Would you have voted for the Iraq War?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:28:03 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  Would you have voted for the Iraq War?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Poll
Question: In 2003, knowing only the information presented at the time.
#1
Yes (D)
 
#2
Yes (R)
 
#3
Yes (I)
 
#4
No (D)
 
#5
No (R)
 
#6
No (I)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 110

Author Topic: Would you have voted for the Iraq War?  (Read 3529 times)
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 24, 2015, 03:25:07 PM »

Yes.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2015, 03:25:59 PM »

No (D).
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2015, 03:35:47 PM »

Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2015, 03:36:46 PM »

Based on the information presented to the general public at the time?  No.    I'm a little less sure if I were a member of Congress exposed to some faulty secret intelligence, but probably no there also.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2015, 03:38:21 PM »

Based on what Clinton, Bush, the British and everyone else was saying in 2003, yes.

Based on what we know now, no.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2015, 03:39:38 PM »
« Edited: April 24, 2015, 03:42:03 PM by Beet »

Well "the vote" was actually in edit:October 2002. By February 2003, I was firmly against the war, so no, but I don't know how I would have voted in October '02.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2015, 03:46:56 PM »
« Edited: April 24, 2015, 03:51:44 PM by Jim Bolivar di Griz »

I opposed plans for the Iraq War from the beginning. It's interesting how millions of Americans and majority of the world opinion had enough intelligence (or just plain common sense) to oppose it, while supposedly so many members of Congress were "misled" (as they later explained) by "faulty intelligence".

A lot of bulls**t in the air.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,233
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2015, 03:48:04 PM »

Definitely not
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2015, 04:06:58 PM »

Leaning no.
Logged
President Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,118
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2015, 04:13:19 PM »

Absolute solid N-O.  It was based on faulty intelligence.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2015, 04:35:33 PM »

Without hindsight, probably not.

With hindsight, maybe.

you would be more likely to vote for it with hindsight than without?
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2015, 05:07:45 PM »

Without hindsight, probably not.

With hindsight, maybe.

you would be more likely to vote for it with hindsight than without?

Yes. The 'weapons of mass destruction' rationale was always flimsy, and nothing that I've read has done much to convince me that anyone voted for the war on the basis of "secret evidence" or whatever rather than for the sake of political convenience.

Despite this, in purely humanitarian terms , the long-term outcome of the Iraq War looks better at this point than either the continuing disintegration of the Baathist state (or, worse, its revival) would have been.

Hundreds of thousands of war deaths? The displacement of a huge number of Iraqis? The rise of the Islamic State (though I'm a bit on the fence as to whether the Iraq War or the Civil War in Syria has more to do with that)? Not to mention, the actual way in which the occupation of Iraq was handled by L. Paul Bremer and co.?

(I don't really disagree with you btw, I'm just curious as to how you factor all of the above into your calculus).
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2015, 05:18:08 PM »

Obviously not with hindsight, but at the time I might very well have voted in favor.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,577
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2015, 05:27:05 PM »

Based on what Clinton, Bush, the British and everyone else was saying in 2002, yes.

Based on what we know now, no.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2015, 05:31:39 PM »

I'm assuming I have the same political views.

I vote no just like Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan.

By the way, I understand that many members of Congress were fooled into supporting the war.  For the correct way too apologize, see Walter Jones of North Carolina.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2015, 05:48:43 PM »

Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2015, 05:59:49 PM »

Yes (d)
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2015, 06:03:05 PM »

Regrettably probably yes. It would be a vote in hindsight that I would feel ashamed about. I like to think I would have demanded more answers, and what the plan was to avoid getting in the middle of a Sunni-Shia Civil War, but I suspect that is wishful thinking. As it was, I was enraged about the description of the national museum and so forth when Bagdad was taken. That and Bush's handling of Katrina soured me on my perception of his competence. He never really recovered from it  - to his day - just ask Jeb.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2015, 07:06:12 PM »

I can't say one way or the other because my opinion on war and the use of US ground troops was so profoundly shaped by Iraq. 

Well, what does the range of plausible counterfactuals look like? Not much better, unless American deaths are the only ones that count.

If you're the American government, American lives ought to count much more than Iraqi lives.  I think the counterpoint to what you're saying is this, you don't use American lives and trillions of dollars to test your theories about how it might impact the future.  You pull the trigger if you know what the mission is and are confident that the US military can accomplish it.  The problem with Iraq was that US troops could never accomplish the mission because completion of the mission was dependent on the Iraqi political situation.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,621
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2015, 07:17:02 PM »

I like to think I wouldn't. But I can't really say without hindsight.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2015, 08:12:52 PM »

Well, what does the range of plausible counterfactuals look like? Not much better, unless American deaths are the only ones that count.

If you're the American government, American lives ought to count much more than Iraqi lives.  I think the counterpoint to what you're saying is this, you don't use American lives and trillions of dollars to test your theories about how it might impact the future.

If we actually followed the decision rule that you suggest - i.e. "don't use American lives and trillions of dollars to test your theories about how it might impact the future" - the result would be total paralysis. Your counterpoint is a valid critique of any major policy decision. It leads us to the absurd conclusion that we should always avoid making major decisions, so it's not a compelling objection.

You're missing a big distinction.  You use the military to accomplish military objectives.  If you don't have a military objective and you just want to see how it shakes out in the future, it's too risky.  And, it's incredibly unfair to the military to put them in a situation where they're just waiting for political progress to eventually happen, while they're occupying a country.  "In the long-run, this might be good," just doesn't cut it.

You say that as if the US had nothing to do with the political situation in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. But our government was already deeply implicated in Iraqi politics, and had been since at least the time of the Gulf War. If I had to identify our government's single greatest failure with regard to Iraq, it would be in 1991, when George Bush Sr. did nothing to support the uprisings against Saddam Hussein.

By the time we invaded Iraq, we had (1) dropped bombs within its borders multiple times over the previous decade; (2) subjected it to sanctions that crippled its economy and reversed the state of human development by at least twenty or thirty years; and (3) openly encouraged opposition groups to overthrow its government, only to let that government crush that rebellion and kill tens of thousands of our supposed allies. You don't have to be a liberal internationalist to conclude that the United States had incurred an obligation toward Iraqis by the time of the Iraq War.

I just don't buy that understanding of international relations.  Iraq was screwed over by their corrupt, stupid, aggressive government that kept invading their neighbors.  We didn't force them to invade Iran or Kuwait.  We didn't force them to gas their own people, support terrorism or develop WMDs.  It sucks for the Iraqi people, but that's how it works, the leaders make the policy and the people suffer.   
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2015, 08:20:05 PM »
« Edited: April 24, 2015, 08:23:54 PM by Governor Simfan34 »

I don't know if I would have voted, with hindsight, for this outcome, but if the major blunders could have been prevented, probably. If there was an Arab Spring (and I don't see why there wouldn't be), I doubt it wouldn't have spiraled into violence as well- perhaps not on the level of Syria but it'd be worse than it is today. Indeed I suspect Saddam would have proven far less stiff than Assad has.

The real missed opportunity was in 1991, where, had the war gone on for a week or two more, the Saddam regime would have collapsed. Again not sure how pleasant the aftermath would have been, but at the very least many more Kurds and Marsh Arabs would be alive.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2015, 08:42:31 PM »

Definitely not.  Only twice in my life have I written letters to both my US senators asking them to oppose legislation.  Once was in 2002 when I wrote my senators, Boxer (D-CA) and Feinstein (D-CA), asking them to vote against this bill and trying to lay out a case against the money and blood that would be wasted there.  (I grossly underestimated the amount of both, but my idea was right.)  Only one of them wrote me back to say she was against it. 

The other time I wrote my two US senators was in 1991 when I wrote Bentsen (D-TX) and Tower (R-TX) asking them to oppose a similar invasion, into Kuwait.  As in the above case, only one of the two wrote me back to say he was against it.  Bentsen actually wrote me a thoughtful, detailed response pointing out the huge amount of money that would be spent and lives lost.  (He and I were wrong, as it were.  The whole Operation Desert Storm thing lasted only a few weeks and wasn't very expensive after all--just over 60 billion, which you can probably find between your sofa cushions after any superbowl party--but it was still a really bad idea.) 

At least the first Gulf War was somewhat controversial.  The Senate vote was pretty close, and it happened only after a reasonable amount of debate.  The second one was horrificallly underdebated, and hardly controversial.  As I recall more than 3/4 of the chamber supported it. Even those who were "against the Iraq War before they were for it" went along with it.

I voted No(R).  I'm unaffiliated now, but at the time I was a registered Republican and I was decidedly against the invasion, so that's the option that fits best.
 
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2015, 10:34:55 PM »

Well, what does the range of plausible counterfactuals look like? Not much better, unless American deaths are the only ones that count.

If you're the American government, American lives ought to count much more than Iraqi lives.  I think the counterpoint to what you're saying is this, you don't use American lives and trillions of dollars to test your theories about how it might impact the future.

If we actually followed the decision rule that you suggest - i.e. "don't use American lives and trillions of dollars to test your theories about how it might impact the future" - the result would be total paralysis. Your counterpoint is a valid critique of any major policy decision. It leads us to the absurd conclusion that we should always avoid making major decisions, so it's not a compelling objection.

You're missing a big distinction.  You use the military to accomplish military objectives.  If you don't have a military objective and you just want to see how it shakes out in the future, it's too risky.  And, it's incredibly unfair to the military to put them in a situation where they're just waiting for political progress to eventually happen, while they're occupying a country.  "In the long-run, this might be good," just doesn't cut it.

I don't entirely disagree with this, but it's not relevant to a "with hindsight" hypothetical. As I said earlier, I doubt that I would have voted for the war in 2002.

No, that's true.  I think it's hard to put yourself in the same mental place that most people were in in 2003.  There was this attitude of "something has to be done!"  That mixed with the patriotism and fear created by Bush's popularity and the 2002 midterm win was extremely powerful.

Even though we don't want those political and emotional motivations to matter, they do matter for politicians.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2015, 10:50:31 PM »

Well, what does the range of plausible counterfactuals look like? Not much better, unless American deaths are the only ones that count.

From a US policy planning perspective, I'd say that they are the only ones that count.

But even if you disregard that, we know Saddam was not a nice man, but do you seriously think that if he had stayed in power he would have killed more people since 2003 than were killed due to the war and instability his removal caused?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 14 queries.