!!!

When something is rotten from the CORE, it's not salvagable...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. The war in Iraq, is so, Bush I, sonny should have let sleeping

dogs lie. Now he has more than he can chew, pity the fool who thinks he can fool the world.

[AndyTiedye]

21. I Opposed It Before It Started

Because it was wrong.
Even then I had no idea they could fuck it up as badly as they did.
I don't think any of us did.

If Bush**/Cheney/Rumfelled had been in charge of the 3rd Reich,
they would have gotten bogged down trying to subdue Poland.

[struggle4progress]

22. Why? Because it was founded on lies, its real objectives are immoral, the

cost to my country in blood and treasure is ruinous, thousands and thousands of completely innocent Iraqis suffer cruelly from it, it undermines international law and increases the likelihood of further unnecessary wars around the globe, extremists abroad use it as a recruiting tool, it threatens our civil liberties at home and our diplomatic credibility everywhere else ...

Feh! Don't get me started!

[ProudDad]

23. You don't have my choice

All war is wrong and counter-productive...

[AtomicKitten]

24. It is and always was an illegal, immoral war.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Not a fair poll. I'm inbetween those two extremes.

I think:

1. The war was morally wrong (unilaterally invading another country WITHOUT AN IMMINENT THREAT);

2. The war was approved by our Congress because of lies - er...I mean "faulty intelligence"; AND

3. It is (was?) being executed by incompetent bozos, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives needlessly, and even more injuries.

But I agree with some that it MAY not be the best course to exit without a game plan to do all we can to ensure things get even worse when we leave. We broke it; we're responsible to at least leave it with some semblance of being fixed. If it's immoral to kill Iraqis because of fake WMDs, then it's immoral to leave innocent Iraqis at high risk of full scale murder because we leave them with little security.

I'm not saying we shouldn't leave. We should. And I'm not sure exactly how the plan to leave should be executed. But we should take care. Even if we start to leave immediately, though, Biden says it'd take us a year or a year and a half to execute an orderly pullout.

[DurShar]

28. I oppose the war...............

because we should have never went into it in the first place. This administration lied in taking us to war and continues to use the fear card to continue the occupation of Iraq. The entire administration should be held accountable and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

29. Excellent points!

Welcome to DU!

Have a great time in our addictive little village!

:hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. What part of "This whole invasion has always been and still is one long,

miserable war crime" don't you understand?