How do you feel about the war in Iraq?

[Frangible]

Poll question: How do you feel about the war in Iraq?

Just wondering what other people think about it.

Sorry if the poll options suck, just use "Other" if none of these reflect your opinion adequately. I added some qualifiers onto the end, because I've usually asked those as follow up questions to people who told me the first and made them restate their opinion more clearly. No offense intended, just trying to clarify things.

Except for the first poll option of course.

[rucky]

1. I don't see Britain attacking Germany as a preemptive war

Hitler already plowed through Poland & Czech. Crossing borders like the Blitzkreig definately qualifies as imminent.

[G_j]

4. thats why I chose 'other' n/t

[Frangible]

6. I called that preemptive

Because I thought it was. Heh. Germany was warmongering, but wanted to sign a truce with Britain rather than fight them off the bat. Churchill saw what a demon Hitler was, and declared war. I haven't found a formal political definition of "preemptive", but Germany didn't even want to fight Britain at that time, so that is why I termed Churchill's actions as "preemptive"-- responding to an emerging threat even if they weren't attacking you. You're not fighting in self defense, but rather something a bit different.

While Saddam was a bad guy, he's more or less the diet coke of evil relative to Hitler.

The point I was responding to is some have objected to war with Iraq because of the sole reason it was preemptive. I have taken political quizzes where they ask you "YES/NO do you support preemptive war"?

Well... I think it depends. Against Iraq, no... but I agreed with Churchill's decision to declare war on Nazi Germany preemptively.

Not sure if anyone will agree with me or not on that... but that's my reasoning.

[POed_Ex_Repub]

2. Gaaah..

Meant to vote for the item under this one... Switch a "support if ends justify means".. to "Don't support, started with deciet"

[Dagaz]

5. damn butterfly ballets nm

.

[K-W]

3. Only defence of a nations basic security justifies war

nt

[sasquatch]

7. This is a Bush Crime Family oil expidition

Democracy in Iraq? HA!! If you believe that we'll allow the poor Iraqi's to have a representitive democracy after we overthrew the last one in Iraq. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

[glarius]

8. Who gave U.S.A. the right to decide the kind of government Iraq should

have?....To me, it's as simple as that....There was NO THREAT against the U.S.A. from Iraq...:shrug:

[durutti]

9. I didn't and don't support it for a multitude of reasons.

But basically, I'm against all war, with three exceptions

1. A progressive revolutionary movement within a country waging war against that country's government -- the American Revolution, the French Revolution, or the Russian Revolution, for example.

2. A civil war pitting progressive forces against reactionary forces (in which case the progressive forces should be supported). For example, I would've supported the North in the American Civil War.

3. Wars of national liberation -- that is, wars that involve a nation attempting to free itself from foreign domination, or an oppressed nation within a country (like Kurds in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey) trying to acheive independence. Thus, I support the Iraqi resistance, those fighting for a free, united Ireland, Puerto Rican nationalists, and the Palestinian resistance, as well as the Kurds. In the past, I would have supported the Cuban Revolution, the Viet Cong, the Indian National Congress, and probably the North Koreans.

In terms of American wars, I would have supported the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the War of 1812, and World War II (to an extent).

[sandnsea]

10. Other, it's too complicated

Bush had his agenda.

Saddam had his agenda.

There's no way to say Saddam wasn't a danger and say he was contained at the same time. That's usually the answer people give, he was contained. It's not necessary to contain a country that isn't a danger of some sort.

So even though Bush had his own agenda, so did Saddam. Saddam's was more dangerous. So I supported inspectors and knew they wouldn't be allowed in without a real threat of force. That's why I understand the war vote.

After that, things went to hell in a handbasket. I did not/do not support the invasion. There was no evidence of WMD because if there were we would have immediately secured those known locations. I argued this repeatedly back in May/June when at least half this board was in a panic about "what if they find WMD". (So much for "we knew, why didn't they".) Doesn't matter, there was no evidence a weapon existed, the invasion itself was illegal.

Now we're there. The region can be much more secure if Iraq becomes free from leadership that fuels terrorism. Terrorism against Israel. If progress can be made there, progress can be made on I/P, the anger over this can be reduced, the U.S. is safer. So I support that concept and hope it works out. Doesn't mean I support that we invaded Iraq to do it, the end does not justify the means.

It's too complicated to black and white it.