Have conservatives washed their hands of the Iraq war?

In the lead up to the Iraq war, several conservatives promoted the idea that this war was absolutely necessary and even promoted the idea that it was unpatriotic to oppose the war. Nowadays, conservatives seem to have washed their hands of this war and seem to want to take no consequences for it.

This why I find the current conservative version of patriotism to be false, its all about propping up the idea, policy or notion they have that instant and branding descent to it as unpatriotic and then they will just abandon it in a few years and barely acknowledge it happened.

So do conservatives still take ownership of the Iraq War or do they now wash their hands of it now that its critics were proven right? If Trump promotes a war, will the right wing press say anyone who oppose it is unpatriotic.

Well, most conservatives these days go with whatever Trump says. Trump says the Iraq War was a disaster and that he was opposed to it from the beginning (despite evidence proving otherwise), therefore, many conservatives now believe the Iraq War was a disaster. Trump is their new god. Modern Conservatism is a joke with no independent thought. William F. Buckley would be embarrassed to see what has happened to the movement.

Yes_Minister said:

In the lead up to the Iraq war, several conservatives promoted the idea that this war was absolutely necessary and even promoted the idea that it was unpatriotic to oppose the war. Nowadays, conservatives seem to have washed their hands of this war and seem to want to take no consequences for it.

This why I find the current conservative version of patriotism to be false, its all about propping up the idea, policy or notion they have that instant and branding descent to it as unpatriotic and then they will just abandon it in a few years and barely acknowledge it happened.

So do conservatives still take ownership of the Iraq War or do they now wash their hands of it now that its critics were proven right? If Trump promotes a war, will the right wing press say anyone who oppose it is unpatriotic.

Click to expand...

The critics of the liberation of Iraq weren't proven right. They were in fact, proven wrong. We got rid of the biggest human rights violator on the planet and gutted the biggest terrorist org. on the planet in the process. The results weren't 100% perfect, but they were far sight better than what they had before we freed the Iraqi people from the Baathists and then AQI when they tried to take over Iraq. People like you like to try blame the US for everything that went wrong, when in fact what we were able to accomplish there was nothing short of amazing. We took a nation that was led by madman and was the worst human rights violator on the planet (prisons with quotas for torture, rape, executions, etc. was just one small piece of that) and went through a painful process to get it pretty much self-sufficient. Strong enough to push ISIS back when it invaded them (it took time for Iraq to do it, but they most certainly did it). Is Iraq a perfect paradise of a nation?? Nope. Is it VASTLY better today than it was in 1990? HELL YES!!!

Yes_Minister said:

In the lead up to the Iraq war, several conservatives promoted the idea that this war was absolutely necessary and even promoted the idea that it was unpatriotic to oppose the war. Nowadays, conservatives seem to have washed their hands of this war and seem to want to take no consequences for it.

This why I find the current conservative version of patriotism to be false, its all about propping up the idea, policy or notion they have that instant and branding descent to it as unpatriotic and then they will just abandon it in a few years and barely acknowledge it happened.

So do conservatives still take ownership of the Iraq War or do they now wash their hands of it now that its critics were proven right? If Trump promotes a war, will the right wing press say anyone who oppose it is unpatriotic.

Click to expand...

As much as no one wants to hear what any Nazi said, Hermann Goering was 100% right when he said:

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

He was absolutely right - and anyone who really paid attention back in 2001-3 could see that this was precisely what the GOP in general (and Bush and Cheney in particular) were doing.

faithful_servant said:

The critics of the liberation of Iraq weren't proven right. They were in fact, proven wrong. We got rid of the biggest human rights violator on the planet and gutted the biggest terrorist org. on the planet in the process. The results weren't 100% perfect, but they were far sight better than what they had before we freed the Iraqi people from the Baathists and then AQI when they tried to take over Iraq. People like you like to try blame the US for everything that went wrong, when in fact what we were able to accomplish there was nothing short of amazing. We took a nation that was led by madman and was the worst human rights violator on the planet (prisons with quotas for torture, rape, executions, etc. was just one small piece of that) and went through a painful process to get it pretty much self-sufficient. Strong enough to push ISIS back when it invaded them (it took time for Iraq to do it, but they most certainly did it). Is Iraq a perfect paradise of a nation?? Nope. Is it VASTLY better today than it was in 1990? HELL YES!!!

Click to expand...

Okay, then why not overthrow some of these dictators Africa or Saudi Arabia, if overthrowing dictators is so important? What made Saddam worse then some of these other human rights violating dictatorships?

Also if the Iraq War is so great, why isn't Trump singing it praises?

That's not what the Iraq war was sold on, its sold on Saddam being an immediate threat threat due to WMDs, what did we find when we invaded Iraq?

Also if conservatives belief in freedom and individuality, why due to they use patriotism to promote obedience and conformity over issues like the Iraq War? It seems like Republican freedom is being free to think like a Republican and agree with their ideas, anyone who disagrees ''hates freedom''.

Also you seem to ignoring the role the Iraq War played in the rise of ISIS:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/isis-and-the-curse-of-the-iraq-war

How great is that war if it helped create that monster?

faithful_servant said:

The critics of the liberation of Iraq weren't proven right. They were in fact, proven wrong. We got rid of the biggest human rights violator on the planet and gutted the biggest terrorist org. on the planet in the process. The results weren't 100% perfect, but they were far sight better than what they had before we freed the Iraqi people from the Baathists and then AQI when they tried to take over Iraq. People like you like to try blame the US for everything that went wrong, when in fact what we were able to accomplish there was nothing short of amazing. We took a nation that was led by madman and was the worst human rights violator on the planet (prisons with quotas for torture, rape, executions, etc. was just one small piece of that) and went through a painful process to get it pretty much self-sufficient. Strong enough to push ISIS back when it invaded them (it took time for Iraq to do it, but they most certainly did it). Is Iraq a perfect paradise of a nation?? Nope. Is it VASTLY better today than it was in 1990? HELL YES!!!

Click to expand...

Yeah, it only cost the lives of at least 100,000 Iraqi men, women, and children...and that was before ISIS began their rise to power.

And recent polls of the Iraqi people are hard to find - the older polls show that they had a VERY different opinion from yours.

Besides, by your "logic", we should have invaded the USSR to "liberate" the people, and we should invade North Korea to "liberate" the people...with no regard at all for the death and destruction that is caused to their populations...or our own.

Yes_Minister said:

Okay, then why not overthrow some of these dictators Africa or Saudi Arabia, if overthrowing dictators is so important? What made Saddam worse then some of these other human rights violating dictatorships?

Also if the Iraq War is so great, why isn't Trump singing it praises?

That's not what the Iraq war was sold on, its sold on Saddam being an immediate threat threat due to WMDs, what did we find when we invaded Iraq?

Also if conservatives belief in freedom and individuality, why due to they use patriotism to promote obedience and conformity over issues like the Iraq War? It seems like Republican freedom is being free to think like a Republican and agree with their ideas, anyone who disagrees ''hates freedom''.

Also you seem to ignoring the role the Iraq War played in the rise of ISIS:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/isis-and-the-curse-of-the-iraq-war

How great is that war if it helped create that monster?

Click to expand...

Dumb arguments each every one.
You obviously know NOTHING about the Batthist regime. They had WMDs as evidenced by their use against both the Iranians and the Kurds. Anyone with any level of education on that particular issue knows that WMDs were there, but that the UNs mishandling of the inspection allowed them to be moved.

Pres. Trump has no reason to talk about Iraq.

Your blaming ISIS on our liberation of Iraq is like blaming us for the rise of Nazi Germany since without us beating down "The Kaiser", Nazi Germany would have never happened.

Glen Contrarian said:

Yeah, it only cost the lives of at least 100,000 Iraqi men, women, and children...and that was before ISIS began their rise to power.

And recent polls of the Iraqi people are hard to find - the older polls show that they had a VERY different opinion from yours.

Besides, by your "logic", we should have invaded the USSR to "liberate" the people, and we should invade North Korea to "liberate" the people...with no regard at all for the death and destruction that is caused to their populations...or our own.

Click to expand...

We stopped a regime that was killing over 25,000 of it's own people every year. Rape rooms, torture facilities, exporting terrorism were all well known and highly documented parts of the Baathist reign of terror. Liberals will cry about ending oppression, but you're faced with teh reality of how you do that, you can only whine that it took conservatives to actaully DO something.

faithful_servant said:

Dumb arguments each every one.
You obviously know NOTHING about the Batthist regime. They had WMDs as evidenced by their use against both the Iranians and the Kurds. Anyone with any level of education on that particular issue knows that WMDs were there, but that the UNs mishandling of the inspection allowed them to be moved.

Pres. Trump has no reason to talk about Iraq.

Your blaming ISIS on our liberation of Iraq is like blaming us for the rise of Nazi Germany since without us beating down "The Kaiser", Nazi Germany would have never happened.

Click to expand...

Trump has slammed the Iraq War several times, if its so great, why does he think it was a disaster?

And what WMDs did we find in Iraq after the war, can you prove they still had the weapons program past 1991?

There is plenty of evidence that the Iraq War created a power vacuum that ISIS exploited. There would be no ISIS if not for the war and I will say this, there would not have been a Nazi Germany without the conditions of the treaty of Versailles or World War I's aftermath and no I am not blaming the US for that, that's France and Britain's fault and Germany itself, but it shows how past conflicts feed future conflicts.

faithful_servant said:

We stopped a regime that was killing over 25,000 of it's own people every year. Rape rooms, torture facilities, exporting terrorism were all well known and highly documented parts of the Baathist reign of terror. Liberals will cry about ending oppression, but you're faced with teh reality of how you do that, you can only whine that it took conservatives to actaully DO something.

Click to expand...

Again, by your 'logic', we should be invading North Korea TODAY.

But just because we can do a thing, that doesn't meant that we should do that thing. Was it worth the trillions - yes, trillions - of dollars and thousands of American lives to go "save" Iraq? Your grandchildren and mine will still be paying the debt created by the Iraq war. What's more, apparently you're thinking that we went over there with the express purpose of "saving" the Iraqi people...and nothing could be further from the truth. Remember, in the VERY FIRST cabinet meeting held by George W. Bush within a couple weeks of taking office in January 2001, the main topic of the meeting was the invasion of Iraq, and which corporations would have access to which oil fields. Again, this was over eight months BEFORE 9/11...and THEN Bush sold you (and much of America due to his lies) the song-and-dance that Iraq was supporting al-Qaeda...which was a flat lie, because the CIA stated that they warned Bush that the intel from the single source making that claim was of questionable trustworthiness.

And why did Bush want - during his very first cabinet meeting - to discuss plans to invade Iraq? Before he ever became president, the guy who was writing Bush's biography (until Bush cancelled the deal) pointed out that Bush stated that he wanted to do what his dad did not do, and that war presidents are seen as the most successful, so he wanted to be a war president.

THOSE, sir, are the real reasons we spent trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq. But according to you, we did it to "save" the Iraqi people.

In other words, you're trying to retroactively justify our illegal and unwarranted invasion of a nation (that presented NO clear and present danger to America) by claiming we did it to "save the people"...when nothing could be further from the documented facts.