Iraq war, your opinions?

[jackattack]

^^ We didn't go in for only that reason. But that is the reason for staying. Are you honestly suggesting that we should withdraw immediately and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves?

 

 

 

 

 

1 in four Americans wouldn't know it's a country? Kinda going against yourself there, aren't you?

 

 

 

 

How does it go against me? I can locate it, and I know it exists. The fact that I am American really doesn't mean much to me. Check my Nationalism thread.

 

 

 

 

 

We all know you hate America.

[l0l0lpur32]

It's not against you lent, it's more again George Bush's claim that the American army is in there to free them from a tyrant and them let them live in a democracy and the others who love that opinion in this thread, if this is true, why haven't they entered Sudan? Why haven't they entered Chechnya? Why haven't they entered areas where there is so much worse genocides and civil wars going on? 2 things these areas have in common, the civil wars / genocides going on there were worse but neither area were abundant in oil.

 

You do know Chechnya is part of Russia right?

[Lenticular_J]

Naaah, I'm sure Russia wouldn't mind.

[RichieMcD]

It's not against you lent, it's more again George Bush's claim that the American army is in there to free them from a tyrant and them let them live in a democracy and the others who love that opinion in this thread, if this is true, why haven't they entered Sudan? Why haven't they entered Chechnya? Why haven't they entered areas where there is so much worse genocides and civil wars going on? 2 things these areas have in common, the civil wars / genocides going on there were worse but neither area were abundant in oil.

 

You do know Chechnya is part of Russia right?

 

 

 

Yes I do, and I don't see how that changes the circumstances. Civilians have been maimed, killed and tortured in that region, worse than what was often going on in Iraq against the Sunni people, yet it seems America has done nothing to try and prevent it.

[Lenticular_J]

Because we didn't go to war to prevent that. It was a secondary objective, and now our objective is to keep the nation from crumbling apart in civil war.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people believe our objective was to stop him. I agree, if we wanted to simply help people, we'd donate a bigger number of troops and equipment to peacekeeping in other, hotter hotspots.

[RichieMcD]

Because we didn't go to war to prevent that. It was a secondary objective, and now our objective is to keep the nation from crumbling apart in civil war.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people believe our objective was to stop him. I agree, if we wanted to simply help people, we'd donate a bigger number of troops and equipment to peacekeeping in other, hotter hotspots.

 

 

 

Because after Bush claimed there was masses of WMD's there and their objective was to dismantle them / destroy them, yet this turned out to be false, if I remember correctly not even 1 WMD was found by coalition forces. Their second objective happened, the overturning of Saddam, also the most remembered image of Iraq was of the American tank pulling down the statue of Saddam in Baghdad. This often made people think that the coalition force's prime objective was to overturn Saddam.

[baalboy5]

It's not against you lent, it's more again George Bush's claim that the American army is in there to free them from a tyrant and them let them live in a democracy and the others who love that opinion in this thread, if this is true, why haven't they entered Sudan? Why haven't they entered Chechnya? Why haven't they entered areas where there is so much worse genocides and civil wars going on? 2 things these areas have in common, the civil wars / genocides going on there were worse but neither area were abundant in oil.

 

 

 

America made the choice do the Iraq terroirty, it's not their job to free every nation. The Iraq place got our attention and now America wants to fix their problem to make sure it doesn't happen agian.

 

Not that I support what America is doing.

[Guest]

We should never go into war in the first place... do you know how much money it costs? Do you know how much debt the united states has? War shouldve been the last thing we did.

 

 

 

Also, you forgot the hundreds of lives lost. MONEY is not the reason war is terrible.

[Tom_Servo]

It's not against you lent, it's more again George Bush's claim that the American army is in there to free them from a tyrant and them let them live in a democracy and the others who love that opinion in this thread, if this is true, why haven't they entered Sudan? Why haven't they entered Chechnya? Why haven't they entered areas where there is so much worse genocides and civil wars going on? 2 things these areas have in common, the civil wars / genocides going on there were worse but neither area were abundant in oil.

 

 

 

The Sudan and Chechnya don't have WBM's (but neither did Iraq as it turns out), and you would be surprised how little oil we get from Iraq. Hell, it comes in as #6 on the list of the top 10 places the U.S. imports oil from. #1 is Canada and they provide x3 as much oil. We actually get LESS than we did before http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/howmuchoilfromiraq.php Explain that. If we 'occupy and oppress' why don't we take it all? Because that's not what is happening. I beleive invading Iraq was a mistake, but it's too late to change that now. If we leave, Iraq will be caught in a power vacuum between the various factions and Iran. Iran PROMISED to invade and since we messed up their country, we need to stay until the country is self reliant and is able to defend itself. If we just give up and quit like a whinny 5 year old who is losing a game of checkers, what kind of people would we be?

[jackattack]

Because we didn't go to war to prevent that. It was a secondary objective, and now our objective is to keep the nation from crumbling apart in civil war.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people believe our objective was to stop him. I agree, if we wanted to simply help people, we'd donate a bigger number of troops and equipment to peacekeeping in other, hotter hotspots.

 

 

 

Because after Bush claimed there was masses of WMD's there and their objective was to dismantle them / destroy them, yet this turned out to be false, if I remember correctly not even 1 WMD was found by coalition forces. Their second objective happened, the overturning of Saddam, also the most remembered image of Iraq was of the American tank pulling down the statue of Saddam in Baghdad. This often made people think that the coalition force's prime objective was to overturn Saddam.

 

 

 

 

 

Who thought that?

 

 

 

And to all the people who say we don't care about Africa who's seen the $50 billion in aids relief we just approved for Africa? Even Joe Biden said the President deserves recognition for that.

[Kriegsmier]

Because we didn't go to war to prevent that. It was a secondary objective, and now our objective is to keep the nation from crumbling apart in civil war.

 

 

 

I don't understand why people believe our objective was to stop him. I agree, if we wanted to simply help people, we'd donate a bigger number of troops and equipment to peacekeeping in other, hotter hotspots.

 

 

 

Problem is that was one of our objectives when we went in. A main objective? Maybe not, but still on the list. How do you think we found him in a spider hole? Sitting back in lawn chairs and watching him run down there? No we executed patrols simply to look for him on intelligence we received. It was an objective. A country going to war usually has more then 1 objective.

 

 

 

More troops to hot spots? Oh yeah we are, its called Afghanistan.

[Range_This11]

Here's the easy solution: "gtfo"

[jackattack]

^^ Thats easy but thats not right. Mike Huckabee's pretty much right. "You break it, you buy it"

[l0l0lpur32]

It's not against you lent, it's more again George Bush's claim that the American army is in there to free them from a tyrant and them let them live in a democracy and the others who love that opinion in this thread, if this is true, why haven't they entered Sudan? Why haven't they entered Chechnya? Why haven't they entered areas where there is so much worse genocides and civil wars going on? 2 things these areas have in common, the civil wars / genocides going on there were worse but neither area were abundant in oil.

 

You do know Chechnya is part of Russia right?

 

 

 

Yes I do, and I don't see how that changes the circumstances. Civilians have been maimed, killed and tortured in that region, worse than what was often going on in Iraq against the Sunni people, yet it seems America has done nothing to try and prevent it.

 

You seriously think America should invade Russia? are you mad?

[magekillr]

^^ Thats easy but thats not right. Mike Huckabee's pretty much right. "You break it, you buy it"

 

 

 

Um, the Iraqi's want us out, and so does the government, so when is it "fixed"? When we say so? Sounds like if they want us out, that it's "fixed".

 

 

 

Oh, and btw, you'd think that George Bush and John McCain were democrats with their latest positions in Iraq. I'm seeing "diplomacy", and more troops in Afghanistan, and now the US may conduct raids in Pakistan.

 

 

 

There's one of two things that will happen:

 

 

 

1.) They will continue course until we get into war with Iran

 

 

 

or

 

 

 

2.) They will follow with Obama's plans for Iraq, and make it look like that everything they did was ultimately a success. We begin to draw down, and claim victory just in time for another president to handle the mess, Bush will claim victory.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25699370/

[RichieMcD]

 

You do know Chechnya is part of Russia right?

 

 

 

Yes I do, and I don't see how that changes the circumstances. Civilians have been maimed, killed and tortured in that region, worse than what was often going on in Iraq against the Sunni people, yet it seems America has done nothing to try and prevent it.

 

You seriously think America should invade Russia? are you mad?

 

 

 

Hypothetical situation. Say if George Bush all of a sudden decided he wanted to get rid of the state of California through force, killing, torturing, maiming and extorting people for no apparent reason. Wouldn't you want to be saved, wouldn't you call for help? But then of any possible country powerful enough to help wont help even though they claim to be making the world a fairer and peaceful place, wouldn't you find that a contradiction?

 

 

 

I don't think they should invade Russia, I just don't think they should make claims that they're making the world a fairer and better place for everyone if they will only help certain areas and not others.

[l0l0lpur32]

Yes I do, and I don't see how that changes the circumstances. Civilians have been maimed, killed and tortured in that region, worse than what was often going on in Iraq against the Sunni people, yet it seems America has done nothing to try and prevent it.

 

You seriously think America should invade Russia? are you mad?

 

 

 

Hypothetical situation. Say if George Bush all of a sudden decided he wanted to get rid of the state of California through force, killing, torturing, maiming and extorting people for no apparent reason. Wouldn't you want to be saved, wouldn't you call for help? But then of any possible country powerful enough to help wont help even though they claim to be making the world a fairer and peaceful place, wouldn't you find that a contradiction?

 

 

 

I don't think they should invade Russia, I just don't think they should make claims that they're making the world a fairer and better place for everyone if they will only help certain areas and not others.

 

That hypothetic situation isn't the same at all, a better comparison is - would it be justified for an outside country to invade Northern Ireland because of the IRA?

[RichieMcD]

I wouldn't considered it justified considering the IRA were fighting in area that was taken from the native Irish 300-400 years ago but officially in 1922. The IRA were a guerrilla warfare freedom fighting (or terrorist group, depending on your views) force fighting against a foreign army who occupied lands which were rightfully Irish. At it's height in the 70's the IRA had 7000 active members, could you justify invading a country to try and stop 7000 poorly armed volunteer freedom fighters (or terrorists depending on your views), I certainly couldn't, not invading it on the level America invaded Iraq anyway. Putting in the small amount of troops that Britain did I think was clever, but they weren't very efficient in combating the IRA.

 

 

 

And I don't see how your situation relates to Chechnya at all considering Russian troops go into Chechen towns, murdering men, raping women, torturing all and extorting money out of anyone they see. The British army didn't do the latter 3 anyway.

[Ginger_Warrior]

^^ Thats easy but thats not right. Mike Huckabee's pretty much right. "You break it, you buy it"

 

And if the shop-owner just wants you out of the shop before you cause more disruption, what then? You just get out before you cause more offence.

 

 

 

Once again, you're taking the American attitude of self-responsibility and applying it to Iraqis who have a completely different view. Furthermore, you except your allies in the world to do the same. Why should British troops die on a daily basis, when most Britons are against the war and do not believe it's justified, just to fulfil your police-like position in the world?

 

 

 

You claim you're building democracy. That's totally un-democratic.

[Lenticular_J]

Kriegsmier, I mean the places they're so adamant about bringing up.

 

 

 

I also don't see why people think they can declare the opinions of thirty million-odd people. Their opinions are as varied as our own, although I'm sure a whole lot more don't have the time to care period.

[jackattack]

^^ Thats easy but thats not right. Mike Huckabee's pretty much right. "You break it, you buy it"

 

And if the shop-owner just wants you out of the shop before you cause more disruption, what then? You just get out before you cause more offence.

 

 

 

Once again, you're taking the American attitude of self-responsibility and applying it to Iraqis who have a completely different view. Furthermore, you except your allies in the world to do the same. Why should British troops die on a daily basis, when most Britons are against the war and do not believe it's justified, just to fulfil your police-like position in the world?

 

 

 

You claim you're building democracy. That's totally un-democratic.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you keep saying that the Iraqis want us out immediately? As far as I'm aware not even the sadirist members of the Iraqi parliament have said that. They've asked for a timetable but that could be 5 years and they would probably be happy. Not that were gonna be there for 5 years. Once we start to draw down and the ISF take the lead on all 18 provinces they probably will be happy without a timetable. And don't give me that garbage about the British. They are the one who abandoned Basra to the Mahdi army.

[Range_This11]

^^ Thats easy but thats not right. Mike Huckabee's pretty much right. "You break it, you buy it"

 

 

 

Alright I'll give you two examples of why "getting the hell out" is the best option.

 

 

 

Korean War. We went there, fought a very long and useless war (just because the fact that it ended in a stalemate) and basically stuck around to "fix" everything that was supposedly wrong with that country. The Koreans, except for the South Koreans, didn't want us there. Instead of leaving when we were beat, we left troops stationed there even though there was still hostility towards US forces from the North Koreans. They've been stationed there since the Korean War and are still there today.

 

 

 

Vietnam War. We went to Vietnam thinking that it was going to be a cakewalk. Of course since the French couldn't fix it, surely the United States could. Well, we did for awhile. Then came the famous Tet Offensive. The North Vietnamese did everything and anything they could to destroy American forces. Long story short, we ran with our tail between our legs out of Vietnam. Everyone left. Not a single troop was left in Vietnam to "fix" the country for the long run.

 

 

 

 

 

Now answer this:

 

 

 

Which one of those countries has the most animosity for us now? It seems to me that "getting the hell out" is the best option for the future of OUR country and Iraq.

[jackattack]

^^ Except for the south koreans? That's half of them. And I'd bet that a hell of a lot of north koreans would love to live in south korea. And look at what happened when we left Vietnam. Should we let the same thing happen to the Iraqis?

[Range_This11]

^^ Except for the south koreans? That's half of them. And I'd bet that a hell of a lot of north koreans would love to live in south korea. And look at what happened when we left Vietnam. Should we let the same thing happen to the Iraqis?

 

It's been happening to Iraqis and hundreds of other countries for a very VERY long time. I did state in my post that the South Koreans wanted us there. My point was that when we meddle in other people's business, it comes back to bite us. We have extremely good relations with Vietnam now but unlike Vietnam, North Korea now has nuclear capabilities and guess who they're threatening with them...Seems to me that in the long run just leaving something alone is a lot better idea than trying to fix every little thing in the world. The people that are supporting this war in the government were probably around during the Vietnam era and don't want to see another war that ends in us just leaving without a giant victory. Of course that's just speculation on my part, but I'm sure that it has some truth to it.

[jackattack]

^^ john kerry.

 

 

 

And President Bush has done a pretty good job getting the north koreans to back down. They just recently destroyed that water cooling tower. We are lucky we left troops there or the whole peninsula would be north korea.