Iraq Invasion : What CFC forumers thought about it in June 2002

[Masquerouge]

The first post by Gandalf13 is excellent.
The rest of the thread is rather scary, with people blindly believing that Saddam had WMD, that Iraq could become a peaceful democracy, that the US troops would be welcome and back home soon... and blindly believing that TODAY STILL !

 

[eyrei]

My opinion on the war in Iraq changed slowly from the time of the invasion (which I supported on the grounds that Saddam sucked really bad) to the present time. We have had almost two years to calm things down there, and stuff still blows up every day. Our soldiers get killed on a regular basis, and end up serving over there much longer than they should have to. The result being as it is, I feel that invading was a mistake. Also, I particularly feel that alienating our allies was a mistake because that is the primary reason for our military being so strained at the moment.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

I wasn’t posting at CFC at the time but I did not support the war mostly because I did not want the US throwing hundreds of billions of dollars down the trash and waste American lives on a futile adventure to change Iraq into a thriving democracy and give a few of Cheney’s Halliburton buddies a chance to make more money. After watching the fiasco for over a year and helping a good friend recover from his permanent wounds received in Iraq, it will be a very long time before I trust a Republican politician. A very long time indeed.

 

[kryszcztov]

It had to be Iraq because - to quote Rumsfeldt - 'there are no good targets in Afhganistan!'

He said that ? That guy is the most fcuking dumbass I've ever seen. To think he is at the head of the US army... Sometimes the most ridiculous things become somewhat funny, but I'll try not to choke with laughter.

BTW: I do not know what I was thinking in june 2002 exactly.
But in March 2003 I supported an invasion.

I seriously dislike the way it was done, but generally I think free democracies have a certaan right to invade nations under the rule of a brutal dictator.

You must have been feeling alone, man ! Of course fighting an evil dictator is under certain circumstances a right thing, but the way the US have dealt with Iraq over the last 15 years makes that statement fall into contradiction. The US went on Iraq after 9/11, and that alone proves that had nothing to do with a brutal dictator. History has been full of machiavelic characters, elites who would manipulate the people with their power ; the current US administration is just doing the same, no more, no less.

I wasn't here in June 2002, but I wrote a few posts in OT in March 2003, a few weeks after registering here, just as the war was to start. I was really pissed off to see the general atmosphere here. Like if I knew what was gonna happen... Of course not, I couldn't be sure of what would happen. But the current situation was one fair possibility.

You can't dictate a country to become democratic once for all. Democracy is about the people, not about a regime controlled by a foreign power. And to everyone who is confident in what's happening in Afghanistan, I'll say : never underestimate the guerilla power. Elections are being held there, but we can just wait.

Moderator Action: Warned for langauge
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Longasc]

I did not post in 2002.

But I was a STRONG supporter of the war in Iraq!

Today, I feel different. It was all a lie. I thought it would be too primitive to assume Bush is going just for the oil.

But he really was/is. I even wrote a "pro Iraq war" article for a German website.

Today, I feel like a dumbass. But I wonder why so many Americans still believe in Bush and his fairy tale of Osama, Saddam and the 40 Terrorists...

 

[Mario Feldberg]

You can't dictate a country to become democratic once for all.

Sorry, but it worked pretty well in West Germany.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Sorry, but it worked pretty well in West Germany.

Are you serious ? No one told you how the Weimar Republic has ended ?


More seriously, a democracy needs to be supported by the large majority of the population in order to work. In the 20's in Germany as much as today in Iraq, the problem is that few people supported or support the Democracy as an efficient system.

Of course, a foreign country can sponsor democrats in a country, that's obvious, but if there's no basis in that country, such a democracy is doomed.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

I believed that the war was right, for good reasons.

However I had feared that it would turn into a quagmire, since the Americans didn't seem to have any exit strategy. As it did.

 

[Oruc]

i didnt support the invasion back then, but that was because i didnt like Americans (i even liked the EU back then) but i think its a good idea now

 

[Aphex_Twin]

In June 2002 I would have supported an invasion it it had been performed via the UN. If Saddam would have had WMD's and/or would have used them I would have not opposed a unilateral American intervention (however IIRC, France actually stated IT would send in forces if Saddam would have used WMD's).

 

[Gelion]

^ My thoughts. I don''t like being lied to.

 

[Mario Feldberg]

West German democracy - the first stable German democracy - was dictated by an US-lead occupation force. Most Germans weren't democrats but they tolerated the new system and that's all that is needed.

The Weimar Republic was not dictated from the outside, it was a native (and failed) democratic experiment.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Of course, by the time of their defeat, the Germans were a broken people. Also, between the Soviets and the Americans West Germans made the obvious choice. There are no Soviets for Iraq.

 

[Stapel]

In the case of Iraq, this is not true. It's been so badly thought that it's impossible to say it has brought more good things than bad things. The main good point being that Saddam isn't here anymore, the bad points being that the country is chaotic, it has harmed the region more than it has helped it, it has strengthen the Islam fundamentalists and Iran.

In march 2003, I was (as said before) pro invasion. Yet, I did always add (in discussions on this forum) that there should be a feasible post-war plan (I never had any doubts the US army would be succesful, from a military point of view).
But I expected the Bush administration would make this plan and seek the necessary international help for it. Too bad, that it didn't happen. In hindsight, it would have been better not to go in. Yet, I still think an invasion conducted by a more international backed-up plan, would have had a serious chance.

 

[kryszcztov]

Moderator Action: Warned for langauge
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Sorry if I offended someone here, I didn't mean to use bad language. I use such language everyday in France, and life goes well so far. But sometimes you have to use certain words to describe some people. Did anyone read that quote : 'there are no good targets in Afhganistan!' ? Un-freaking-believable that no one here is offended by such a statement !! I think you'd better warn Rumsfeld for his speeches IMHO.

Now, rest assured that the last thing I want is to be kicked from a forum because of a word or two. Not a real issue, from my point of view.

 

[Stapel]

You must have been feeling alone, man ! Of course fighting an evil dictator is under certain circumstances a right thing, but the way the US have dealt with Iraq over the last 15 years makes that statement fall into contradiction. The US went on Iraq after 9/11, and that alone proves that had nothing to do with a brutal dictator. History has been full of machiavelic characters, elites who would manipulate the people with their power ; the current US administration is just doing the same, no more, no less.

The one and only reason for invasion was removing Saddam. Partly because he is an evil dictator, mostly because he was a thread to the world's economic lifeblood: oil.
After 9/11, the US simply hoped to find a legal, UN-approved excuse to invade, by saying it was about terrorism.

The attempts to find/create evidence of WMD between 1991/1998 (IIRC) are massive. Nevr succeeded though.

 

[nonconformist]

The invasion started when exactly?

 

[carlosMM]

Mario: you dare to claim that the Weimarer Republik was NOT forved by the outside?




how about this for a force: either you become democratic or we march to Berlin.


it is often surprising how young people believe right wing propganda. I have heard talk like your often enough - usually from under a billard-ball like head

 

[kryszcztov]

The attempts to find/create evidence of WMD between 1991/1998 (IIRC) are massive. Nevr succeeded though.

Yeah, the UN guys searched a lot during that period, but it was never successfull. Why did I say it falls into contradiction ? First the US attack Saddam in Koweit and in Iraq ; Saddam's army is defeated, the US leave, and Saddam gets his revenge on locals pretty soon. Then the embargo goes on, bombs fall on Iraq from time to time, damaging the Iraqi population, but not Saddam. During all that time Saddam was an evil dictator, he was always believed to develop WMDs, but the US did nothing. Not that I wanted them to do something (we could argue, but they always did it wrong anyway), but at least it would have proved they wanted Saddam out. After 10 years the father's son wants some kind of revenge, and goes to Iraq again. In the meantime, nothing new was found. I can't believe that the USA went to Iraq just to kick Saddam out. This I call hypocrisy. And I hate hypocrisy.

@ carlosMM : I'd like you to enlight me on both Weimar and early West Germany ; how were both democratic regimes set up, foreign influences, what were people thinking, etc...? Sorry if it's off-topic. You could PM me or post a new thread or whatever... or a link. I can hardly think that the USA just forced Germany to be democratic. It doesn't work that way, and I'm expecting to be proved right.

 

[Longasc]

I think you should listen to the talk of the young man....

Do you think the Weimarer Republik was influenced by the Treaty of Versailles or what do you want to claim? Why do you doubt that the Weimarer Republik was a generic German government?

You can easily claim such things, but you will find no evidence or source to back up your claims.