Has anything or anyone changed your mind?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Okay. So we've had a year to watch and listen as this war has played out on our televisions, our computers and our minds.

There will be a huge rally in NYC tomorrow. I will be there because nothing has changed for me.
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=sub&sub=31

How about you? Were you against the war and now are for it?
Were you for it and now have withdrawn your support?
Or has nothing changed in the way you felt then as opposed to now?

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has changed their mind one way or another. The purpose of this thread is not to convince anyone, or get anyone to re-examine their present position, I am merely interested in hearing what brought about the change of heart.

Joe

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,061 • Replies: 35

No top replies

I was against the war, but I thought there was some truth to the charge that Saddam had WPMs, therefore there was some rationale to invade.

Now I know that was a lie...

0 Replies

Thank you D, I was against the war but was truly taken in by the various stories on WMDs. They seemed so sure, didn't they? I know I believed Colin Powell. As the war began I remember thinking well, it's bad but maybe some good will come of it from getting rid of all those weapons.

Freedom for the Iraqi people never crossed my mind. I now watch the parsing of the words -immediate threat-mushroom cloud-yellow cake-- and shake my head. I feel like I do when I listened to much to a used-car salesman.

0 Replies

WoMD were never an issue with me, my entire concern was the nature of and future use of Pre-emption.

0 Replies

Damn straight, but have you changed your opinion on that?

0 Replies

I never thought wmd justified an attack last year, not when inspections were finding and disarming Iraq of anything they could find.

But I did think they would find something. I said if they didn't it would be necessary to import something to justify it!

Getting rid of Saddam was always going to be a benefit, but again I cant see how it justified a pre emtive attack.

The war was never legal under international law.

I could never get my head round the idea of W the oil man being so concerned about the welfare of poor iraqis that he had to invade to give them free political parties trades unions and all the democracy stuff.

But once in there I thought ok lets do it, lets give these poor people a better place to live. But of course sadly I was mistaken again in American intentions. The US only ever was interested in holding onto bits of Iraq it found strategically useful... mainly oil fields and building citadels in the towns. It is in fact a blatant excercise in aggressive imperialism, Iraq to be used as a base for power projection in the region.

0 Replies

No, but i have become more disgusted than i was a year ago, although i'd not have thought it possible.

0 Replies

I had made my mind up to go in from the WMD data I was fortunate to see in aerials. I beleieved the stories and the interpretations. Nerve gases were serious as was a 'dirty bomb" That overode my concerns of preemption, AT FIRST. It became evident early after "mission accomplished" day , that we were all duped . I then became a "never again will I believe anything these felons say"

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Thank you D, I was against the war but was truly taken in by the various stories on WMDs. They seemed so sure, didn't they? I know I believed Colin Powell. As the war began I remember thinking well, it's bad but maybe some good will come of it from getting rid of all those weapons.

Freedom for the Iraqi people never crossed my mind. I now watch the parsing of the words -immediate threat-mushroom cloud-yellow cake-- and shake my head. I feel like I do when I listened to much to a used-car salesman.

I was never for the war. Was Saddam a bad guy? Yep. Did he have WMD? Not sure, but we had inspectors in there and I never for a minute believed he had anything that would be a direct threat to the US.
Did he violate the terms of the UN? Yep. But going in against the UN, on our own, pre-emptively on deceit and lies was not justified. Many in the intelligence community brought all this info to the front before the war and Bush claimed they were old timers, out of touch with reality, didn't know the real story. They were un-American for even suggesting anything was wrong with the story. We who opposed the war were stupid to suggest it would stir up more violence, more hatred towards the US, that we would lose credibility with the world community by becoming the world bullies.

Colin Powell was the ace in the hole for the sale. He had respectability and prestige that nobody else in the administration had/has. He sold out by following the orders of the Commander in Chief to read and perform the script he was given. Why should anyone believe or respect him anymore?

This war was for the following reasons:
1) Control of the oil in the area
2) Big business contracts for rebuilding and maintenance of all that oil.
3) Payback for daddy.

No WMD, no liberation, nothing else. JMHO

0 Replies

Camille wrote:

This war was for the following reasons:
1) Control of the oil in the area
2) Big business contracts for rebuilding and maintenance of all that oil.
3) Payback for daddy.

No WMD, no liberation, nothing else. JMHO

I realize it's JYHO, but what evidence, other than hearsay and conjecture, do you base this opinion on?

We have no control of the Oil...
Iraq's oil infrastructure was in horrible shape BEFORE the war and we now have many of the BEST companies in the world working on improving it...for the Iraqi's...
There are an awful lot of people in on this if it's just payback...

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Camille wrote:
This war was for the following reasons:
1) Control of the oil in the area
2) Big business contracts for rebuilding and maintenance of all that oil.
3) Payback for daddy.

No WMD, no liberation, nothing else. JMHO

I realize it's JYHO, but what evidence, other than hearsay and conjecture, do you base this opinion on?

We have no control of the Oil...
Iraq's oil infrastructure was in horrible shape BEFORE the war and we now have many of the BEST companies in the world working on improving it...for the Iraqi's...
There are an awful lot of people in on this if it's just payback...

I base it on reality. We started a pre-emptive war and as soon as we ran Saddam out of the palace the first place we went was to the oil. How many months did those liberated Iraqis have to wait for basic necessities of life, like water, basic medical care, basic safety? Oh wait, many still don't have these!

We have Cheney's friends working on improving the oil infrastructure on a contract that never went through the formal RFP process and not one penny is being directed at the Iraqis, nor do they have any say in what happens to THEIR oil.

Take a look at who the biggest political contributors were to the Bush/Cheney campaign and you'll see who is making the bucks.

Payback for daddy was gravy.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

But I did think they would find something. I said if they didn't it would be necessary to import something to justify it!

Thanks for the memory, Steve. You weren't the only one to say that.

I was strongly in favor of the war, of course, and largely based on the belief in those weapons, but also considering Saddam's history of invading a neighboring country and launching missiles into a country not participating in the war.

I could still go along with pre-emption, but yeah, the evidence would have to clear a much higher bar.

0 Replies

Camille wrote:

I base it on reality. We started a pre-emptive war and as soon as we ran Saddam out of the palace the first place we went was to the oil. How many months did those liberated Iraqis have to wait for basic necessities of life, like water, basic medical care, basic safety? Oh wait, many still don't have these!

You seem like an educated person, would you suggest that we let saddam's army ignite the oil fields and create an environmental nightmare the likes of which could have had a world-wide impact? The whole purpose of sending in special forces early was to avoid such disasters.

You mean the Sunni's around Tikrit, Baghdad and the surrounding areas who had the brilliant plan to keep destroying the infrastructure improvements as they were made? As for the rest of Iraq, they were used to not having those resources. the US and UK, et. al. brought electricity, clean water and lots of medical care with them to people who have not had such luxuries for years.

Camille wrote:

We have Cheney's friends working on improving the oil infrastructure on a contract that never went through the formal RFP process and not one penny is being directed at the Iraqis, nor do they have any say in what happens to THEIR oil.

Take a look at who the biggest political contributors were to the Bush/Cheney campaign and you'll see who is making the bucks.

Because Cheney had the forsight to work for one of the worlds largest companies and also one of the world leaders in oil refining and rigging they should be disqulified from helping in the post-war development? that's utter nonsense. Haliburton is a world leader in performing the functions they are contratced to perform. It's a silly arguement that you can't possibly win to say they were given the contract illegally or to imply that some sort of favor was granted.

Also, Iraq has FULL control of it's resources and is keeping 100% of the profit from the sale of oil.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Camille wrote:

I base it on reality. We started a pre-emptive war and as soon as we ran Saddam out of the palace the first place we went was to the oil. How many months did those liberated Iraqis have to wait for basic necessities of life, like water, basic medical care, basic safety? Oh wait, many still don't have these!

You seem like an educated person, would you suggest that we let saddam's army ignite the oil fields and create an environmental nightmare the likes of which could have had a world-wide impact? The whole purpose of sending in special forces early was to avoid such disasters.

You mean the Sunni's around Tikrit, Baghdad and the surrounding areas who had the brilliant plan to keep destroying the infrastructure improvements as they were made? As for the rest of Iraq, they were used to not having those resources. the US and UK, et. al. brought electricity, clean water and lots of medical care with them to people who have not had such luxuries for years.

Camille wrote:
We have Cheney's friends working on improving the oil infrastructure on a contract that never went through the formal RFP process and not one penny is being directed at the Iraqis, nor do they have any say in what happens to THEIR oil.

Take a look at who the biggest political contributors were to the Bush/Cheney campaign and you'll see who is making the bucks.

Because Cheney had the forsight to work for one of the worlds largest companies and also one of the world leaders in oil refining and rigging they should be disqulified from helping in the post-war development? that's utter nonsense. Haliburton is a world leader in performing the functions they are contratced to perform. It's a silly arguement that you can't possibly win to say they were given the contract illegally or to imply that some sort of favor was granted.

Also, Iraq has FULL control of it's resources and is keeping 100% of the profit from the sale of oil.

You certainly twisted around reality to fit your view!

At the rate GW is going on destroying years of work enacting environmental law in the US, you actually want to point to Saddam's army burning oilfields from Iraq I? Rolling Eyes

Step back a minute and think about this....what would you think if some super power invaded the US and took over resources that are in the United States? The oil in Iraq is NOT ours! The oil in Iraq belongs to Iraq. You are proving my point that we are there for the oil, to protect the oil, the oil that is not ours to protect.

The Iraqis have not seen one cent of money from their oil. GW is forcing them to payback years of debt that Saddam incurred and is not paying because Saddam isn't in power anymore. Most of the Iraqis will be dead and gone before that debt would be settled.

A silly argument that Halliburton got favored contracts? You've got to be kidding. Open ended non bid contracts that were a gift from Bush/Cheney to their political contributors. There are other companies that could do the same job. Yes, Halliburton is skilled in this area but contracts should be earned through the bid process, not by who gives you more money to go on TV with mud slinging ads.

0 Replies

Iraq has full control of its oil resources? Yes but who controls Iraq? The oil revenues go to Iraq, but its the American appointed Iraqi govt. that decides where to spend it. Its not going to be on nuclear weapons development for sure. Its not going to be on huge anti poverty programmes either. It will be on grandiose schemes of reconstruction, contracted to American firms. Another point, Saddam was charging for oil in euros. What was the first thing the Americans did when they took control of the oil ministry in Baghdad? Switched back to dollars.

Sorry but I have lost all faith that the invasion and conquest of Iraq was for anything other than geopolitical imperatives, to use Iraq as a strategic stronghold, and exploit its mineral wealth.

0 Replies

I feel that I listen to people. However, I do have my own principles. I have changed my opinion on people: there are some I now like that I once disliked and vice versa.

0 Replies

Camille wrote:

You certainly twisted around reality to fit your view!

I am getting the same from you, I believe...

Camille wrote:

At the rate GW is going on destroying years of work enacting environmental law in the US, you actually want to point to Saddam's army burning oilfields from Iraq I?

I don't understand your point here. Are you suggesting that the conservative stance on the environment is somehow worse that letting Saddam ignite his oil fields? Maybe you can expand on your point here a bit.

Camille wrote:

Step back a minute and think about this....what would you think if some super power invaded the US and took over resources that are in the United States? The oil in Iraq is NOT ours! The oil in Iraq belongs to Iraq. You are proving my point that we are there for the oil, to protect the oil, the oil that is not ours to protect.

I agree that the oil in Iraq is not ours. That's why there aren't an endless chain of Exxon freighters waiting to fill up on Iraqi oil to bring back to the States. Until a stable Iraqi government can be formed, the provisional government must take control of the national resources and get things going. If we don't protect the oil for Iraq, who will?

Camille wrote:

The Iraqis have not seen one cent of money from their oil. GW is forcing them to payback years of debt that Saddam incurred and is not paying because Saddam isn't in power anymore. Most of the Iraqis will be dead and gone before that debt would be settled.

That's just not true. The US is getting large percentages of debt forgiven and the money is being used for infrastructure improvements (which insurgents destroy), getting Iraq's Oil business back in working order (which insurgents destroy), and getting the necessary imports back into Iraq for the people.

Camille wrote:

A silly argument that Halliburton got favored contracts? You've got to be kidding. Open ended non bid contracts that were a gift from Bush/Cheney to their political contributors. There are other companies that could do the same job. Yes, Halliburton is skilled in this area but contracts should be earned through the bid process, not by who gives you more money to go on TV with mud slinging ads.

Haliburton had a contract with the government that lasts 20 years for situations like this. I believe that the contract was created under Clinton's presidency, so there. remember, there's the right way, the wrong way, and the military way. There was no imporpriety involved with haliburton getting the contracts that it did.

0 Replies

Ahem

Quote:

The purpose of this thread is not to convince anyone, or get anyone to re-examine their present position, I am merely interested in hearing what brought about the change of heart.

0 Replies

Sorry.

0 Replies

Has anything or anyone changed your mind?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know