Home More advice Politics & Law
What everyones opinions of bringing home all the troops in Iraq?? Im scottish and have been brought up with almost every male in my family joining the blackwatch. I think that there wouldnt have been a war in iraq if it hadnt of been for tony blair and george bush becoming such good friends, all this war in iraq was meant to be because of weapons of mass destruction but I hvaent heard anything to do with thes soo called weapons of mass destuction in years so why are scottish english irish and american troops still out there??
Arent the governments just putting more men and womans lives at risk??
Not that I don't care what happens to the Iraqis, but Toadaly is right. There is nothing being gained by us staying there. Our continued presence is not only accomplishing nothing, it is actually making it worse. We are one of the major targets in Iraq. Taking us out of there will only imporve the situation. Bush and McCain never intend to leave. Never!
Baldwinwolf, you obviously were not paying attention when this war started, or you would never have said just yesterday that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors. Show me one inspector that was in iraq just prior to the war that said saddam was not cooperating,
This is from 1/9/03. It is Hans Blix and El Baradei's press briefing on how the inspections are going:
blix: HB: Good afternoon. Mr. ElBaradei and I briefed the Council, and for my part, I said that WE STILL GET PROMPT ACCESS FROM THE IRAQ SIDE; that the inspections are covering ever-wider areas, and ever more sites in Iraq; that in the course of these inspections we have not found any smoking gun. However, we are getting more and more information, better knowledge about the situation, and that the Declaration regrettably has not helped very much to clarify any question marks of the past. Lastly I can tell you that the Council gave very good support, expressed confidence in our two organizations and that they look forward to the briefing that we will give on the 27th of this month.
El Baradei: I think, as Dr. Blix mentioned, it was a very good meeting with the Council today. We reported that we are inching forward with implementation of our tasks. We are getting access to all the sites, however both of us also indicated that we need more proactive support on the part of Iraq; to be able to move quickly to implement our mandate. We also indicated that we need more actionable information on the part of governments and we committed ourselves to intensify the process so we can achieve the results intended as soon as we can. We will provide an update report on the 27th of this month, however that report, we should emphasize, is an update report, it is not a final report, it is work in progress, and this simply would register where we are on the 27th of January, but we obviously [will] continue our work afterward and we still have a lot of work to do.
This is from their report to the UN on 2/14/03:
Blix: "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."
Blix: "we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences."
Blix: "The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items. This was welcomed. A second commission, we learnt, has now been appointed with the task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes. It is headed by the former Minister of Oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses."
This was in response to Powells claims that WMD were being moved around Iraq:
Blix: "intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found. Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items conventional munitions. It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction."
Blix: "The presentation of intelligence information by the US Secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes. I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot. This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection."
ElBaradei: "The Government of Iraq reiterated last week its commitment to comply with its Security Council obligations and to provide full and active co-operation with the inspecting organizations. Subject to Iraq making good on this commitment, the above measures will contribute to the effectiveness of the inspection process."
ElBaradei: "The IAEA has continued to interview key Iraqi personnel. We have recently been able to conduct four interviews in private - that is, without the presence of an Iraqi observer."
There is so much more. I suggest you do a little research.
The bottom line is this: Regardless of what saddam had done, he was posing absolutely no threat at the time we invaded. He had been in complete cooperation with UN inpsectors from Nov 2002 through Mar 2003. Bush made one last ultimatum just before the war began. One that was impossible for him to comply with. He wanted Saddam to show proof of the destruction of his WMDs. But as the inspection were showing (and as we found out later) there were no WMDs. So how could he provide proof of the destruction of something he didn't have. Bush did not care that Saddam may not have actually posed a threat, he was invading no matter what. And he did, and we never found a thing. How can you possibly justify the cost of this war to remove a powerless tin-pot dictator. A powerless dictator who just happened to be sitting on the world's second larget oil reserves.
The money spent alone is bad enough, but this war has killed more than 100,000 people. A truly horrible trajedy that falls on the heads of Bush, Cheney, and all the knuckle-draggers that goose-stepped behind them.
calcm27:
"Jews and 'neocons' dont belive their god will praise them for killing the innocent. Infact, just the opposet."
I don't think real neocons even really care about god, they only care how they can use religion to rally people around their murderous causes.
"the extremists come from all over, including Iraq. If we dont fight them in the middle east, we will be fighting them in Europe and North America. Do you understand that?"
They are not coming from all over. The actual number of foreign fighters in Iraq is very small. some say as little as 1,000. The "extremists" we are fighting in Iraq are Iraqi. And they only became extremists because we invaded their country, killed their families and friends, destroyed what that had left of an infrastructure, and basically made their lives a living hell. The Iraqis do not want to fight us anywhere, they just want us to leave.
"We do not control their country. If the Iraqi prime minister says to Pres Bush 'I want all US troops out' we would, by our law, have to comply , and would comply. The majority of Iraq appreciates our help. Its the extremists that 'want us to leave' "
The Iraqis can't do anything without checking with the US first. ANd are you talking about the hand-picked prime minister that can't get anything accomplished. Polls show the Iraq people want us to leave.
"Listen to the stories our soldiers tell, not the crap on the news. "
I have listen to stories of our soldiers. Here is one: "Today has been hailed as the day that we suffered our 4000th American casualty in Iraq. Really, it should be marked as the day that this administration was forced to admit that we have lost at least 4000 brave young Americans in the misguided occupation of Iraq. A fire team of IVAW members and I commemorated this occasion today with a vigil at the White House including a raising of the inverted American flag to signal a country in a state of distress. Hopefully, those that saw us, and fellow Americans who note this day, will join us in facing the reality that these people died for a lie. And the soldiers that died today after this “milestone” died for lie. And the ones that will die tomorrow will die for a lie."
Adam Charles Kokesh, United States Marine Corps (USMC), Unit: 3rd Civil Affairs Group, Sergeant Served in: MCRD San Diego, CA Camp Pendleton, CA Fort Sill, OK Camp Fallujah, Iraq Rock ASP, Iraq Fallujah Peninsula, Iraq Fallujah Liaison Team CMOC, Iraq Camp Lejeune, NC
This is a real soldier speaking, not a phony one as Limbaugh describes them.
"All CNN wants is a story, and someone to blame. Iraq is not about oil. Have you seen gas prices lately?"
CNN? That's a laugh. They are only slightly better than FOX Noise.
Iraq IS about oil. Have YOU seen the price of gas lately. This war was not waged to reduce the price of gas, but to increase it. Who is making money off of those high prices? Bush's pals, the oil industry and the suadis. Wake up man...
"Do you think, that if we left Iraq, it would become a peacefull country? or a breeding ground for terrorists? seriously, answer that."
I think it will break down into civil war and eventually will split up. That is going to happen no matter how long we stay. Our presence is doing nothing to change that. In fact it is making it worse. It will not become a breeding ground for terrorist. There are very few of them there, and the shia majority wants nothing to do with them, as they are mostly sunni.
"I agree, this war sucks. Its a difficult one because there is no clear enemy. Its random people. "
This a great argument as to why we should leave ASAP
"But we're there. Deal with it. "
And why should anyone just deal with an unjust war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people.
"Cryng saying its murder isnt going to do anything."
Neither is throwing more blood and treasure at a failed policy.
"Do more Americans have to be murdered by terrorists for you to realize that? "
Iraq has never committed one terrorist act against the united states. Stop trying to imply they were.
"Tell us soldiers that you appreciate us putting our lives at risk to try to defeat the force that wants you and your family dead."
Pure BS. As I said. The Iraqis we are fighting only want us to leave, and they don't want to kill me or my family. They are not AQ terrorists, who happen to be the only islamic terrorist group that has attacked us. They are insurgents fighting an occupying force. If you think otherwise, you need to stop drinking the koolaid.
This not about respect for what soldiers do. I respect every one of them. I show that respect by wanting demanding they come home, so the don't have to die for greedy bastards who care nothing for them.
"jimahl, first off there is no good war."
Please show me where I said otherwise?
"war is terrible but tyranity is more so evil."
Would that be up to the victims of the tyrant to decide? Do you think Iraqis think their lives are better today, than under Saddam in 2003? Is there no limit to the cost of removing a tyrant? To me removing a tyrant means is more about saving people lives. If by removing this tyrant, you are actually saving lives, than yes, it might be worth it. But if removing the tyrrant kills even more people than would have otherwise died had we not invaded, is obviously not worth it. Surely there were better ways to deal with saddam. Containment was working just fine.
"thats why we need to work to make sure people in other countrys have the same feeling of being free not just ourselves."
And do you think the Iraqis feel free today? Do you think being afraid for your life when going to the market is freedom?
"like I've said for the third time IM NOT FOR THE WAR NOR DO I THINK ITS A GOOD WAR."
Then why are you defending our continued occupation?
"how could you say that we are there for oil? because if we were it dosent look like its helping does it?you dont know if were there because of greed. you are just asuming things. "
Is it an assumption or a fact that oil has tripled in price since this war started? Is it assumption or fact that oil companies have been recording record profits every year since this war began? Is it assumption or fact that the Suadis have made huge profits since this war began. Is it assumption or fact that one of the first things Cheney did when he took office was to conduct secretive meetings with the oil industry in order to develop US energy policy, and to decide who and what oil fields in Iraq the companies would control (this was before 9/11). You are very naive if you think it is a coincidence that the powerless dictator we overthrough just happened to be sitting on the worlds second largest oil reserve. Invading Iraq was a win-win situation for the neocons. If the inspectors were allowed to finish, and Iraq was declared WMD free, Saddam probaly would have been allowed to begin increasing oil production and selling (probably in euros and not dollars) oil on the world market. That would have created major competition for Bush's buddies the Suadis. By invading, one of two things would happen. Either we would have prevailed and installed a US-friendly goverment, and US companies would be controlling the oil flow. Or it would fall into chaos and prevent the oil from getting onto the open market as competition to the saudis. A win-win for bush and his pals.
"toadaly, I can see your thinking but this war is very simalar to vietnam in a lot of ways, corrupt politics, anti war protests and stuff of that sort. I relize that the world might not end but we will of left the middle east in chaos. we cant just turn our back on the iraqis they are still people that deserve a stable goverment that will take a stand against terrorism."
You are the one making assumptions now. You are assuming that it is not our presence that is causing the destablization, and that our continued occupation of a sovereign nation who wants us to leave, is some how going to eventual stablize the region. Our presence is only making the situation worse.
not committing any atrocities??? now who is turning the blind eye, according to the above you are buying into the same past policies. sooner or later that eye is able to see the atrocities committed. then what- just sit on our hands and ignore the truth? saddam needed to be brought to justice- period- which does justify our actions. to say he DID commit atrocities but not for awhile is completely ludicrous!!! and lets face reality here for a minute- THE WORLD IS RUN BY OIL!!! of course our nation has vested interests in what happens in that area of the world. and I continue to not buy the ideology that if we would have left saddam alone- he would have been a good boy. to ignore the atrocities of saddam hussien is to buy into those atrocities, sorry- but that is how it is. the guy had EVERY opportunity to come clean- to show the world that he had no WMD's- he had EVERY diplomatic opportunity to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors- bush issued numerous DIPLOMATIC opportunities to saddam- what did saddam choose to do? he chose to start playing games with the weapons inspectors- he chose to represent himself as someone who had something to hide. bush pursued diplomatic solutions before the declaration of war. saddam chose to do exactly what it took to make the u.s and its allies invade- it is a matter of public record. and doesn't it strike you odd that he decided to be a coward and run and hide once the invasion was taking place- it was the reaction of someone who knew he would be brought to trial and found guilty of atrocities- and sentenced to death- his running as far as I see it is an admission of his guilt. and since when is there a statute of limitations- on murder, rape ,and torture??? the time frame of the atrocities is NOT as important as the fact that they were committed- under the orders of saddam himself. I believe that what we are doing is RIGHT over there, you can support saddam all you like but it doesn't change the fact that HE WAS BROUGHT TO TRIAL- AND HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIMES HE HAD COMMITTED. and we are not solely after bin laden's network in this war- we are after any terrorist organization- and the countries that support them, that seems to have gotten lost somewhere. yes we need to continue fighting this fight- until the terrorists of the world finally understand that they will not stop us from tracking them down- and taking them out. if they want peace- it is pretty simple- lay down your arms- stop killing innocent people, and go back to your lives- pretty simple concept. no insurgents in iraq means that the government there can start to flourish and actually start accomplishing something- which means that the majority of the troops come home. so instead of chastising president bush for his actions- suppose you started publicly chastising the insurgents actions in preventing a stable government in iraq. suppose you publicly started chastising terrorist actions in preventing the emergence of a peaceful world.
Baldwinwolf:
Of course you use typical right-wing rhetoric to completely twist my point. I never said Saddam didn't deserve to be brought to justice. First off, the reason we were told we had to invade was to protect us from an imminent threat from Saddam, not to bring him to justice. If that were the sole reason the public would never have supported it. While bringing him to justice might have been a good thing, the cost of it isn't. The point of saying he wasn't committing attrocities at the time was to show that not only was he not a threat to us, he wasn't even threatening his own people at the time. Our invasion has only made the Iraqis lives much worse than under saddam.
Having interests there and imposing our will through military force are not the same thing.
Show me one opponent of the war who ever said we should ignore saddam? Containment was working.
He did come clean. Inspectors were on the ground from December 2002 until a week before the war started, when Bush told them to leave because he was going to start the invasion. The inspectors were reporting that they were being given full access to anywhere they asked. I suggest you go back and review what actually happened, and not the revisionist history the bush admministration would have you believe.
Wrong on both counts. Do you call kicking the inspectors out (while doing the very thing we had been demanding from saddam) pursuing diplomatic solutions. And the Iraq war authorization also required that he go back to the UN for another vote from the security council. He never did.
Again, you completely missed the point. No one is arguing Saddam's guilt. We are arguing the wisdom of removing him with complete disregard of the cost of that action in blood and treasure.
As I said, I have no doubts about saddams guilt, and have never offered any support for him. The only thing I support are well-thought and reasoned decisions, particularly when contemplating a war that will kill tens of thousands.
And waht has that to with Iraq. It has been shown over and over that Saddam had nothing to do with AQ or OBL, nor offered any significant support of any other terroist group.
Your bloodlust is obvious. Has it ever occured to you that by taking this hardline approach you are actually creating more terrorist. Not reducing them. Because that is exactly what has happened.
Forgive me, but you haven't exaclty wowed me with your knowledge of events, so I will take this for what it is worth. Who exactly are these insurgents? They are Iraqis, who want us out of there country. They were not radicals until we invaded and occupied there country. They want us to leave now. We should.
How exactly am I going to chastise insurgents or terrorists? They are not the leader of our democracy. They are not doing things in my name. Bush is.
"jimahl, actually the Iraqi people are happier than in 2003. "
And what do you base that on? Have you seen some of the polling done of the Iraqi people? If they are so happy, how come the millions who fled the country aren't coming back?
"Do you rumember when the statue of saddam hussien was tooken down the iraqi people were celibrating or when saddam husien was captured? this is the people of the tyrant speaking to us."
What does that have to do wih how the Iraqis feel about our occupation? Of course they were happy Saddam was gone. It doesn't mean they want us to stay in their country. We were told we would be greeted as liberators. Tell me, how's that going'?
"unless youve been to iraq and know what the people are thinking you cant say that they arent happy. and POWERLESS."
Have you been in Iraq to know they want us to stay? I read plenty, and I have never read anything about the Iraqi people wanting us to stay there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that people wouldn't be happy if they fear for their lives when taking a simple trip to the market, or about having clean drinking water, or about having electricity for more than a few hours a day. They are powerless to change any of that. Are we putting the iraqis to work on their infrastructure, or are we giving all those jobs to foriegn contractors?
"thats what everybody said about Hitler and yet he became powerfull, murdering millions of jews. he may of been powerless now but he could have gained power. becoming like Joseph Stalin or Hitler."
what the f*ck is this supposed mean? Are you really trying to compare Saddam to Hitler. How freakin ridiculous. Saddam had no army, no air force, no navy and no weapons. He had no following with his people, and only controlled them through strong arm tactics. And the whole world was watching him, and containment worked very well. By making this comparison, you are diminishing the horror of what hitler actually did, and that should never be done.
"Iraq is a young democratic country. "
Iraq is far from a democratic country, and probably never will. But one thing is for sure, they are not going to be come one whlie being occupied by foriegners.
"it will take some time to stabelize it but if we do we will be able to fight terrorists a lot easier. oh and you dont know if our presence is making it worse. you are just assuming things."
So five years is not enough time to stablize the country? We defeated germany and japan in less time. I am not assuming anything. I can read and see things for myself.
"Whatever the reason we went, we're there and have to finish what we started. Yeah, it sucks. Im going to Iraq soon. I volunteered to go. To be honest I dont care about Iraq and its citizens."
Is this the type of person we want spreading freedom to the middle east?
"What bothers me is the Islamic extremists that want nothing more than to kill Americans/Christians."
Don't forget the jews.. There are extremists on all sides. We happen to have christian/capitalist extremists, or in other words: neocons. The problem with your logic is, there were no extremest in Iraq until after we invaded and occupied the country.
"Given the chance. they would rape our mothers in front of their children, then kill the children in front of their mothers. If we dont fight them over there, theres a good chance we could one day be fighting them over here, in our towns, streets, and backyards."
I am sure the Iraqi people really appreciate the fact that we are using there country to lure in extremest to fight them and basically make the coutry a battlefield agaist extremests who were never there before.
"Its been debated, but the Islamic religion pretty much hates us Americans/Christians. "
Uh, not true at all. Have any proof that the average muslim (not extremists) hates us?
"They are very primitive and single minded. They dont understand reason. The people we are fighting are often kids, one day going to school, the next day firing an Ak-47 at a patrol, then running away. Thats what makes it so difficult to get control over there. Its not like there is an organized army we are fighting against. So many people dont understand that."
What right do we have to control THEIR country? They want us to leave, and we should.
'If you dont want to stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them'
If people wanted to really support the troops, they would not want to see them dying nothing but greed.
jimahl: "Don't forget the jews.. There are extremists on all sides. We happen to have christian/capitalist extremists, or in other words: neocons"
Jews and "neocons" dont belive their god will praise them for killing the innocent. Infact, just the opposet.
jimahl: "I am sure the Iraqi people really appreciate the fact that we are using there country to lure in extremest to fight them and basically make the coutry a battlefield agaist extremests who were never there before"
the extremists come from all over, including Iraq. If we dont fight them in the middle east, we will be fighting them in Europe and North America. Do you understand that?
jimahl: "What right do we have to control THEIR country? They want us to leave, and we should"
We do not control their country. If the Iraqi prime minister says to Pres Bush "I want all US troops out" we would, by our law, have to comply , and would comply. The majority of Iraq appreciates our help. Its the extremists that "want us to leave"
Listen to the stories our soldiers tell, not the crap on the news. All CNN wants is a story, and someone to blame. Iraq is not about oil. Have you seen gas prices lately?
Do you think, that if we left Iraq, it would become a peacefull country? or a breeding ground for terrorists? seriously, answer that.
I agree, this war sucks. Its a difficult one because there is no clear enemy. Its random people. But we're there. Deal with it. Crying saying its murder isnt going to do anything. Do more Americans have to be murdered by terrorists for you to realize that? Tell us soldiers that you appreciate us putting our lives at risk to try to defeat the force that wants you and your family dead.
*We're doing nothing in Iraq to prevent future Muslim extremism. The reason Al Quaida has not attacked us again, is because we already destroyed the organization. The only mission that mattered is already complete (except for finding Bin Laden).
Where are you getting this idea that al Quaida has been destroyed its far from it I do realise that obviously our soliders are out ther to do a job and there doing it very well but I jus wish it was all over Lets recap terrorist bombings as far as im aware... September 11th 2001
twin towers pentagon July 7th 2005 london kings cross london edgeware road station London sub between liverpool station and aldgate London double decker bus Tavistock Square also 4 failed attack on the 21st of july 2005 June 30th 2007 A jeep filled with propane was driven into glasgow airport!!
I dont no if you were aware that the war in iraq started on the 20th March 2003 and if you refer back to my list I think you shall find that 6 of these attacks or attemps were done after the war started so how can you say that they havent attacked us again britain and america are allias in this war so atm we are counting all these attacks together So if they havent attacked us again how does this work???
I was paying rather close attention to world events at the time, and I am fully aware of the GAMES that saddam was playing. and the hardline approach was the only solution to the problem, diplomatic channels failed, the you N failed, leaving the U.S. and our allies to BEGIN CLEANING UP THE MESS. I have seen numerous posts here- stating that WE CREATED saddam , does that say that he didn't need to be brought to justice- that our government somewhere made the decision that enough is enough. the U.S. is currently involved with cleaning up past mistakes- I support that wholeheartedly. iraq needs to be stabilized- we are involved in a war, I would like the troops to be brought back as much as anyone here- but it is not reality- the world is not a utopian paradise- we need to send our combined energies towards those who are fighting against us in iraq- and lets look at what they are fighting against- they are fighting against a democratic government taking hold - you know freedom for all. so I do not sympathize with their cause- they want us off of their land, then they need to put down their weapons- stop fighting, and go with the new government over there. break this down with those left wing tactics.
"hmm, sounds like someone here WANTS democracy to FAIL in Iraq..."
Typical conservative spin. Please show me where I sad anything like that. Wanting or not wanting something to happen does not change the facts about the chances of it happening.
"just remember, the people over there killing our troops are the same people that want to kill innocent Americans whether they be men, women, or children. They belive their god will praise them for it too."
The Iraqi people want to do that? Really? Have any proof of that? When have any Iraqis every done anything like that to us?
"If we left Iraq, they would not just stop and leave the rest of the world alone. They would have a country to call home. And they would attack us, again, and again."
Who exactly are "they"? Iraqis? I think you need to study this issue a little more. It is clear you know as much about this region as McCain does. Do you know the difference between Sunni and Shia? McCain doesn't.
"That is a fact. If you dissagree with that you are one hell of a dumb person."
Well there you go. You got me, I must really be dumb...
Whatever the reason we went, we're there and have to finish what we started. Yeah, it sucks. Im going to Iraq soon. I volunteered to go. To be honest I dont care about Iraq and its citizens. What bothers me is the Islamic extremists that want nothing more than to kill Americans/Christians. Given the chance. they would rape our mothers in front of their children, then kill the children in front of their mothers. If we dont fight them over there, theres a good chance we could one day be fighting them over here, in our towns, streets, and backyards.
Its been debated, but the Islamic religion pretty much hates us Americans/Christians. They are very primitive and single minded. They dont understand reason. The people we are fighting are often kids, one day going to school, the next day firing an Ak-47 at a patrol, then running away. Thats what makes it so difficult to get control over there. Its not like there is an organized army we are fighting against. So many people dont understand that.
"If you dont want to stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them"
unfortunately that is the nature of the military, join the military- you might be called forward to fight. I believe that the government and mind of saddam hussein was the weapon of mass destruction, his government needed to be taken down- the atrocities that have surfaced about his 'policies' are truly horrendous. remember how eager his people were to tear down his statue? we need to stay the course, until that area of the world stabilizes, and the insurgents are either all killed- or decide to surrender. we can not show these people that we will simply leave after 4 or 5 years of fighting. we have brave men and womens lives lost to this conflict- we must keep up the pressure so that they did not die in vain. that area has always been a very volatile area. so I personally agree that we need to apply as much force possible. I happened to like the tony blair- george bush team- they did what they felt was right, regardless of public opinion. and I do support our brave troops- american and british and our other allied countries alike.
As bad as Iraq was there are far worse attrocities out there that America happily ignores; then again those places don't have oil.
Going into Afganistan seems justified to me since Al Qaeda actually was operating there. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake. They had no WMDs. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Prior to the invasion they were not supporting Al Qaeda (though Al Qaeda has started operations there after we invaded). Due to Bush's ideology of privatization this war has been insanely expensive and has nearly bankrupted our country and our recession will likely spread to a world-wide recession. Our occupation of Iraq has created another generation of people who hate the US and are willing to join terrorist groups.
We are supposed to have a democracy in America. The idea of leaders going off and doing what seems right to them against the will of the people goes against everything we stand for.
Its a fight we cannot and will not win. And I want to bring our troops home because I got relaitives over there. But I really don't think it would be smart to withdraw now. WOMD, thats all in the past now, we can't change the reasons why the government said we went in, we just have to deal with it, now what. this is just my opinion, I feel that if we withdraw now, the U.S is going to be in much more trouble than it is right now. We need a secure oil connection for the future, the governement knows this. Without oil our way of living would change dramatically. the government knows how big of a problem it is they just keep it hush hush. And I believe the only reason we don't withdraw is because we're afraid Iran is just waiting for us to leave. And when we do Iran will plow through Iraq because we wiped out there defenses(we didn't think about that before we attacked). Then there goes our oil.
Most of the attoricities Saddam did were done when he was an ally of the US. We turned a blind eye. At the time we invaded Iraq, it was a relatively stable country. Run by a strongman yes, but he was not committing any attoricities at the time, nor had he for a long time. Make no mistake, he was a real bad guy, but there were much better ways to deal with him than to start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, cost trillions of dollars, and makes the entire region much less stable.
As filetofspam said so well, there were far more recent attoricites happening that were ignored. It is no coinicnidence that we chose to invade a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world. They weren't just wrong about WMDs. They lied.
I say bring them home as fast and as safely as possible.
Personally, I really don't care if we leave and Iraq implodes into chaos. Right now we're accomplishing nothing of significant value to us there. We have not westernized Iraq, we have not confiscated the oil fields, we have not sold them on the idea of freedom.
If we left today, and Iraq fell into Chaos, Iraq would divide itself into 3 major power structures, who would fight bitterly among themselves. Iran would make a play for the oil fields, but we would send cruise missiles after their military fronts. In the meantime, chaos from Iraq would cause sectarian division in Iran as well, helping to destabilize them, which is after all what we want.
Eventually, Iraq would become 3 different nations.
I don't see any of this as a loss to the US.
There are atrocities going on all over the world as we type. The US does not invade every tyranical nation, and never has. The war in Iraq was pitched as necessary because Saddam posed a threat to other nations due it's WMDs.
Well, now we know not only were there no WMDs, but our 'leaders' knew as much and lied to us about it. It's only after this knowledge has been revealed, that the spin machine began trying to rewrite history to claim the war had something to do with human rights violations.
I'm not convinced oil was the reason either, since we have not taken ownership of the oil fields. I think the real reason we invaded Iraq had more to do with Bush's religious ideals than anything else.
I would rather save lives, than save face...
sk8furlife, first you say "jeez people shuldnt be so selfish I respect what our troops are doing" and in the same sentence say "and I relize that they probably want to come home and see there familys but theres a job to be done."
Who exactly are you accusing of being selfish? People who want the war to end, or the soldiers who are risking their lives and want to come home? How are either of those things selfish? Sitting on your butt making making posts claiming support for a war in which OTHER people are dying, is the epitome of selfishnes.
hmm, sounds like someone here WANTS democracy to FAIL in Iraq...
just remember, the people over there killing our troops are the same people that want to kill innocent Americans whether they be men, women, or children. They belive their god will praise them for it too.
If we left Iraq, they would not just stop and leave the rest of the world alone. They would have a country to call home. And they would attack us, again, and again. That is a fact. If you dissagree with that you are one hell of a dumb person.
*** "if we dont finish the mission then all the soildiers that died will have died in vain. "
The mission was a lie. They already died in vain. Bush should be impeached and tried for treason for bringing the nation to war based on lies.
I don't see how letting even more soldiers get killed there somehow makes up for those already lost. That makes no sense at all - it sounds like something Bush would say.
There is no mission. It was made up. We are there for the oil. So you think Nam was a good war?
I care about people not dying for no reason, or even worse, greed. And the only reason people are dying in this war is greed.
We are not helping anyone by staying in this war. And it is you who accused people of being selfish because they are against the war.
*** "Whatever the reason we went, we're there and have to finish what we started."
No we don't.
We're doing nothing in Iraq to prevent future Muslim extremism. The reason Al Quaida has not attacked us again, is because we already destroyed the organization. The only mission that mattered is already complete (except for finding Bin Laden).
Toadaly, Just because we as the US has not taken oil directly from Iraq, what has happened to the price of oil since the war started? Do you think it is unrelated? Who is making money from that oil? Bush's pals in the oil industry and their good friend the saudis.
It is ALL about the oil...
*** "Jews and 'neocons' dont belive their god will praise them for killing the innocent."
According to Bush, god told him to invade Iraq. Surely his god would know that innocents would be killed in the war.
Neocons use missiles instead of explosive vests, because they can afford them.
*** "we have brave men and womens lives lost to this conflict- we must keep up the pressure so that they did not die in vain. "
That isn't a valid reason to stay. If our leaders screwed up and the war was not necessary, those lives were lost in vain regardless.
*** "but if we dont complete the mission this war become like vietnam"
...you mean the world will not end after we pull out, and we will suffer no unacceptable consequences? That doesn't sound so bad.
The price of oil has gone up of course, but most of that increase is really just the devaluing of the dollar. That's why gold is nearly $1000 an ounce today vs. ~$350/ounce before the war started.
I dont understand much about the war or any of that stuff. haha.. I just wish everyone was home from the war, I wish everyone and every country was safe and there was peace everywhere :)
I heard Kevin Rudd was bringing home the aussies, and the black guy running for presidentsy might take them home. Not sure about britain? Maybe the Iraqes will be left fighting no one
*** "That is a fact. If you dissagree with that you are one hell of a dumb person."
Wow! That's a mighty strong argument you've made there backaroo. I know I'm sure convinced.
