Anonymous asked this question;
Why was the ACT Party the most pro-the invasion of Iraq? Why does it seem that the party feels the need to bend over backward to try and please the Americans? So many people said it was going to be a disaster, and the ACT Party ignored all that and instead championed the idea of invading Iraq. What’s up with that?
ACT is generally pro-American because the US is a great country based on the values of limited government and individual liberty.
In some ways this is a sentimental attachment as even many American patriots would acknowledge that their country has drifted from these values, under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
While ACT was “officially” pro the Iraq War, this was not universally supported and we lost some members over it.
I was not a supporter of the Iraq adventure and acknowledge the influence of libertarian, Jim Peron in shaping my views.
I thought the Afghanistan campaign was legitimate because the Taliban were sheltering forces who had attacked the US.
Iraq, I thought was far more doubtful-even though I believed that Saddam Hussein was well plugged in to the terror network and probably did possess WMDs.
I thought then it it might turn into a quagmire and I thought the US had more pressing threats in Cuba and Venezuela.
I also believed that Iraq was a client state of Russia and China. I saw it as foolish and hypocritical for the US to pretend that Russia and China were friends, while trying to take out their puppet.
I suspect that many ACT members have turned away from the Iraq War, as have many Americans, but I do know that some are still supportive, at least in principle.
Strangely, I personally have actually become slightly more pro the war.
I am torn, because I believe that US should not try to police the world, while acknowledging that only the US has any chance of stopping Russia, China and their Muslim radical puppets.
I am also well aware of the complete communist domination of the anti Iraq War “peace” movement.
So I am still “divided”.
I hope that the “surge” works and that the US can bring the Iraq War to satisfactory conclusion. I hope the US can finish the job, get out and stay out.
There is no real ACT “position” on Iraq these days. ACT’s focus is mainly domestic and is concentrated, understandably on increasing our representation in 2008.
To sum up anon, there never was unanimity in ACT over Iraq and there certainly isn’t now.
Perhaps some other ACT supporters would like to contribute their views?
I am only one member of the party and do not want to misrepresent other supporters views.
16 thoughts on “Iraq, ACT and I”
But of course, your figures are wrong, patently so. Whay am I not the teensiest bit surprised ?
Big chance – blew it !
Droll Mah, Droll !
Here’s my analsys: Palestinians/Funders for Palestinian Terrorism: 1000, IDF: 10.
Deal with reality.
I care. I care also about IDF:10 Palestinians:1
You seem unable to care. It’s your moral compass that’s screwed, not mine. And you’re an unrepentant busybody, like the old hag of the neighbourhood, which makes it worse !
So stop weeping. You fart, it stinks ! I’ll say so again and again. Who do you think you are ?
“Yes, thank you for your clincial Dr Goebbels type analysis Anonymous.”
Yet another projection from the likes of Steve. Another 9/11 anniversary is coming up next month. Do you care Steve, that your Joseph Goebbels-style anti-Americanism will be in favor of the terrorists who struck on that day? Do you also care about the Iraqis and Afghanis should U.S. troops leave both regions and let genocidal terrorists have their victory?
Any day now Murrauy is going to find the courage to join the war on terror. Or not.
Yes, thank you for your clincial Dr Goebbels type analysis Anonymous.
I guess you’re some white trash squatting at your computer station in some white trash suburb – being very ballsy – in a style your exceedingly prosaic day job don’t allow.
Well, that’s OK I guess, given everything…..
The spreading freedom justification is false because a goverments purpose is to serve its own peoples interests.
The war in iraq does this by destroying the enemy at the source rather than waiting for them at home.
They must not make the mistake they have made in afghanistan by not seperating religion and the state.
“And I want all people, everywhere to bee the same.”
So to save them you’ll kill them in greater numbers than did The Butcher ?
What a selfish, egocentric little chappie you are.
Your veiwpoint mirrors my own Trev.
I supported (and still do) support the Iraq invasion. I believe that Saddam should have been taken care of after the first Gulf War.
I believe futher that Saddam did have WMDs (there is evidence to suggest that his WMD development programmes were shipped out of Iraq prior to the invasion) and it’s clear that Saddam was both a sponsor and enabler of terrorism.
True, the occupation has been mishandled in part and it’s often hard to know what is really going on there. Is it as bad as the media and opponets of the war say it is?, or is it better?. Depends on who you listen to.
I like being properous and free. And I want all people, everywhere to bee the same.
For me that was kind of stupid question of the year. The correct response is why the hell is everyone else bending over backwards to please terrorists and dictators.
While not a member of any political party,party politics being anathema to any real libertarian,I did support the move against Saddam broadly agreeing with various of the viewpoints stated above.I also assumed,mistakenly,that the US and Britain had done all their homework,and had a sound strategy for maintaining the political,social and cultural infrastructure prior to beginning the war.After all,the sectarian situation was well known,and not only by the intelligence communities.Events have shown that not only was their scant regard given to the aftermath of Saddams removal,but the scale of the ineptitude and incompetence in the planning has to be judged as criminally negligent,if not insane. I have no answers,but it seems that hoping that somehow now,these same “folks” will acheive what they initially did not even bother to plan properly,is an acute case of cluthing at straws.
Thanks for answering the question Trevor.
“The WMD is simply bush’s ‘I did not have sexual relations with that women'”.
The key difference being that hundreds of thousands of people didn’t die as a result of Clinton’s lie.
I was a member of ACT at the time of the invasion, and I was staggered at how in favour of the war many MPs were. Ken Shirley, despite being the Foreign Affairs spokesperson, and therefore having to speak in favour of it, didn’t seem to be personally that keen on it, while Richard Prebble and Rodney Hide seemed to love the idea. The neo-con idea that it is America’s role to spread freedom in the world would seem anathema to the classical liberal stance of the ACT Party. I eventually resigned from the party for various reasons, one of them being the stance on the war. Why would anyone want to be a member of a pro-war party?
I supported the invasion of Iraq, and still do.
Every intelligence agency on the planet, plus the UN, believed Saddam had WMD, and he was given an ultimatum to prove otherwise which, surprisingly he did not, confusing his own generals. All of the Left were braying “give the UN inspectors more time”, however as we know they could not prove the WMD were there within the time frame. The Coalition then invaded because Saddam continued to delay, and defy the UN Resolution.
Another reason I supported the invasion was because Saddam had committed acts of genocide on the Kurds at Halabja, and the Marsh Arabs in the south [to name just two]. Under international law he was captured, tried and executed for these crimes alone, similar to Milosevic, although he died too soon!
On another tack – the Coalition has given the Iraqis political freedom for the first time in their lives, including a free election and a Parliament. It is hardly a reflection of US foreign policy that the age-old animosity of Shia v. Sunni has twisted this political freedom into sectarian bloodshed.
We should stay the course in Iraq!
I support the war because saddam invaded kuwait, anyone had a right to go all the way to bagdad then but the u.n. said it wouldn’t be neccesary because of weapons inspections. When they were stopped, the first iraq war should have continued without further justification. The WMD is simply bush’s “I did not have sexual relations with that women”.
Now they are there they should finish the job properly like they did in japan 1945.
If we had someone like sadam in power here(I know helen is bad, but not that bad)I would want the US to invade even if the “Sadam like person” was not threat to the US. Therefore I did and still do support the war in Iraq. How can people support the principles of freedom and democracy, but only apply them to their own people and be happy to leave places like Iraq where people are murdered and tortured etc. I know there are alot of other places where dreadful things happen, but just because you cant fix every wrong in the world, it doesnt mean that you shouldnt fix any.