For active duty military and veterans only

[nate45]

*Plz only real military members and veterans*
(playing Call of Duty or watching Platoon doesn't count)
God will know if your lying

I'm curious to see how other military and exmilitary people think on this issue.

Leave a short comment if you like.

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?

 

[tony pasley]

The major thing forgotten is Iran. They Insulted th U.S. when the peanut was in the White House and now they are very scared. In thier way of life insults must be dealth with and avenged. The U.S. is now on both sides of Iran and they fear that we will avenge thier insult toward us as they would an insult done to them.

 

[rwilson452]

actually I consider the question mute. Shoulda, woulda, coulda either we finish the job or go out with our tails between our legs.

 

[Unregistered]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda either we finish the job or go out with our tails between our legs.

Yes, that is what the Bush administration has said. But they keep changing what "finish the job" means.

 

[MeekAndMild]

FWIW I'm a vet not active duty. I'd like to see what the results would be for an expanded poll active duty versus vet. From both my experience and my reading of much of history except that of ancient Greece it seems that vets may be generally more hawkish than current military members. I wonder how this has changed with the all volunteer army?

 

[nate45]

Heres another good question, exactly what benfits are we getting from Iraq?

Is it the near 4,000 dead or the $500000000000 to $1 Trillion dollar price tag?

US Deaths in Iraq Approach 4,000

Are we safer? Now that were positive Saddam had no weapons of mass destuction, and no links to al Qaeda.

 

[lefteye]

NO. The costs in lives and dollars, coupled with the loss of US credibility in the world, can't possibly come close to any perceived benefit. My children and grandchildren will be paying for a long time for this [stuff].

 

[nate45]

But they keep changing what "finish the job" means.

Thats another great question. I've heard them say it's when Iraqis can defend themselves. When will that be 2 years, 5 years when?

 

[Unregistered]

When the Iraqis can defend themselves, I think we will just set another end point.

When we started the war, the end point was to find and destroy WMD. This was an admirable cause.

Then, it became to find and kill Saddam Hussein. Also an admirable cause.

Then, the goal was to rebuild Iraq. I started getting worried here. I thought we were supposed to be against nation building.

Then, the goal was to set up a new Iraqi democracy. We've done this too. Not too good of an idea, considering most people in Iraq don't like us, but it sounded good.

Now the goal is to get the Iraqis to the point they can defend themselves. We've become World Policeman, another bad idea.

We have just flat out moved into nation building, a concept Bush campaigned AGAINST in 2000.

 

[bushidomosquito]

Since when do only soldiers get to have an opinion on the war?

 

[wingman]

As a vet in a long ago war I see no advantage of remaining in Iraq, times and economics have changed too such a degree we can no longer afford to be the worlds police force / nation building all we do in the process is gain more enemies.

Protect our borders/ports, control immigration, expand the military and if attacked respond with overwhelming force and then withdraw from the area.

Money could be much better spent building roads,bridges, hospitals and schools in America.

 

[gc70]

I didn't vote in the poll because my vote would have been split.

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?

Yes, it was worth it during the first few months to confirm the absence of WMD and depose a vicious dictator.

No, it has not been worth it during the remainder of the last 5 years of trying to build a nation and creating enemies along the way.

 

[River Rat]

Without knowing the outcome, it seems impossible to determine if the effort is worth it.

 

[nate45]

Yes, it was worth it during the first few months to confirm the absence of WMD and depose a vicious dictator.

You see I'm a big fan of war, seriously, since I was a child I've always loved war. Like George C. Scott said in Patton 'God help me I love it'.

When we first went into Iraq I was very gung-ho and very trusting of the reasoning behind the war. As Spike lee might say I got bamboozled.

Infromation that has come to light has made me question its necessity and it has gone on way to long. The cost in terms of human life, while tragic is not really that severe considering we've been there going on 6 years. The monetary cost and damage the war has done to the republican party and our reputation in the world to me far out ways any benefit.

Saddam dead good. No WMDs good. Staying for five years of IEDs and every increasing expeditures of money, blood, and world standing, BAD.

Since when do only soldiers get to have an opinion on the war?

Everyone gets an opinion. Just not a vote in this poll.

 

[Tuzo]

Lies and deceit

As I was watching Secretary of State General Colin Powell explain the US position to the United Nations I had the strong impression that his mind was not agreeing with his words. Bogus aerial photos of false WMD and other evidence provided by two unproven witnesses sent us to war. UN weapons inspectors and other credible US sources provided no ground truthing for WMD. It seems that General Powell saw this but was overwhelmed by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The latter two have been particularly influential in driving us to war. Conservative and liberal politicians and pundits all bought the highly stretched truth and into Iraq we went.

Our politicians would have had second, third, and fourth thoughts if only they cared to remember or study history of the middle-east. No foreign invader has been successful there due to vast differences in culture, religion, traditions, and world view. Our political leaders live relatively insulated lives and fail to understand the viewpoints of others not like them. A good way to say it is "they do not think the way we do." Rumsfeld and his yes-men (former ambassador Paul Wolfowitz leaps to mind) dreamed up unrealistic scenarios whereby Iraqis would welcome an invading force with open arms and thankfulness and WMDs would be immediately discovered. The first two scenarios were ephemeral (thanks, now please leave) and the last was never there (Saddam Hussein is credited with a great hoax reminiscent of British deceit during WWII)., Rumsfeld and Cheney were wrong, imagine that.

After I returned from one and one-half years in Vietnam serving as an infantry platoon leader and Military Assistance Command Vietnam advisor I had a great deal of anger and resentment for the great loss of life and failure to win. As a soldier I wanted to win. After I read several history books detailing Vietnamese history from 1946 on and US involvement during WWII and later, I discovered that our leaders from President Truman to President Nixon were clueless about regional history and people’s culture and tradition and failed to listen to those who did not present what they wanted to hear. We initially supported the French in Indochina primarily to appease a wartime ally and, secondly, to make democracy safe from communism according to the unproven and highly cerebral “domino theory” devised by Truman’s Under-Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Vietnam fought the Chinese for 1000 years and were more than willing to fight a little longer. Fighting the US invaders for ten years was like a second tick from a watch. Imagine Russia invading the US and the fight our nation would put up against the invaders. Bomb us and the resistance would be insurmountable.

Is the situation in Iraq similar to Vietnam? You bet it is. Both wars star the US as invaders, both were begun for less than rational reasons, and both were born of clueless leaders.

If any readers take my opinion as less than patriotic (the “my country right or wrong” type of mantra) then please note that my grandfather fought Bolsheviks and Germans, my father and uncle fought Nazis, my father was captured and spent two years as a slave laborer, I served 9-years in two US armed services as an infantry officer and aviation crewmember, and my son is on active duty and in transit to Iraq.

War stinks and involvement in any war must be undeniably justified and not based on lies and deceit.

 

[Bruxley]

The telling of a job is how it is finished.

Once the trigger has been pulled looking back is lethal. It's the pursuit of the end that needs full, undivided attention. Half efforts almost always result in requiring yet another start with a new vulnerability known and able to exploited resulting in yet more dead. Example: Potential adversaries learned in Vietnam and other places that if you can't beat the Americans on the ground, beat them by winning allys in thier politicl parties. Political ambition, seems a vulnerability we are experiencing dead from right now.

If, at the end, it is established that:
-American promises will now be kept despite past events (too many to mention) and America is an ally that will be there when you take a risk with them.

-Attacking Americans isn't worth the reprecussions. Disputes with America ought instead be delt with diplomaticly and/or politically.


POC:

Yes, that is what the Bush administration has said. But they keep changing what "finish the job" means.

How so? REAL answer please. THIS was what we were told at the beginning. What goal has changed?

 

[tony pasley]

I find it very strange after reading some of these post how short our memories are. Cuba since 1898, P.I 1898 to 1991, Germany since 1945, Italy since 1945, Japan since 1945, Korea since 1950, and the money spent rebuilding and nation building. Very few speak of Afganstan just about Iraq. Both countries people had no Idea what liberty was about but are learning each day. Thier countries were in complete ruin before we arrived now we have started to build the basics that we don't even think about. I feel sorry for those who have lost people in this war, but the servicemen and women in Iraq were safer than the citizens in Washington D.C. for the last 5 years. It has been good for the name of the U.S.A and has done good beyond the borders of Iraq. Iraq right or wrong does not matter we are there, and we can not expect the people of Iraq to get done in 5 years what took our founding fathers 11 years to get done.

 

[high mileage]

Protect our borders/ports, control immigration, expand the military and if attacked respond with overwhelming force and then withdraw from the area.



I like the sound of that!

 

[Unregistered]

THIS was what we were told at the beginning. What goal has changed?

Bush confused us when he gave the "mission accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier.

We thought when he said "mission accomplished" he meant the mission was accomplished.

 

[Bruxley]

That confused you? C'mon, it did not. Your well aware that was the taking of Baghdad not the end of the war.

The stated goals were never this THEN they were this, THEN this. They were this, AND this, AND so on. No WMDs, true. The 'changing goals lie was plugged in to you while you were impressionable.

They lie that freeing Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom was new and late to the game was shown to be alie in the link. You still believe it was presented later or no? Actual answer please.