For those that oppose the US actions in Iraq... and for those that support it unconditionally

[dnuggett]

I am curious, would you still oppose the war in Iraq if the US had more support from other countries? If so, why?

 

[BDawg]

I think enforcing an international mandate requires international action. USA, England, *POLAND*, Swaziland, Grenada, and the Knights of Upper Malta doesn't cut it.

That being said, even with international support, had we followed the same plan which had zero concern for the after-war, I'd still be critical.

 

[TheVrolok]

If we had support from the UN then yes, I would definitely have supported the efforts in Iraq. That said, the only reason we would have had UN support is because there would have been a plausible reason to invade and since there wasn't, support was not lent.

 

[lozina]

Whoops picked the wrong option, meant to pick "No". Having the support of other countries naturally implies we had a good reason to invade. As it stood, we did not have any convincing evidence to support our claims so other countries did not support us. Had we either had real evidence or a better reason to go to war, then I would not oppose it anymore.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
I am curious, for those of you that oppose Bush's actions in Iraq, would you support them if other countries (Germany, France etc...) had stood behind us? If so, why?

Please ask the same question in the post and the poll.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: dnuggett
I am curious, for those of you that oppose Bush's actions in Iraq, would you support them if other countries (Germany, France etc...) had stood behind us? If so, why?

Please ask the same question in the post and the poll.

Done.

 

[Infohawk]

You need more poll options.

Here is my view:

I would support it if the UN had sanctioned it (per the UN charter which we are a member of) and it wasn't done under the pretext of defending the US and getting revenge for 9/11.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You need more poll options.

Here is my view:

I would support it if the UN had sanctioned it (per the UN charter which we are a member of) and it wasn't done under the pretext of defending the US and getting revenge for 9/11.

Such as?

 

[arsbanned]

Knowing what we know now? There is no way in hell I would support this filthy war.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You need more poll options.

Here is my view:

I would support it if the UN had sanctioned it (per the UN charter which we are a member of) and it wasn't done under the pretext of defending the US and getting revenge for 9/11.

Such as?

Well you should always include an other. You might want to put down, "Yes if additional elements were met" OR simply "OTHER" then you ask people to explain in parentheses.

 

[Rob9874]

Determining what is right is not contingent on approval from others. Would you support the capture of Osama if France and Germany opposed it? (Yeah, but Saddam != Osama....I know)

 

[seawolf21]

If we had UN backing, I would support Bush's decision for war even with the hindsight no WMD existed.

Given we did not have UN backing, I may have CONSIDERED voting for Bush if WMDs were found.

Given no WMD, I will not vote for Bush. Whether he intentionally mislead or not does not matter. When you make a wrong decision on a head-of-state level resulting in thousands dying (both US and Iraqi) because you got duped, you DON'T deserve to keep your job. People lose their jobs everyday over much smaller infractions.

He has to be held accountable for making a wrong decision regardless of what his advisors or the intelligence available advised him. If the Republican party had nominated someone else, I would consider voting Republican.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Determining what is right is not contingent on approval from others. Would you support the capture of Osama if France and Germany opposed it? (Yeah, but Saddam != Osama....I know)

First of all right is being used in different ways. In a sense, it is if you are binded by a process that only sanctions action when people agree (as in a democracy or as in the UN charter).

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You need more poll options.

Here is my view:

I would support it if the UN had sanctioned it (per the UN charter which we are a member of) and it wasn't done under the pretext of defending the US and getting revenge for 9/11.

Such as?

Well you should always include an other. You might want to put down, "Yes if additional elements were met" OR simply "OTHER" then you ask people to explain in parentheses.

Ok, done.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Determining what is right is not contingent on approval from others. Would you support the capture of Osama if France and Germany opposed it? (Yeah, but Saddam != Osama....I know)

First of all right is being used in different ways. In a sense, it is if you are binded by a process that only sanctions action when people agree (as in a democracy or as in the UN charter).

I think the statement "Determining what is right is not contingent on approval from others." Is true though, don't you?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Determining what is right is not contingent on approval from others. Would you support the capture of Osama if France and Germany opposed it? (Yeah, but Saddam != Osama....I know)

First of all right is being used in different ways. In a sense, it is if you are binded by a process that only sanctions action when people agree (as in a democracy or as in the UN charter).

I think the statement "Determining what is right is not contingent on approval from others." Is true though, don't you?

I thought I answered but here goes in more detail:

It depends on what you say is "right." If the Senate democratically votes to pass a wrong bill, the bill may be wrong, but the process, the decision was "right" in the sense it followed the rules. Under the UN charter (which is a good idea and a good system), there are certain ways you can go to war. One of them involves getting UN approval. We didn't do that here and that's wrong.

 

[Todd33]

If the world, under the UN or otherwise, thought Saddam should show his cards, I'd be all for troops and inspectors en mass. I'd rather is be the World vs Saddam and not the US vs World.

 

[Klixxer]

Yes, with the facts that were laid forth and being mostly debunked before the war even started and most definently without an exit plan.

[EDIT] messed up answer at first.... tired, no tequila, no wenches [/EDIT]

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Todd33
If the world, under the UN or otherwise, thought Saddam should show his cards, I'd be all for troops and inspectors en mass. I'd rather is be the World vs Saddam and not the US vs World.

Oh yeah I forgot about the inspectors. Obviously they should have been able to finish their job before anyone started fighting but had the UN been involved it would have unlikely been a problem.

 

[imported_Condor]

I support the war in Iraq. I think it was the Bangkok or the Costa Rica of the middle east only just for terrorists. A protected place to go to plan, rest and rearm. It had to go.

 

[dbk]

Imo, things would've been done differently if 'this' was done with full international support.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Byung
Imo, things would've been done differently if 'this' was done with full international support.

Well actually, you forgot Poland.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You need more poll options.

Here is my view:

I would support it if the UN had sanctioned it (per the UN charter which we are a member of) and it wasn't done under the pretext of defending the US and getting revenge for 9/11.

off topic, but did u support our action in yugoslavia under President Clinton? That wasn't sanctioned by the UN either, but I didn't hear liberals complaining about no UN sanction then.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Condor
I support the war in Iraq. I think it was the Bangkok or the Costa Rica of the middle east only just for terrorists. A protected place to go to plan, rest and rearm. It had to go.

First it was WMD's and terrorist connections (and 50 different variants of both) then it was about bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (but anyone understands that that won't happen anytime soon) and now it is about creating a base to fight terrorists, now THAT is the reason why it had to go.

I am curious, when the public pressure becomes to big to bring the troops home, what will the reason be then?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Infohawk
You need more poll options.

Here is my view:

I would support it if the UN had sanctioned it (per the UN charter which we are a member of) and it wasn't done under the pretext of defending the US and getting revenge for 9/11.

off topic, but did u support our action in yugoslavia under President Clinton? That wasn't sanctioned by the UN either, but I didn't hear liberals complaining about no UN sanction then.

You really should read the UN charter to which the US is a signatory and founding member:

"Nothing in the Present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangments or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, Chapter VIII - Regional Arrangments.