CNN Poll - Is Iraq War worst mistake?

[liberal N proud]

Do you agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the Iraq war is "the worst foreign policy mistake" in U.S. history?

http://www.cnn.com/

Do you agree with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the Iraq war is "the worst foreign policy mistake" in U.S. history?

Yes 62% 6539 votes

No 38% 4009 votes
Total: 10548 votes

[countingbluecars]

1. Done n/t

[Flarney]

2. Is it worse than Vietnam?

Seems like a lot more people died in Vietnam, for just a lie just the same.

[spanone]

10. Give it time, plenty will die. Unfortunately.

[Poiuyt]

15. The difference is that we didn't start the Viet Nam War

[Flarney]

17. Really? Are you referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

I think I need a history lesson...but I still think our involvement in Vietnam was a pretty huge mistake. The only reason all those people died was so that the military industrial complex could sell more stuff. (IMHO)

[Poiuyt]

29. The French had been fighting in Vietnam back in the early 50's

When the French decided that it wasn't worth it to maintain the colonies, they withdrew. Shortly after that, Eisenhower and Kennedy started to put in advisers. The war didn't really escalate until the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

I agree that Vietnam was a huge mistake, but it was one which we kind of waded into. I wonder what would have happened if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated?

[Flarney]

31. Or if the Gulf of Tonkin incident hadn't been faked... n/t

[frogcycle]

41. Kennedy had a plan much like the Baker/Hamilton one

he was intent on getting us out.


Johnson was a lackey of the same crowd that is in power now.

The big distinction is that there was, in fact, a "Cold War" and there was, in fact, a war of ideology actively going on in VN, dating back to the days of the Korean conflict. While the "domino theory" was discredited when we pulled out in that the rest of that portion of the globe did not "go communist" like dominoes, it may be more a matter of timing than the theory having been totally baseless. Eastern Europe certainly had gone to Soviet control like dominoes, and many African and South American nations were going or at risk of doing so. Cuba having gone over had provided the Soviets a place to base nuclear weapons 90 miles from the US, and they had done so. The atmosphere in which the Tonkin Gulf incident was used to ratchet up that war was vastly different from this case, wherein a threat from a relatively small and stateless extremists was cranked up into a "sky is falling" doomsday scenario.

VN was during the days when the Doomsday Clock was very, very real.

So VN was a mistake, for sure, but it did not radically reverse our standing in the world. It was, after all, followed not all that long after by the implosion of the Soviet empire.

THIS blunder, on the other hand, stands to create a much worsened geopolitical climate for decades to come.

The total body count is not the measure of the degree of the blunder.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Vietnam was, officially, holding the line against a muscular

expansionist communism - and a significant part of the world community agreed.

It was misguided, and flawed, but there were genuine principles behind it.

Iraq, OTOH, is destabalizing the entire region in an effort to secure rescources for ourselves, and that effort will, in the long run, cost us those very resources as well as the emnity of every nation in that region, including those who are our nominal allies.

The 50,000 lost in Vietnam will look like a pittance compared to the eventual fallout of this conflict.

[Flarney]

23. It may well be "the worst foreign policy mistake"...but

I guess only time will tell which is the worse crime against humanity...I do tend to agree with your prediction, however...especially if Bush converts this into a war with Iran. It seems insane to me that we have to sit here powerlessly holding our breath in hopes that Bush doesn't start another war. I bet if we tried to impeach it would only guarantee war with Iran (like a cornered rat lashes out in desperation). Scary stuff.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Heh

That's like saying Iraq is, officially, holding the line against muscular expansionist islamofascism.

[tabasco]

30. When you make a mistake the second time it's worse because you didn't learn. n/t

[nonconformist]

47. It's worse because we didn't learn our lesson after Vietnam. nt

[Demeter]

3. The "Selection of 2000" Was the Worst Mistake

and there were too many participants in that fiasco to count, although we can finger the principals...

And bad foreign and domestic policy was the inevitable fallout.

[mod mom]

7. of course, you are correct the THEFT is what started it all but we should

support Reid's statement

[malaise]

8. But that wasn't foreign policy n/t

[mod mom]

4. done.

[Monkeyman]

5. Done

[spanone]

6. voted!

You have to wonder what 38% think the worst mistake is??????

[theboss]

9. No....the War of 1812 was

Vietnam was a close second.

Everything leading up to the Spanish-American War was pretty much a disaster.

Our failure to embrace the League of Nations was a fairly monumental mistake in retrospect.

One could make the argument that Carter (God bless him) was completely out of his depth during the buildup to the Iranian Revolution.

Iraq is probably in the top five though. But I really wish people would regard history prior to, like, 1996.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Thank you boss

I'll refrain from voting at all in that poll, but to say Iraq is the worst foreign policy mistake in US history is going a bit too far.

[theboss]

34. It's easily the biggest mistake since the Cold War and probably since Vietnam

Like I said...definitely top ten, probably top five. And maybe ten years from now, we look at it as #1. But I don't think we can do that now.

[MonkeyFunk]

37. yes

that was my other thought - it's far to soon to judge the historical impact of this. Foreign Policy decisions can only rightly be judged over the long term.

[PADemD]

11. Done

62% yes
38% no

[Double T]

12. bushco owns ALL the worst policy mistakes; if Iraq isn't the worst.......

I don't know which one was/is.

[demrabble]

13. Worse That "Unconditional Surrender"?

The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was a terrible foreign policy mistake.

But the worst??

I have always thought that the policy of Unconditional Surrender that the UW pursued during WWII was the worst foreign policy decision ever.

Because that policy led to the carpet bombing of cities in Europe and Japan.

The US killed many, many thousands of people in fire (napalm) bombings of Dresden, Germany, and Tokyo.

And then, of course, the US used TWO atomic bombs -- one of them was used AFTER the Japanese sued for peace -- but before the Japanese agreed to unconditional surrender.

[theboss]

18. You realize that Stalin would never have quit, right?

If the British and Americans had made terms with the Germans, Stalin would have simply steamed towards the western edge of Germany, and probably would have killed an extra 2 million Germans in the process.

Everyone forgets that there were two fronts in WWII and that most of the dying took place in the east.

[demrabble]

22. Might Have.

We really do not know what Stalin "would" have done.

We only know what he "might" have done.

The presence of American and British troops in Western German might have deterred him from steaming towards France.

In fact, the presence of American and British troops DID deter him from steaming towards France.

And, yes, of course I know that there were at least many fronts in WWII -- there were at least two in Europe (some would argue that there were three - the West, the East, and the South -- in Sicily and Italy.), and there were several in the Pacific and Indian Ocean region.

Some people tend to forget about those who died outside Europe.

[theboss]

24. He wouldn't have taken France obviously.

But he would have taken a much larger chunk of Germany...and killed and raped a much larger number of Germans.

Stalin broke all his promises regardin Poland. It's hard to imagine that he would have kept his word on Germany if "unconditional surrender" was not agreed upon at Yalta.

But I think this is moot. It's not clear that any person with any power ever advocated anything less than unconditional surrender during 44 or 45. And if they had, Stalin and Churchill would have laughed at them.

[demrabble]

28. The Question Was About American Foreign Policy

The question was about American Foreign Policy.

It is my view that the decision to pursuse Unconditional Surrender in WWII was a worse American foreign policy than the decision to illegally invade and occupy Iraq.

That is not to say that the decision to illegally invade and occupy Iraq was a good decision.

Both we bad decisions.

But the "Unconditional Surrender" decision was worse.

In my view.

[theboss]

33. So...American Foreign policy in 1945 was unrelated to Stalin?

What specifically was wrong with American foreign policy in regards to Germany?

Please keep in mind that the fire-bombing of Dresden was largely a British operation that was done with the prodding of the Soviets.

[demrabble]

35. What Was Wrong With American Foreign Policy In Regards to Germany?

What was wrong with regards to American foreign policy in German during WWII?

The policy of Unconditional Surrender.

I think I have already said that.

[theboss]

40. Let me rephrase: Why was that the wrong policy?

I'm looking for reasons, not declarations.

[demrabble]

43. More Death. More Destruction.

The US policy of Unconditional Surrender of Germany led to more death and destruction of American soldiers and of German soldiers, property, and civilians than necessary.

War should be limited in both scope and means.

I would not advocate a policy of "unconditional surrender" -- involving firebombing of Baghdad or an increase of US troops -- in Iraq now.

[theboss]

44. First of all...not a US policy

It was an Allied Policy. Which meant that it was Churchill and Stalin as much as anyone else. And since they had both actually been attackd by Germany, their views carried some weight.

Second of all...Hitler also had a role in all of this. He was ordering battalions to fight to the last man until the very end. Heck, during the Battle of Berlin, he was ordering non-existant units around.

Finally, Bergin-Belsen was not liberated until April 15, 1945. Buchenwald in April of 1945 (a labor camp, not an extermination camp, but still). Stuhoff was not liberated until May of 1945. Under your policy, many of the concentration camps would have never been liberated.

Why is that a good thing?

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. That may have been the most disastrous for the other side,

but not for our side. WE were not signifactly negatively affected by that policy - in fact, it guaranteed the ultimate destruction of the enemy regimes so that future generations would not have to deal with a Nazi Germany or militant Japan.

Without unconditional surrender we could have had the Nazi regime persist. Without unconditional surrender we would not have had the option of writing Japan's new constitution.

Ruthless? Yes. Worst? Not necessarily.

[demrabble]

42. Only If You Have No Conscience

"WE were not signifactly negatively affected by that policy"

Only if your conscience is not significantly bothered by the fact that "we" firebombed Tokyo -- killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children. Many of whom jumped into the water in a vain attempt to put out the napalm-induced fires that burned on their bodies.

Only if your conscience is not bothered by the fact that AFTER the Japanese government sued for peace, "we" dropped an Atomic Bomb on Nagazaki -- killing thousands and wounding many more. And, of course, establishing a precedent that, in some cases, nuclear weapons as OK in war.

No, I guess WE were not singificantly negatively affected at all.

After all, we won.

I wonder how some would feel if the rules of war (like unconditional surrender) "we" applied during WWII became official US policy now. I wonder if people would think that "we" would not be adversely by a US policy that caused cities like Baghdad to be firebombed in the middle of the night, or places in Iraq to be hit with nuclear weapons so that the war might be ended sooner.

Means (and not just ends) matter.

I'm glad the world is rid of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism.

But the means "we" used were worst than the means we are using now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

46. But was the nation adversely affected by that policy after the war?

I'm not saying it was right. I've always believed, in fact, that they were war crimes. But the fact is we were involved in a total war, and such atrocities were committed by all parties, making it a wash. IMO, to qualify as a serious foreign blunder there must be a long-term impact on international relations. Can you show me what international ramifications resulted from that policy?

Attacking Iraq, however, is more on a par with Germany invading Poland. There was no justification for it, and even though our casualties have been relatively minor the real effect is our standing in the world community. We are the #1 pariah nation in the world, because of this aggression in the name of oil. And we seem to be on course to repeat this aggression against Iran - something we do not have the resources to do without the use of nukes, which will make the war in Iraq the 2nd worst foreign policy blunder.

[AlinPA]

14. It was done willfully; not a "mistake" per se, rather a tactic to get Bush**

"re-elected" in 2004. All this crap about "bad intelligence" is garbage. Karl Rove had it done for that one reason. Now they can't pull out because Halliburton and other big companies need that income.

[C_U_L8R]

16. Tony Snow is a Candy Colored Clown

He tries to spin the issue into the old "you don't support the troops" bulldada.

Seems to me that that diversionary arguments are fast failing the republicans.
Do they have a problem directly addressing issues or what ?????

And yeah... the decision to go into Iraq IS the worst foreign policy mistake EVER.
And Bush's idiotic mismanagement of the whole fiasco has got to be the biggest case
for impeachment EVER. Bush's incompetence endangers the nation and he should be
removed from office at the soonest opportunity. Geesh.

[LonelyLRLiberal]

19. Yes - we don't even know all the consequences yet.

still 62% with 15,519 votes

[rodeodance]

20. done

[lonestarnot]

25. Mistake? hmmmf. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, torture,

intentional theivery, intentional serial killing. Mistake my ass! War profiteers, powermongers, 9/11. hmmmmmf. Done

[madokie]

26. 62% yes with 20708 votes

damn near two thirds of the votes

[frogcycle]

36. anybody recall that Al Gore used this exact phraseology a while back?

I think this is no coincidence.

Methinks the games afoot.

Reid used it - emphatically - to defuse any attempt down the road to hold it against Gore.

[maxsolomon]

39. worst as it had the benefit of hindsight

we KNOW all about the various missteps in the construction of our global hegemony.

most of these mistakes were due to ignorance & fear.

we are attacked on 9/11 with the express purpose of making us so afraid that we make a strategic blunder, and we (well, littleboots & the "most experienced policy experts in washington", cheney & rumsfeld) fall right into the trap.

shit, this was expressly warned against by Wallace Shawn in The Princess Bride! how dumb do you have to be to ignore that?




VIZZINI
You fell victim to one of the
classic blunders. The most famous
is "Never get involved in a land
war in Asia." But only slightly
less well known is this: "Never
go in against a Sicilian when
death is on the line."

He laughs and roars and cackles and whoops and is in all
ways quite cheery until he falls over dead.

[BlooInBloo]

45. Fool me twice.... ya can't fool me again...