View Full Version : The need for a war in Iraq
CeriaHalcyon
03-20-2008, 11:31 PM
Here we are now, reaching the sixth year anniversary of armed combat following the nine eleven attack. Afganistan was fought bravely and successfully with the exile (hopefully execution) of Osama Bin Laden.
Currently, the united states of america is at war with the insurgency movements in Iraq. Saddam is long dead, which to be honest, should've happened the first time we went in during desert storm and the gulf war, but that is neither here nor there.
My question to all of you is simple, should America continue the war in Iraq and why should we even be there in the first place?
-------------------------------------
As far as I'm concerned, the job we set out to do is not finished yet. unfortunately there were no weapons of mass destruction, but even though that's what we had been sold on as the purpose for the war, it is no longer relevant.
What confuses me to no end is the fact that just yesterday in Washington DC, there were protestors staging all because of the lack of WMD's.
I can't believe that people today are so thickheaded and greedy not to see the true purpose for our military action in Iraq?
"Freedom is not free!" It has a cost, which more importantly than money is the sacrifice of our warriors. Regardless of whatever spin the media puts on it, the cause is still just and still necessary.
Now with those words in mind, do the people of the sovereign nation of Iraq have any less right to be free than we did more than two hundred years ago?
I am boggled as to why this message is not repeated in the national news.
As a nation that was aided by others to achieve our independence, we have a responsibility to help others achieve it as well.
Ok, i've said my peace, now i leave it up to the rest of you....
Shadoblak
03-20-2008, 11:37 PM
Lmao
And who gave us the right to bum rush countries and inject "freedom" We need to get out of Iraq and we shouldn't have been there int he first place......Anything that was actually viable, we could have accomplished without Presidential Plan 4: Blow Shit Up
sadly its true, there is no point in forcing democracy and 'freedom' on the arab world if they are not willing it. to tell the truth, it was better if america had never invaded iraq, not only for the iraqi's and americans but for the rest of the middle east. as much cruel as sadam was he was able to keep his country in check and he was a counter to iran.
CeriaHalcyon
03-21-2008, 12:26 AM
I concede that if the iraqi people were revolting on their own, then there would be a need for intervention, it was probably wrong of us to go in there in the first place, without a clear plan. but now that we're there, if we pull out now will chaos ensue? i think so, the interim government of Iraq doesnt seem capable of securing their country, and for us to just leave without finishing it, would have dangerous reprocussions later on.
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 12:29 AM
Lmao
And who gave us the right to bum rush countries and inject "freedom" We need to get out of Iraq and we shouldn't have been there int he first place......Anything that was actually viable, we could have accomplished without Presidential Plan 4: Blow Shit Up
You are very right Shado. No body gave us the right to, just like nobody gave Sadaam Hussein and his cronies the right to torture and subjugate an entire country just because of their religion.
Oh, and the Kurdish tribes had been pleading for help since the Clinton era.... take that news as you will.
Shadoblak
03-21-2008, 12:31 AM
Like I said....Anything viable could have been handled without Presidential Plan 4: Blow Shit Up I mean, we're human beings right? Not animals....We have brains..let's think of how NOT to kill thousands of people...
cheez
03-21-2008, 12:48 AM
We should not have invaded with so little support.
The US had valid arguments to invade Iraq. Saddam ignored cease fire terms by firing at US war planes, kicking out UN inspectors, and other violations.
However the Bush administration was very poor at arguing these valid cases and gathering support. Instead Bush decided to use the wmd and Saddam ties to terrorists arguments which both turned out to be false.
Freeing Iraq was never the real reason for going to war, nor was it the main argument used. Bush was arguing that Saddam was an incredible danger to the US, so much so that we needed to invade right then. The anger that I have is feeling that the we were tricked into a war. Saddam had no wmds or ties to terrorism, so the reasons for invading turned out to be false. Knowing that the reasons for invading were never valid makes me wonder why we are still there.
This war is not Americas first war for questionable reasons, the Spanish American, and Mexican American wars were both unjust, but we had clear objectives for those wars, to gain land, we knew what land we wanted and we took it, and after that those wars were over. This war has never had a clear objective. We invaded because of wmd well that turned out to be false, now were staying to make the country safe, but terrorists started gaining power after Saddam fell. We don't know how long we'll be there, or how we can tell when we need to leave. This war had faulty reasons to begin with, and it has no clear objective, its very hard to support this war for me.
I think we should continue to stay there to try and make the country as stable as possible, but with out clear political progress I can't find a good argument to keep us there.
I feel that democracy is the best government system and that more freedom is best, however I am not the rest of the world so I don't know how they feel. Saying the freedom is the best option and the US should free to world is arrogant, and says that the US has the right to change countries as we see fit. The US is one country and not the world, so we shouldn't that our ways a values are the best, they are the best for us. This is not to say that the US should never involve its self with other countries, I'm saying that if a situation comes up that we feel needs international intervention, we should seek support from the UN. America is not the center of the world nor dose it have any more rights than any other country and I feel Bush has forgotten that.
Any ways this is was longer than I was expecting and I'm not the best at organizing my thoughts, so I hope you can see where I'm coming from. And tell me if anything needs clarification.
as for going there from the start it was a mistake but its true that leaving iraq now will have major backlash. the iraqi land will be a hotbed for terrorists(there were no terrorist b4 the invasion, funny isnt it?) which will plague the entire middle east as the fight between sunni and shia escelate, the result would be a greater warfare on other fronts. ill remind you that america have basses on many of the arab oil producing countries and those bases are targets and those countries are targets, and their oil fields are targets.
you think the gas prices are high now? wait till the middle east will be covered in chaos and civil war.
so you are stuck in iraq, you have only two options, staying and fighting till you will run out of money or bringing a new dictator to rule with a iron hand over the iraqi people. in a way the current actions of using local arab tribes to kick al qaeda is the right way but if you will stay too long over there those tribes will turn against you so you must constantly give those groups more power and more control as you slowly leave the place. that is why executing sadam was a mistake, you need a sadam to rule harshly over those people or...well you can see for yourself.
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 01:05 AM
Like I said....Anything viable could have been handled without Presidential Plan 4: Blow Shit Up I mean, we're human beings right? Not animals....We have brains..let's think of how NOT to kill thousands of people...
Yes, but we'd tried presidential plans 1-3 that didn't involve blowing shit up, and that didn't work now did it?
It's not like this was an out-of-the-blue thing.... we'd been trying for years to get Hussein to stop what he was doing. There's only so much we can do before, well, PP:4.
I'm not saying that I'm completely in support of what happened. But the fact is- it happened. It's done and whining about it isn't going to magically turn back the clock and/or make the US government decide, "Oh gee, maybe Operation Bomb-Iraq-Back-to-the-Stone-Age (part 2, btw)" isn't such a good idea.
We are there now.... so what do we do about it? I say that we try throwing some literature at them (figuratively speaking, mind you), help them build some schools, and see what happens. Let them get a foothold, and let them do the rest.
the problem isnt teaching the young ones but keeping the borders secured, the people who blow stuff in iraq and killing iraqi's mostly come from outside of iraq, just like in afganistan, those people go to iraq for the promise of jihad, they kill the shia or sunni out of internal fighting. now in the time of sadam there was no such thing, he ruled with an iron fist and the people trusted him and were pretty loyel when it came to deal with outsiders.
so what do you do now? the people dont trust you and they will never trust you because american soldiers are not the most behaving soldiers out there, they are good for major wars but not for long time occupation.
you need to inforce the recent action america have done and that is to strengthen the tribes. the gov is seen as a puppet of america and will never have enough power to enforce itself as long as america is there, the arab tribes on the other hands are now allied with america, till now they werent, they are the people themselves and giving them control and power to rule over their little areas is the right way, this way you can start to send troops home, little by little, make the tribes look like the liberators of iraq from the american rule so that the place will be stable again.
that is the best thing you can do, there is no point in fooling yourself that the iraqi will be your friends.
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 02:32 AM
so what do you do now? the people dont trust you and they will never trust you because american soldiers are not the most behaving soldiers out there, they are good for major wars but not for long time occupation.
? Excuse me? What makes American soldiers so different from other soldiers the world over?
You honestly think that american troops are bad because of the stuff you see on the news? Every group has it's bad people. Please support your statement there with evidence showing US forces in general to be more "ill-behaved" than other countries' forces.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but the troops in the north seem to be doing just fine in regards to their relating to the public. It's the southern province that needs fixing.
i am sorry but ive seen american videos that really make me wonder about what they are thought, as a soldier myself i know we were thought about purity of arms and not throwing pupies out of clips and stuff, i think the reason is the concept that they are not living there, its got nothing to do with their home and maybe its the distance from home. either way i think that american soldiers behavior in iraq is very shameful and maybe there is a need to teach them some more respect by their officers.
as for the north thing, in the north there are only 200 coalition troops thanks to behavior of the kurdish in that place, the north is also free from terror attacks because the kurds defend themselves. basicly everything is fine there and you dont hear anything from that place because its not under american control and isnt defended by ameicans but by iraqi kurds. but the fact that they are kurds also seperate them from the sunni shia fighting. the kurds never had a problem with americans or any other westerner, including israeli! so i would say that the peace in the north isnt because of american involvment but lack of involvment and kurdish unity.
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 07:08 AM
i am sorry but ive seen american videos that really make me wonder about what they are thought, as a soldier myself i know we were thought about purity of arms and not throwing pupies out of clips and stuff, i think the reason is the concept that they are not living there, its got nothing to do with their home and maybe its the distance from home. either way i think that american soldiers behavior in iraq is very shameful and maybe there is a need to teach them some more respect by their officers.
The videos show only the evidence of dishonorable behavior by those particular individuals- it is not sufficient evidence to suggest a widespread problem. It is shameful, yes, but the people that are behaving in such a way are being punished, are they not?
as for the north thing, in the north there are only 200 coalition troops thanks to behavior of the kurdish in that place, the north is also free from terror attacks because the kurds defend themselves. basicly everything is fine there and you dont hear anything from that place because its not under american control and isnt defended by ameicans but by iraqi kurds. but the fact that they are kurds also seperate them from the sunni shia fighting. the kurds never had a problem with americans or any other westerner, including israeli! so i would say that the peace in the north isnt because of american involvment but lack of involvment and kurdish unity.
...And how did the north become that way in the first place? Did it just spontaneously happen one day? Did the people wake up and say "Gee, I think today's going to be different! Everybody, let's go out and start behaving nicely for a change!" No. It didn't.
The north's turnover into a relatively peaceful region was a long and grueling process, and it's certainly admirable. These people did get together, yes, and they did decide to work together for a positive change, and they are an example of how our processes work, not how they don't.
Coalition forces went into the region, helped set them free- like they had asked years earlier- and then let them go about their merry business. Mission freakin' accomplished- let's go home!
One of the reasons that process isn't working (as well) to the south is that there are more people there who don't like playing by our rules... and to be honest, they are within their rights as a soverign society to say "America, I don't like your games, and I'm not playing (so there!)." My issues with their society begins when they say- "you have to play by our rules- or perish in hellfire!" Or some crap like that, and then decide to travel halfway around the freakin' world and blow stuff up. Then I have a problem.
To be quite honest, I think Iraq should just be split in two, with the Northern region being it's own country, and the Southern part being it's own place (or possibly part of Iran). Then everybody's happy (except for those jackholes sitting over in the corner who are never satisfied with anything but who cares about them?), and our guys can come home, and the mission's still accomplished.
Ta-freakin'-da! :yell
Spartan27
03-21-2008, 08:02 AM
I admit to not reading much of the other posts.
The thing about going into Iraq in the first place, with the idea of bring freedom and democracy is that it put a very bad precedent for the future. If you are going to "free" the people of Iraq than you need to free the people of Saudi Arabia, Burma, Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, etc. where do you stop? who gets saved and who gets left behind. There are oppressive regimes all across the world, but because some are "friends" they don't get treated the same as Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, but we have very important relations with their government so the women there are not saved from the mistreatment that they receive. The Sudan has mass genocide but we haven't intervened there, why? because they don't have the resources or the location that Iraq has. The reason why we went into Iraq is not to "free" the people of Iraq it was to gain access to the oil, as well as provide military bases in a key location in the middle east.
As for why we should get out, I believe we have to, the thing is, there will never be a stable government, and we are spending Billions of dollars every year fighting a battle we should never have gotten ourselves into. We are also creating a training ground for terrorists to hone their skills, as well this is a symbol for recruitment for the terrorists. Ideally we could make the country somewhat of a confederacy where the ethnic groups are separated yet still share in the oil revenues, even this is probably doomed to fail.
The reality is Bush will always have the stigma of creating a hell hole which will take tens if not over a hundred years to fix. He will go down in history as making one of the biggest foreign policy errors that has ever been made in American History.
We have other issues at home to fix, and this war is keeping us from focusing on them, namely the war in Afghanistan which is losing ground.
the north was fighting sadam long before the coalition forces 'saved' them and there was no need to save them during the current conflict, and as for the american troops ill tell you a story.
an american helicopter flew outside of bagdad, suddenly a fire was opened, without waiting he fired at the building that the fire came from, killing over 30 family member who were in the middle of a wedding. the gun fire were a shots of joy randomly into the air. this disregard to human life and trigger happy finger mentality must be changed. can you really say that when america invaded they didnt used overwhelming firepower when its not needed?
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 06:11 PM
The thing about going into Iraq in the first place, with the idea of bring freedom and democracy is that it put a very bad precedent for the future. If you are going to "free" the people of Iraq than you need to free the people of Saudi Arabia, Burma, Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea, etc. where do you stop? who gets saved and who gets left behind. There are oppressive regimes all across the world, but because some are "friends" they don't get treated the same as Iraq. Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive regimes in the world, but we have very important relations with their government so the women there are not saved from the mistreatment that they receive. The Sudan has mass genocide but we haven't intervened there, why? because they don't have the resources or the location that Iraq has. The reason why we went into Iraq is not to "free" the people of Iraq it was to gain access to the oil, as well as provide military bases in a key location in the middle east.
As for why we should get out, I believe we have to, the thing is, there will never be a stable government, and we are spending Billions of dollars every year fighting a battle we should never have gotten ourselves into. We are also creating a training ground for terrorists to hone their skills, as well this is a symbol for recruitment for the terrorists. Ideally we could make the country somewhat of a confederacy where the ethnic groups are separated yet still share in the oil revenues, even this is probably doomed to fail.
The reality is Bush will always have the stigma of creating a hell hole which will take tens if not over a hundred years to fix. He will go down in history as making one of the biggest foreign policy errors that has ever been made in American History.
We have other issues at home to fix, and this war is keeping us from focusing on them, namely the war in Afghanistan which is losing ground.
Heh, oil again. We control Iraq, correct? That is your point right? Then why is it so expensive?
Bush made a mistake, a big one. He listened to some very bad advice. We know that there were weapons there- Hussein used them on his own people. After an entire village gets gased- most people know enough to STFU- that's what terrorism is. Most of the people there has STFU'd for so long that they don't understand that since Hussein is gone, they don't have to STFU anymore.
Let me throw another example on the table (which you guys can say is irrelevant, I'll understand)- Japan.
I still haven't gotten over this one- what we did there was so much worse- we bombed them twice with the most destructive weapon ever created. And then we invaded their land, and limited their government- after killing unheard of numbers of civilians.
It was much, much worse for "foreign policy", IMO. And we stayed there for how many years? Seven? Was it about a decade before we finally "pulled out" (unofficially- we still have troops there), and now look at them! Their economy is on par with if not better than ours! They create some of the most advanced technologies in the world- and are a freakin' economic superpower.
And they still don't have a true military. :cool:
Look, I'm getting tired of saying this- it's time for us to stop bitching about how awful it is that we got in there, because WE ARE THERE NOW and instead of whining about how we need to just turn tail and run (run from what?) we need to focus on a way to make our exit the most diplomatic possible.
Because our entry wasn't exactly diplomatic. The exit doesn't have to be a disaster, just like this war doesn't have to be a disaster.
There have been incidents of Iraqi citizens targeting terrorist supporters across the southern provinces- because they're just that tired of all the crap, which btw, isn't designed to target us, but rather Iraqi's themselves- so the Jihadists can say "help us or we'll blow you up".
Give those poor people more time. There's proof that they're learning to rise up on their own. That's the sign that we are almost finished. That's the exit sign we need- when the Iraqi people start rounding up the loonie and tell them to STFU just as they had been forced to for years.
an american helicopter flew outside of bagdad, suddenly a fire was opened, without waiting he fired at the building that the fire came from, killing over 30 family member who were in the middle of a wedding. the gun fire were a shots of joy randomly into the air. this disregard to human life and trigger happy finger mentality must be changed. can you really say that when america invaded they didnt used overwhelming firepower when its not needed?
I'm reminded of Waco in the worst possible way. :(
It's not just the military though. Waco was almost exactly the same- one big misunderstanding that cost many innocent people their lives.
That was one incident with (it was five correct?) several stupid individuals who made a bad call. It's not as though they were "LET'S BLOW SHIT UP!"- they got freaked out. Wouldn't you?
There are examples everywhere of misunderstandings like this that result in innocent people being killed. Take Wacko Waco, as I mentioned above.
i am not aware of what this waco is but looking at the numbers of dead in the current conflict and some of the photos make me wonder if some1 isnt trigger happy there or nervous.
i think the reason for that is:
1) american soldiers are less of a soldiers and more of employes, this create a diffrent enviorment for them to work in. many countries have forced draft for some years, the result is larger amount of soldiers with more 'sense of duty' where in the american army many soldiers are there for the money&benefits.
2) i wonder how many ethics and morals classes does an american soldier get?maybe if you are treated as a soldier and only as a soldier and stay for months away from home then maybe you lose something.
3) the general culture in america is pretty violent, you cant deny that getting a gun in america is pretty easy and isnt it part of the constiution? if some1 enter your house and you feel thretend you can kill him with little to none punishment, something is a little violant in the base of american culture, that affect the soldiers as well.
and that incident where some1 fire in the air and an entire wedding is getting massacured isnt something that can be blamed on the people in the wedding, those habits to fire in the air are common in the middle east and you should remember that its the americans who are guests there.
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 07:38 PM
i am not aware of what this waco is but looking at the numbers of dead in the current conflict and some of the photos make me wonder if some1 isnt trigger happy there or nervous.
i think the reason for that is:
1) american soldiers are less of a soldiers and more of employes, this create a diffrent enviorment for them to work in. many countries have forced draft for some years, the result is larger amount of soldiers with more 'sense of duty' where in the american army many soldiers are there for the money&benefits.
2) i wonder how many ethics and morals classes does an american soldier get?maybe if you are treated as a soldier and only as a soldier and stay for months away from home then maybe you lose something.
3) the general culture in america is pretty violent, you cant deny that getting a gun in america is pretty easy and isnt it part of the constiution? if some1 enter your house and you feel thretend you can kill him with little to none punishment, something is a little violant in the base of american culture, that affect the soldiers as well.
Again, they are limited incidents. The media has a simple rule- "if it bleeds, it leads" Listen: the media wants another Vietnam, they want to see bodybags, they need to see poor Iraqis getting hurt. Do you know why? Because public isn't really all that interested in Mr. Average Iraqi. Not really. But if there's a war- that gets people watching the news. That's where our morals fail- and it's not just american morals, it's in Europe and Asia too. As a society, we are globalized, what affects one country inevitably affects another country, perhaps not in the same numbers, but all countries essentially have the same problems.
and that incident where some1 fire in the air and an entire wedding is getting massacured isnt something that can be blamed on the people in the wedding, those habits to fire in the air are common in the middle east and you should remember that its the americans who are guests there.
Whoa, I didn't say anything about how it was the civilians' fault (they were innocent, I said). But they did spook the soldiers, who should have been mindful of the middle-eastern customs (we've got a friend of the family over there who's unit actually grew out their beards), before acting rashly.
Waco was... this huge incident in the 90's where the US government stormed this compound in Texas where a religious group had gathered, and killed a whole bunch of innocent men, women, and children. And then Clinton and his guys lied about it- saying something about how the women and kids were being abused, and the men there were firing on the police (which, as it turns out, wasn't the case).
i never said that those cases mean that the americans as a whole are brutal or something, but there is a more easy trigger finger in the american occcupation when compared for the israeli occupation. ofcourse that those soldiers got spooked and fired at the source, i dont think they heard gunshots, checked that out and saw a wedding and then opened fire but regardless of the circumstances a helicopter wont be taken down by a AK 47 shots and by far dont ask for destroying the building in that magnitude that killed 30+ people.
either way there was no need for that war, the truth is that iraq was better off with sadam, and the west should have talked with him and reach an agreement.
Spartan27
03-21-2008, 08:03 PM
I understand that we need to focus on what we are going to do right now, but that doesn't mean that we should just forget about how got here in the first place, the people that got us here need to be held accountable, I'm tired of people saying we should just forget about the past, the people that got us into this war need to held accountable this includes those in the congress, as well as those that are running for president. If we forget about the past we are doomed to repeat it.
My question to those that say we should stay, is how long? Some say that we need to stay until the job is done, but how long will that take, 3 years, 5 years, 15 years, or perhaps 100 years as McCain suggested. Japan was a much different situation, there you didn't have a insurgency, you didn't have ethnic conflicts, you don't have issues that stem back hundreds of years. You also had the support of other countries, and the reason why the Japanese economy became strong is because they were already a westernized country with the history of being an economic power, Iraq doe not have any of this.
Yes some Iraqis are fighting against the insurgency, some are stepping up, but in terms of political progress there is little real progress, the government is still weak and it will remain weak as long as the ethnic groups are in conflict with each other, not just in terms of fighting, but in terms of competing for economic and governmental power. Meanwhile we are losing ground in Afghanistan because our focus in on Iraq, the Taliban is coming back due to this war.
Hell we have a economic crisis right now, yet we are spending billions of dollars on this war.
As for oil, well yes oil is still expensive because the the region is still unstable, when the region is unstable there is uncertainty in the market thus prices go up. Do you really think we just went to Iraq out the goodness of our heart? If you think that I ask why we don't do this in the other countries that are suffering from oppressive regimes.
Come on now, you don't think there were WMDs do you? You really think nobody would come forward about something like that, do you know how much the US government would protect or reward someone that came forward about something like that. All that time searching for them and you come up with nothing, the WMDs were a myth, the programs were discontinued, Saddam wanted to stay in power, he wasn't going to do anything that Jeopardized this, that includes building WMDs or participating in anti-American activities.
I believe we need to try to do something that includes the surrounding countries, somehow we need to make this a more international force that help in the peacekeeping, you can't expect the U.S to stay in this quagmire forcing the military to stretch itself to the limit, making reservists to take on 3 or more tours of duty.
teh problem is that the countries around dont really share your ideas. you got wahabi saudi and the not less bad shia iran contesting for domination over the area. the center of sunna and the center of shia fight in iraq. the shia pretty much have won thanks to america (bringing a democracy for a mostly shia land only made iran stronger) but its actually the rest of the arab countries that you should be wary of, those 'allies' dont want iran to have a stable iraq and they will do anything to undermine those ambitions.
you got yourself in one of the most hateful conflicts ever.
frankly i think that maybe breaking iraq into smaller states might be the only solution, kurdistan in the north, shia land (which will be joining iran) and sunni iraq( which will be supported by the sunni arabs) this might lead for a another war with iran as they will threten the oil producing states but keep in mind one thing, the insurgancy need money, dont fool yourself, the amount of weapons they have suggest they are supplied by some1. too bad for you that now they are supported by EVERY1 around you.
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 08:23 PM
i never said that those cases mean that the americans as a whole are brutal or something, but there is a more easy trigger finger in the american occcupation when compared for the israeli occupation. ofcourse that those soldiers got spooked and fired at the source, i dont think they heard gunshots, checked that out and saw a wedding and then opened fire but regardless of the circumstances a helicopter wont be taken down by a AK 47 shots and by far dont ask for destroying the building in that magnitude that killed 30+ people.
I believe that you did.
1)so what do you do now? the people dont trust you and they will never trust you because american soldiers are not the most behaving soldiers out there, they are good for major wars but not for long time occupation.
2)i am sorry but ive seen american videos that really make me wonder about what they are thought, as a soldier myself i know we were thought about purity of arms and not throwing pupies out of clips and stuff, i think the reason is the concept that they are not living there, its got nothing to do with their home and maybe its the distance from home. either way i think that american soldiers behavior in iraq is very shameful and maybe there is a need to teach them some more respect by their officers.
Unless those were typos, and I missed something.
And Spartan as I said, there were WMD- and they got used on his own people. My belief is that we should get out soon, as soon as (I said this before too) the Iraqis are able to stand up for themselves.
Which they are starting to, by the way. It's no longer our call when we should leave- it's theirs. That's what soverignty is.
But on an aside- you can't possibly try to blame the President for everything. And as for accountability, well, I believe that our Congress is thouroughly messed up, and the race for the White House is a freaking nightmare (it's off-topic, PM me if you really want to know).
either way there was no need for that war, the truth is that iraq was better off with sadam, and the west should have talked with him and reach an agreement.
Err, you're joking, right? :err
Why don't you tell that to the people in the mass graves. Oh wait, you can't. Because they're dead! All of them- with no trial or anything. We are blessed to live in a society without somebody like that looming over our shoulders.
What about his kids for pity's sake?! Google them if you don't believe it. Ask Amnesty International or any other peace group about them. They were monsters, but if you were on their side, life was good, but if you stood against them... try looking up Iraqi execution tapes, they're out there.
Oh, and look for the invasion of Baghdad vids, they're something to see! :cool: People hated him- if you don't believe me, look at what they did to his statues. That wasn't our boys beating them with sandals- that was all Iraqis.
Spartan27
03-21-2008, 08:41 PM
I just want to say, that you're right the race for the White House shouldn't be discussed here.
The whole thing is such a mess, there really isn't a good solution. You have problems if you try to get the other countries around Iraq to help out, because you have vested interests from all of them, as well countries that should not be in peacekeeping missions. You can't break up the country because you'll still have fighting over things such as access to oil and to the gulf. You also can't just have things stand pat, because there will always be fighting over political power. It is such a mess that there isn't a answer.
I just want to point out that Saddam was not hated by the entire country, the people that were celebrating the U.S invasion were the Shiites that are the majority in Iraq that were also oppressed by the Sunni minority, the Sunnis were extremely worried due to the backlash that would occur when the Shiites were put back into power.
I don't think anybody has ever said that Saddam was good person, the problem is that the U.S doesn't have the ability to be the world's police force, we don't have the ability to save every oppressed people in the world. We don't save the people in Sudan, we don't save the people in Ruwanda, we don't save the people in North Korea or Burma. The fact is that we need help in these cases. Overall this is more relavent to future foreign policy. I would love to save these people but I don't think we as a nation have the resources to do it.
you did missed something, i said americans soldiers, not americans. i still think that the behavior of american soldiers need to be improved drasticly but that dosnt mean i am saying that the american people are to blamed or anything.
and no iam not joking, in the 5 years that passed more iraqis died then before, as cruel as he was at least then they were richer and more healtier then now. do you know how many wounded childern there are now from american bombs that fill the place? there were no suicide attacks before and people could have gone to the market without fear of blowing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Iraq i_deaths
look at the amount of deaths, and it dosnt seems to stop anytime soon.
on the overall picture more people die after sadam fall then before.
excluding the wars ofcourse since the iran iraq war could be blamed on the iranian as well.
as for the use of WMD, he did use them on his own people but do you know where did he got the weapons from? and for what purpose?
as cruel as he was at least during his time the people didnt died in the streets and americans soldiers didnt died for the ungratful iraqis.
as for the iraqi's hate for him...isnt it the same like their hate to america now? over 50% support the killing of americans, so i wouldnt use the 'people hate' as a stable point for your argument.
AnimeFantasyFan
03-21-2008, 09:20 PM
and no iam not joking, in the 5 years that passed more iraqis died then before, as cruel as he was at least then they were richer and more healtier then now. do you know how many wounded childern there are now from american bombs that fill the place? there were no suicide attacks before and people could have gone to the market without fear of blowing up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Iraq i_deaths
look at the amount of deaths, and it dosnt seems to stop anytime soon.
on the overall picture more people die after sadam fall then before.
excluding the wars ofcourse since the iran iraq war could be blamed on the iranian as well.
Wikipedia is a dangerous tool, Shdo. Careful. It's far, far too easy to edit it and screw with the data there.
as for the use of WMD, he did use them on his own people but do you know where did he got the weapons from? and for what purpose?
Most likely Iran, but I can't answer in all honesty. And that doesn't really matter- he used them on INNOCENT civilians. Not military (which still violates Geniva) personal- but women and children (and non-military men). And the people that were better off then were his allies- of course they're not going to be as well off now because he's dead. Dead by the people he abused for years.
as for the iraqi's hate for him...isnt it the same like their hate to america now? over 50% support the killing of americans, so i wouldnt use the 'people hate' as a stable point for your argument.
No, it's not. There were celebrations (http://youtube.com/watch?v=rFi7VsyuRHc)in the streets when Baghdad was invaded, and Saddam's statues came down (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wss_urnuB7o&feature=related).
1) those numbers comes from officel groups, just do a google search for how many people died in iraq since the invasion, dont fool yourself, the invasion caused only trouble to iraq.
2) the west gave them those weapons to use on iran, on iranian cities. even the slaughter that was carried on his people can be blamed on america for incoureging them to uprise and then leaving them to die by the WMD that the west gave iraq.
3)how little do you know, when israel invaded lebanon in 78 they were greated as heros for taking out the palestinians malitias who used south lebanon as their own. 4 years later those heros were treated as the enemy. the same go to america, yes they hated sadam and now they hate you.
Spartan27
03-21-2008, 09:30 PM
Yes AFF the statues came down, but the people that did that were the Shiites who were oppressed, the Sunnis were in fear of the backlash due to the invasion. Not all Iraqis were happy with the invasion. Not many want us there now.
As for the weapons they were given by the west due to our involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, and this was also in connection to things such as Iran-Contra, why do think Rumsfeldt was greeted with open arms by Saddam during the 80s?
There is no need for a war in Iraq.
Its all for oil.
The US should be in Afganistan hunting down Osama, damnit, instead of wasting billions of dollars on Iraq, and getting more in debt with China. Osama scarred the US with 9-11, yet theres little being done on actually putting it to justice.
The war in Iraq is George W Bush's sad attempt at proving to daddy that he could finish what he couldnt. & even that failed, since he is now almost out of office.
the problem is that now the war is there and leaving wont solve anything. at least without some kind of settelment.
Lady Scaper
03-21-2008, 11:27 PM
I just wanted to say the whole statue coming down and people celebrating, that was really American propaganda. Sorry to break it to you.
About leaving Iraq, which the US should not have gone to in the first place and had no real valid reason for going there (and lied about that), should stay for now but the thing is, now no matter what happens there is going to be a civil war in Iraq, things may end up worse then better. Really I don't think there is any real solution that will reduce the loss of a lot of lives.
I just wanted to say the whole statue coming down and people celebrating, that was really American propaganda. Sorry to break it to you.
About leaving Iraq, which the US should not have gone to in the first place and had no real valid reason for going there (and lied about that), should stay for now but the thing is, now no matter what happens there is going to be a civil war in Iraq, things may end up worse then better. Really I don't think there is any real solution that will reduce the loss of a lot of lives.
I agree, since the people are already on the brink of civil war.
However, if they do decide to pull out, it would take at least 10 years to completely do it.
The entire war was/is basically a lie. What the Bush administration did is they took advantage of most of the country's nationalistic feelings at the time. It was a time of chaos and confusion, and the Bush administration used that to their advantage. The only reason we are really there is for oil, and yet we have obtained it, and witheld it so that oil prices can keep rising more or less.
If this is meant to be a war on terror, we should be fighting ourselves. America is the one that states we love democracies, yet if a democracy doesn't go the way we want it too, we help set up a dictatorship to make the country stable. It has royally screwed our country over.
None of what I have said is meant to offend anyone in the troops, or anyone who knows anyone of the troops. I thank said people for defending our country, I just happen to not agree with the war you are fighting.
Ryuuko
03-23-2008, 04:23 PM
I don't think theres a need to steal oil, its theirs, not ours. There is enough oil over here to suffice. Let them keep their commodities. This is the reason countries are impoverished - people keep stealing from them.
Warchef
03-26-2008, 09:51 PM
I lol'd at the last few responses.
"We went to Iraq for oil!":
So tell me genius, why is the price for a gallon of gas still hovering around 3 dollars in most places? Doesn't make sense. If this was ABOUT oil, then 1) The prices would be going down, and 2) We would actually SEE shipments of oil being shipped from Iraq to U.S. ports. Strange, I haven't ever seen a single news report or picture of an oil tanker leaving Iraq bound for the U.S. since the invasion began.
"More Iraqi's have died in the invasion than they did in Saddam's reign!":
Sigh.... There have been alot of civilian casualties, which is to be expected in modern warfare. However, using Wikipedia and claiming that as an official source for an argument is pure fail. Hell, the majority of American universities have banned Wikipedia from being official sources in research papers, etc. because it is extremely prone to data and fact manipulation.
"The U.S. didn't have a reason to go into Iraq in the first place!":
WRONG AGAIN. Last time I checked, the U.S. was on the Security Council and one of the leading countries in the U.N. Last I checked, Saddam Hussein had not only defied multiple U.N. resolutions (supposedly over 30) which dictated a military response in the event of said defiance, but he refused to let U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq and also violated the No-Fly Zone in Iraq. Those sound like pretty legit reasons to me.
when they say they went there for oil, its not for you sweety, its for the oil companies, its for the taxes, that dosnt mean that your price will get lower. why isnt it goes to america? you think only america is a client? other countries buy it as well. again the money goes for the oil companies.
through wikipedia you can go into the sources, its at the bottum of the page. check them.
as for the UN thing, just because he didnt gave UN inside dont mean you should bomb the country to the stone age, a limited attack could've convince him to return the inspectors, maybe not forcing the country into poverty via sanctions since 1991 would make him less suspicious at the UN guys. in the end there were no WMD.
Warchef
03-27-2008, 12:24 AM
when they say they went there for oil, its not for you sweety, its for the oil companies, its for the taxes, that dosnt mean that your price will get lower. why isnt it goes to america? you think only america is a client? other countries buy it as well. again the money goes for the oil companies.
That still is skirting around my original question. Where is your proof that we are in Iraq for oil? Still haven't seen any proof of any suspicious activity by the U.S. or other countries in there. Until I do, that argument is refuted.
through wikipedia you can go into the sources, its at the bottum of the page. check them.
Lol, you still don't get it. Wikipedia is pure FAIL. IF you are using Wikipedia as a basis for an argument...Well, there's really no point in arguing, because I've already won.
as for the UN thing, just because he didnt gave UN inside dont mean you should bomb the country to the stone age, a limited attack could've convince him to return the inspectors, maybe not forcing the country into poverty via sanctions since 1991 would make him less suspicious at the UN guys. in the end there were no WMD.
No it wouldn't have. If the Gulf War didn't convince him to allow unlimited inspections by the U.N. then a "limited attack" sure wouldn't have.
Forcing the country into poverty? :rofl
He brought the sanctions upon himself by invading the peaceful nation of Kuwait, which had committed no military actions against Iraq
P.S.- There were WMD's. Bush went to war on faulty intelligence, which later compromised his credibility because it was obvious they were either destroyed or moved out of the country. There is however, tons of evidence that he had at one point in time, WMDs; Heck, that's obvious by his brutal treatment of the Kurds, which he gassed with SCUDs.
P.P.S.- Scuds with chemical agents in them are classified as WMDs.
do you know how much the oil companies pay their people just to work there? 8000 a month to a bus driver, now that is before you talk about the workers but think about that, would the oil companies pay that much if it wasnt for big cash? especially when its one of the largest oil reserves in the world (i think second) besides, did any WMD were found? this war wasnt on WMD, that for sure.
the sources are other sites, i am talking about human rights sites, you can reach them through wikipedia.
no militery actions but it did commited economic actions on it, the full story is much more intresting, for example kuwait lowered the oil prices to hurt iraq economy, this was called by iraq economic war and they retaliated. anyways back in the day clinton had the same problem with sadam, so he fired some misslies and launched a carrier, showed sadam his place and the inspectors were back into iraq, what do you know, it does work.
he used all his WMD (which were given to him by the west) in the iraq iran war and on those kurds, the fact that he didnt used those weapons ever since the 80's and in the gulf war, and in 2003,in addition to the fact that for 5 years america didnt found anything even with all the captured iraqi generals, all that might actually mean that there are no WMD. when america said that there are proofs, the world belived, and waited. when america went inside those proofs seemed like air, in all the iraq basses and in all the iraqi facilities not a single drop of WMD was found.
as for the poverty, have you heard about the UN plan of oil for food? isnt that nice? what about medicines and technolegy? those were closed from iraq to purchuse.
cheez
03-27-2008, 02:16 AM
The US did have legitimate reasons for invading Iraq, with Iraq's many UN sanction violations, however these were not the reasons Bush used to justify the war. Instead Bush used WMDs and Saddam ties to terrorism as justification, both of which were later proven to be false.
This war was unnecessary, especially for the US to handle mostly alone. Even with the UN sanctions as justification, we relocated many necessary troops away from Afghanistan too soon. Because of the premature withdrawl of so many necessary troops, the Taliban have been able to regroup, and put up a significant resistance especially in the country side. Our efforts should mainly be focused on rebuilding Afghanistan and capturing bin laden, but the war in Iraq has become such a problem that it overshadows them.
As for Iraq its self despite the recent military success, political progress and cooperation between the major groups has made very little progress. We also have very poor relations with Iran, whose cooperation is necessary for Iraq to survive after we leave. There is also a major problem with Turkey, and its potential invasion of norther Iraq after we leave, they have all ready conducted military incursions, and threatened major military offensives.
Building support for this war was very poorly handled, I can't recall so much international resistance for a war that had justifiable UN conditions. Bush wanted the invasion and was unwilling to to compromise or even listen to legitimate concerns by other countries. Instead he choose to alienate any country that wouldn't support him, making the war generally unpopular by most international governments and populations.
So because of Bush we are now in a two front war, in which we are trying to rebuild two nations and carry military operations at the same time. And because of a general disregard towards the international community we are mostly doing this alone.
Primera Espada
03-27-2008, 02:31 AM
Technically, while we are still on the anti-terrorist, etc war, the war with iraq is over.
We are no longer fighting the iraqi government.
In fact, we're no longer actively fighting the insurgants for the most part. At this time we are largely military support for iraqi's own people.
Okay, maybe not largely, the numbers there are a bit fuzzy, but that's the intent at least.
Should we be pulling out? Yes. Slowly? Yes.
Pulling out fast will ruin any chance at iraqi stability.
Let's not forget how long it took us to pull out of germany, or japan...
oh wait
WE'RE STILL THERE.
Our presence isn't the problem, but if we leave too large a force there for too long, it will be.
As for the "We never should have gone in there!" stuff. Sure, isolationists attitudes are going to press for that. Sure, there are other countries we should be getting involved with. I don't think Iraq was as big of a threat as others. I do think it was a good opportunity though, as it costs a LOT less to move troops from one middle eastern country to another than it does to move them all back home, then to another country on another continent.
I wouldn't be surprised though, if the war gets "taken care of" in the first year of the next presidency, regardless of who wins.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 05:28 AM
I'm pro a war to hunt down and kill terrorists. But this war already is going far enought, isn't?
dont think that the war on terror is something that ends. ever.
as for iraq, actually invading iraq made her more friendly to terrorists. sadam was brutal ruler but he was also brutal to the terrorists and without him all hell broke loose.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 10:56 AM
Saddam was brutal with terrorists? How? He was one.
And I agree with you when you say that the war on terror never ends, but now is time to get Iraq walk with your own legs, this actual occupation will only bring more war.
Put yourself in the iraqi's place. If foreigners soldiers get to your contry and rule as if they're from the same country as you, you'll just sit down and watch? For me, if some contry do a such thing here in Brazil, I'll fight til the end.
1) there is no terror confrance where all the terror groups meet and share ideas, most terror groups oppose to one another and dictators are something else entirely.
sadam was a baath party dictator, he was a national dictator as well, the islamic terrorists wants to see religious rule over all arab land( and beyond) and sadam dont want it. have you ever heard about suicide bombing like this in sadam era? he had used brutal tactics to keep the people on a short leash and he would kill any terrorist his forces found, because they are harming his stability.
iraq is better with stable dictator then with unstable-soon-to-be-overthrown-by-islamic-law democracy.
as for the iraqi's they still got saved from a dictator, they should show more appriciation to the american forces, instead almost 50% support actions against american soldiers.
on the other hand look at the kurdish north, only 200 coalition soldiers are there and not a single american loss, that is because the people there understand that america isnt the enemy and that they should move on to strengthen their economy. and what the result? less american forces in the kurdish north, 200 in that size is more like sending advisors then militery presence.
the iraqi annoy me as hell because they lie to themselves, they kill more iraqi then they kill americans, instead of advancing they preffer to kill one another under the pretext of fighting the occupation. if they enjoy so much killing one another then they can have all the fun they want, i only getting angry for the american blood that is spilled there because the soldiers were lied to and as far as the soldier is concerned they are there to help the iraqi people who seems to not wanting to help themselves.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 11:43 AM
1) Yes, Saddam killed terrorists, but above all he was a dictator, who made him a terrorist too.
2) I don't think so. When you're a nationalist, see foreigners ruling your country is an offense, who give you a desire to fight, generating new "terrorists". Is a full circle here. If the american forces don't get out of Iraq, then the war will never end. About the kurdish example, I don't know what's going on in their country, so I can't say a word about it.
About the "iraqi killing iraqi" thing, there's nothing we can do. Most of they are religious fanatics and then kill people from other beliefs. But what we can do? Genocide them?
Seriously, that's a good point here. What the world can do about the islamic fanatics?
the kurdish north is iraq! by looking at them i am sure that if the iraqis had acted the same you would have less then 2000 troops in iraq by now.
mindless resistance is the worst thing they could have brought on themselves.
the kurds on the other hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miWZRIJ18mk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLVBwbYz4wk
this is in iraq, there is a other way, if the people wants it.
sadly the iraqi dont wants this.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 12:17 PM
Ah, kurdish north is Iraq, eh? Sorry, english is not my native language and here we have another name for them.
Anyway, at this point I'm totally against the occupation in Iraq. Please, oh please, Saddam and his "high-ranked officials" are now dead. Let the Iraq walk with your own legs now. I'm starting to think this war is really for oil.
you know what will happen if america will just pull out now? you will see slaughter so extensive that will make everything look like a joke. usally i wouldnt give a damn, if a people wants to kill themselves its their problem, that wat seperate them and us, unity. untill they reach this unity and understanding of destiny they will keep suffering.
i only care because i also live in the middle east and chaotic iraq will directly influance me. i wish that the invasion had never happend, but it did and now the situation is worse. once the american leave iraq in chaos there are 2 options, one is a horrific civil war and frankly i dont give a damn as long as the kurdish north is free from those attacks.
the other option is even worse, the lawless iraq will become a new afganistan, exporting terror to the rest of the middle east, you will start to see attacks on american basses on other arab countries, countries that asked the americans to build those bases (almost every oil producing country have american troops) it wont end just by leaving. it will end when the money source and ideologic source would be harmed and weakend.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 12:37 PM
Curiosity, where are you from?
A slaughter in Iraq? I doubt it, now they've their own army, trained by the americans. In other hand, if the United States continue in Iraq, this "saint war" will never end >.>
And the USA politic "I'm the owner of the world" piss me a lot. I myself don't dislike USA, but his extern politics is very annoying.
In other hand again, I care about the USA soldiers. I was in brazilian army for a while, so I can put myself in their place. They're dying for another country, a war that is not of their concern. Is so sad to immagine a happy nationalist who joins army to fight for his country, and then he dies for another country. Really sad. That's why I'm against the brazilian occupation oh Haiti too. Oh well...
israel.
the iraqi so called army is the most pathetic example of a fighting force in the middle east, they wont be able to stop anything, the sunni will attack the shia and the shia will attack the sunni and the whole country will reach the level of some countries in africa where there is civil war for years and years, the problem here is that iraq isnt africa, it have oil and its close to many other countries with oil, and that concern the world alot.
as for america, say thanks that they are the current super power and not others. frankly they are the strongest nation as of now and that power comes with responsabilities and benefits.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 02:33 PM
I don't say thanks to anyone because I think that every country have your own supremacy in their territories. USA has nothing to do with brazilian matters, for example. To me, seems like a disrespect/invasion to care about other countries matters.
Unfortunately, We aren't in a world with no boundaries.
the deal is that iraq cant control their own turf, they are weak, leaving them alone will bring them to a civil war that will effect the whole area, you underestimate the importance of the sunni shia fight, its as old as islam itself.
the hate they have to one another is amazing and iraq is the most deadly proof of that.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 02:51 PM
Damn, is hard to deal with the islamics, isn't? You're from Israel, you should know very well. Bloody Christ, I don't see any solution to their "saint war" and this leaves me hopeless. I mean, while they exists, these kinds of war will ever exist too. Sometimes I get mad and think about genocide them all, but obviously this isn't right. You have any idea?
the problem here is actually not iraqi as much as iran and saudi.
one is the center of shia islam and the other of wahabi sunni islam.
they hate one another more then they hate us israelis. as long as those two keep supporting extremism in their homelands the rest of the middle east will burn. but this is a dangerous tool, with time it will return to them, at least the saudis, the problem is that:
the arab world is not ready for democracy, there is no point in forcing it on them, its better now to have dictators who slowly move into a more liberal society slowly.
the thinking that the west ideolegy and morals would fit to every people is really wrong, some people are simply not ready for a true democracy. let them do their thing and dont force change, offer help for a change but dont force it.
i think that the only solution which will be the less bloody in iraq is to break the country to 3+ smaller countries, a shia east, sunni west and kurdish north.
the kurds will chose democracy, and the two others will either try democracy or will return to their old ways of dictatorships. in 20 years they will look at the north and will see what they missed and maybe they will follow.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 03:12 PM
i think that the only solution which will be the less bloody in iraq is to break the country to 3+ smaller countries, a shia east, sunni west and kurdish north.
the kurds will chose democracy, and the two others will either try democracy or will return to their old ways of dictatorships. in 20 years they will look at the north and will see what they missed and maybe they will follow.
That's actually a good idea.
its the only way to actually save american lives, one of the reasons i dont want to see america just leave iraq is the kurds. they were betrayed before by america and the west and still kept their loyelty and they look for the future where others look at their rifles.
i dont want to see iraq getting into a civil war with the kurds taking the fall like they did in the past.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 03:21 PM
Indeed. The only thing sad here is the fact that is not that easy to broke a country in 3 >.>
i actually think it is, i mean the north have its own parlament and its own flag so they are still part of iraq only by name and because of fear of turkish invasion.
the other two is still easier then staying there untill everything is fine again.
the problem is that there are still many who dont wants to break the country, its about time they will start thinking to this way because right now they are on the way to civil war.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 03:32 PM
Yes, you're right. But like you said before, to these people is easier to look at their rifles than the future =\
But I still agree with the breaking of Iraq in 3 different countries.
Babbo
03-27-2008, 04:43 PM
Babbo agrees on the point that the US shouldn't pull out to soon, been saying the same damn thing quite a while now. But the thing is, it's going to happen
unless we get McCaine, which seems rather unlikely. Babbo doesn't really see any point in debating the inevitable.
Heh, oil again. We control Iraq, correct? That is your point right? Then why is it so expensive?
Bush made a mistake, a big one. He listened to some very bad advice. We know that there were weapons there- Hussein used them on his own people. After an entire village gets gased- most people know enough to STFU- that's what terrorism is. Most of the people there has STFU'd for so long that they don't understand that since Hussein is gone, they don't have to STFU anymore.
Let me throw another example on the table (which you guys can say is irrelevant, I'll understand)- Japan.
I still haven't gotten over this one- what we did there was so much worse- we bombed them twice with the most destructive weapon ever created. And then we invaded their land, and limited their government- after killing unheard of numbers of civilians.
It was much, much worse for "foreign policy", IMO. And we stayed there for how many years? Seven? Was it about a decade before we finally "pulled out" (unofficially- we still have troops there), and now look at them! Their economy is on par with if not better than ours! They create some of the most advanced technologies in the world- and are a freakin' economic superpower.
And they still don't have a true military. :cool:
Look, I'm getting tired of saying this- it's time for us to stop bitching about how awful it is that we got in there, because WE ARE THERE NOW and instead of whining about how we need to just turn tail and run (run from what?) we need to focus on a way to make our exit the most diplomatic possible.
Because our entry wasn't exactly diplomatic. The exit doesn't have to be a disaster, just like this war doesn't have to be a disaster.
There have been incidents of Iraqi citizens targeting terrorist supporters across the southern provinces- because they're just that tired of all the crap, which btw, isn't designed to target us, but rather Iraqi's themselves- so the Jihadists can say "help us or we'll blow you up".
Give those poor people more time. There's proof that they're learning to rise up on their own. That's the sign that we are almost finished. That's the exit sign we need- when the Iraqi people start rounding up the loonie and tell them to STFU just as they had been forced to for years.
I'm reminded of Waco in the worst possible way. :(
It's not just the military though. Waco was almost exactly the same- one big misunderstanding that cost many innocent people their lives.
That was one incident with (it was five correct?) several stupid individuals who made a bad call. It's not as though they were "LET'S BLOW SHIT UP!"- they got freaked out. Wouldn't you?
There are examples everywhere of misunderstandings like this that result in innocent people being killed. Take Wacko Waco, as I mentioned above.
WWII Japan is a very bad analogy. Not only was japan already fighting other wars and maintaining/brutalizing colonies but their economy had collapsed completely. And then there's the A bomb. It's just a different situation when you have the fear of seeing another couple hundred thousand people vaporized in an instant. The whole world was afraid after Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Japan and its people were freaking terrified. There's also the geography of it, Japan's an island, and at the time had one of the most powerful navies in the world with bases in it. It was also a different culture in a different era, no matter the implications of that, Japan in the forties is different from iraq in 200X in countless ways.
the problem here is actually not iraqi as much as iran and saudi.
one is the center of shia islam and the other of wahabi sunni islam.
they hate one another more then they hate us israelis. as long as those two keep supporting extremism in their homelands the rest of the middle east will burn. but this is a dangerous tool, with time it will return to them, at least the saudis, the problem is that:
the arab world is not ready for democracy, there is no point in forcing it on them, its better now to have dictators who slowly move into a more liberal society slowly.
the thinking that the west ideolegy and morals would fit to every people is really wrong, some people are simply not ready for a true democracy. let them do their thing and dont force change, offer help for a change but dont force it.
i think that the only solution which will be the less bloody in iraq is to break the country to 3+ smaller countries, a shia east, sunni west and kurdish north.
the kurds will chose democracy, and the two others will either try democracy or will return to their old ways of dictatorships. in 20 years they will look at the north and will see what they missed and maybe they will follow.
Or instead of a civil war they'll just start an international one. Everybody always wants more than one piece of pie <.<
true, right now iraq is the fighting grounds of the shia and sunni but after america leave that place we might see this fighting spread to neghbor countries...countries who produce alot of oil...
My opinion of the Iraq War is that USA shouldn't get out too soon...
We need to make sure that Iraq's military force is ready to take on the task of protecting their country all by themselves, and I dont' think they are ready yet. Once they are capable of doing that and running their country with DEMOCRACY then our troops should come home.
Personally I think that it was DUMB to invade in the first place, but now that we are there, we should stay until the end. If we were to leave now, the people would only suffer more, and the country would again be dominated by terrorist and rebals..
The USA has to stay committed to Iraq and make it part of our allies. We started this war, and we have to make it right for the sake of the Iraqi people.. we owe it to them....
AnimeFantasyFan
03-27-2008, 05:10 PM
WWII Japan is a very bad analogy. Not only was japan already fighting other wars and maintaining/brutalizing colonies but their economy had collapsed completely. And then there's the A bomb. It's just a different situation when you have the fear of seeing another couple hundred thousand people vaporized in an instant. The whole world was afraid after Hiroshima and Nagasaki; Japan and its people were freaking terrified. There's also the geography of it, Japan's an island, and at the time had one of the most powerful navies in the world with bases in it. It was also a different culture in a different era, no matter the implications of that, Japan in the forties is different from iraq in 200X in countless ways.
Funny, but the first two ways you described are rather applicable to Iraq- in terms of the Kurdish people there.
And I was using it as an example of our foreign policy "f***-ups" of the past. Unless you're saying that killing thousands of civilians isn't a bad thing?
I'm aware that it's very, very different Babbo. But there are also similarities too. The fact is that we are very close to getting out- closer than we have been. Regardless of how bad or good the situation in Iraq is, we need to make our exit as diplomatic as possible, because our entry was, well, certainly otherwise.
If we just drop everything and say, "well, we listened to a dip**** and we goofed up, sorry guys! ;) " that just makes everything that's happened over the past years worthless. Utterly freakin' worthless. Let's get out in the best possible way, and then let the Iraqis learn the meaning of the term "sovereignty of the people".
saying that you are closer to leaving is a pretty faulty argument, in 10 years you will be much closer to leave iraq. you are also much more close to leave japan then 50 years ago...er...wait...
its a really deep shit in iraq, but the main problem is the idea that you need to make it a democratic paradise, maybe a new approach should be brought? breaking the country? federal dictatorships (pretty intresting idea i had)? the problem with the democracy thing is that the majority is shia, and shia support iran where the sunni who used to rule the country support saudi.
democracy take the power from the sunni to the shia, that is unacceptable to them. "but wait! its a democracy! that is how its works!" and the answer is that they didnt had a democracy till now so what do you expect?
Babbo
03-27-2008, 05:17 PM
Funny, but the first two ways you described are rather applicable to Iraq- in terms of the Kurdish people there.
And I was using it as an example of our foreign policy "f***-ups" of the past. Unless you're saying that killing thousands of civilians isn't a bad thing?
I'm aware that it's very, very different Babbo. But there are also similarities too. The fact is that we are very close to getting out- closer than we have been. Regardless of how bad or good the situation in Iraq is, we need to make our exit as diplomatic as possible, because our entry was, well, certainly otherwise.
If we just drop everything and say, "well, we listened to a dip**** and we goofed up, sorry guys! ;) " that just makes everything that's happened over the past years worthless. Utterly freakin' worthless. Let's get out in the best possible way, and then let the Iraqis learn the meaning of the term "sovereignty of the people".
The difference being that colonies entail the use of a large occupational force away from home, meaning even more of an economic burden, not to mention a division of attention. It's also on an entirely different scale from brutalizing an enthnic group in their own country <.<
Not necessarily. We would've had to spend at least as many troops for conventional invasion. But that's whole debate in and of itself. In any case we were already at war with them before we occupied them as well, calling it a foreign policy fuck up while it might make sense to a degree is not entirely accurate.
Similarities or no, the situations have to many drastic differences >.>
We did it in Vietnam; even if we didn't occupy them per se babbo sees no reason why we won't pull out like that again. There's too much momentum in the anti-war sentiment right now <.<
the only reason for not backing off from iraq when compared to vietnam is that if iraq fall into chaos that might spread to other countries nearby and the world oil supply might actually be harmed.
vietnam had no importance beside stopping communisem which didnt ended like people thought it will.
the only reason for not backing off from iraq when compared to vietnam is that if iraq fall into chaos that might spread to other countries nearby and the world oil supply might actually be harmed.
vietnam had no importance beside stopping communisem which didnt ended like people thought it will.
If the USA was to back out right now.. what would that say to our allies? That we are weak and that they cannot count on us to be there when or if they need us. If you believe this is ALL about oil.. then thats your opinion... but regardless of the reason why we are there, we CANNOT get out now... it would be like GIVING up and we don't do that...
Like I said before.. Iraq is not ready to go on its own... it still needs a stable government and a strong military... until then... USA should stay there, to make sure that other people(terrorist) don't take advantage of Iraq's weak state.... its simple.. if we pull out.. we cannot expect Iraq to become the great and rich country it can become, but if we stay until they are ready to take it by themselves then at least we will have some hope that they can become great...
Babbo
03-27-2008, 05:27 PM
the only reason for not backing off from iraq when compared to vietnam is that if iraq fall into chaos that might spread to other countries nearby and the world oil supply might actually be harmed.
vietnam had no importance beside stopping communisem which didnt ended like people thought it will.
You have to think about mentality man. At the time of the cold war the spread communism was a scary thing, regardless of what happened afterwards, at the time the consequences were considered just as dire. The US wouldn't have put so much into it if things had been considered otherwise.
If the USA was to back out right now.. what would that say to our allies? That we are weak and that they cannot count on us to be there when or if they need us. If you believe this is ALL about oil.. then thats your opinion... but regardless of the reason why we are there, we CANNOT get out now... it would be like GIVING up and we don't do that...
Like I said before.. Iraq is not ready to go on its own... it still needs a stable government and a strong military... until then... USA should stay there, to make sure that other people(terrorist) don't take advantage of Iraq's weak state.... its simple.. if we pull out.. we cannot expect Iraq to become the great and rich country it can become, but if we stay until they are ready to take it by themselves then at least we will have some hope that they can become great...
Our allies already pulled out themselves *has been trying his hardest to hold back on the sex jokes with all this talk of pulling out* And it's not like we cared too much about what they thought when we put i-went in <.<
Either way, babbo just doesn't see the point in statements like that. We'll probably be pulling out too soon whether it's years or even a decade from now. And to top things off it looks like we're going be sooner rather than later <.<
this is political fear, and there is also political fear right now, just like luv said and its true, the moment america leaves iraq the rest of the arab allies will start to look for other protectors and sponsers.
but beside of that thing you will have meterial crisis with the oil problem. ofcourse that once there will be a counter to oil that might soften the blow.
Well.... if we pull out.. then we are setting things up for a GREATER problem.. Lets see how many countries give a damn about us after that...
US should stay, even if it takes 100 YEARS.. but we should stay...its not the Iraqi's peoples fault that we were stupid enough to go into this war so we need to stay and SUCK it up. All those countries need to see that we stand by our word and that we will PROTECT Iraq from terrorist and rebels.. so lets SUCK it up and stay....
Primera Espada
03-27-2008, 06:48 PM
don't a lot of people consider pulling out of vietnam as a bad thing, what with the millions (hundred thousands maybe?) of deaths that occurred when we did pull out?
Primera: That exactly why we shouldn't pull out of IRAQ before order is restored. We need to make sure we save as many lives as possible, even if it means that we have to sacrifice some of our own to do so. The people have already suffered through so much with Sadan, its time for them to have a country in which they fell safe in....
AnimeFantasyFan
03-27-2008, 06:58 PM
don't a lot of people consider pulling out of vietnam as a bad thing, what with the millions (hundred thousands maybe?) of deaths that occurred when we did pull out?
Yes, especially because the lack of support for it is what contributed to the war going south in the first place.
Another point is now the people there are finally starting to rise up on their own. that's a sign that things are going the right way. There haven't been as many widespread deaths as of late. That's a sign that things are starting to work.
More time = more lives saved, not wasted.
EX|pada #0
03-27-2008, 07:24 PM
I just feel sad for the soldiers from USA. May the God bless them.
When I think that about 3 year ago I got my Green Card and the first thing that I wanted to do in USA was to join the Marine Corps... maybe I should be killed like a dog in Iraq right now.
(C'mon, I'm a military enthuasist. That's why I, even if a foreigner, wanted to join the Marine Corps. But in the end my natiolism screamed even louder so I decided to stay in Brazil in the very last minute)
Babbo
03-27-2008, 11:01 PM
don't a lot of people consider pulling out of vietnam as a bad thing, what with the millions (hundred thousands maybe?) of deaths that occurred when we did pull out?
Well that's the point. We did it anyways. We pulled out too soon in the first gulf war as well, plenty of people died because of that too. The point that Babbo was trying to make (in counter to Luv's the US can't look like cowards to it's allies) was that the US administration isn't going to especially care what other countries think about their decision to withdraw, and from the looks of it, we're going to end up with a president who will make that decision <.<
Well that's the point. We did it anyways. We pulled out too soon in the first gulf war as well, plenty of people died because of that too. The point that Babbo was trying to make (in counter to Luv's the US can't look like cowards to it's allies) was that the US administration isn't going to especially care what other countries think about their decision to withdraw, and from the looks of it, we're going to end up with a president who will make that decision <.<
Wow.. talk about singling me out... lol
Okay.. but imagine what other countries will think...
If we do get out now.. it seems that we are too weak and we are giving up on Iraq, like we can't handle the rebels. I'm sure that the administration does care about its image to the World.. after all, if the US is a super power... why the hell would we want to look weak? If the next president is going to bring the troops back, then I hope he/she is ready to deal with the consequences... b/c Iraq will be over taken once again by terrorist and rebels and who do you think they will attack? Of course the U.S. who else...
Babbo
03-28-2008, 12:25 AM
Wow.. talk about singling me out... lol
Okay.. but imagine what other countries will think...
If we do get out now.. it seems that we are too weak and we are giving up on Iraq, like we can't handle the rebels. I'm sure that the administration does care about its image to the World.. after all, if the US is a super power... why the hell would we want to look weak? If the next president is going to bring the troops back, then I hope he/she is ready to deal with the consequences... b/c Iraq will be over taken once again by terrorist and rebels and who do you think they will attack? Of course the U.S. who else...
That's the beauty of being a super power though. You don't have to care what anyone else thinks. How do you think we got away with attacking and occupying Iraq o,o? By caring about what other countries think?
its not just america, russia and chechnya, china and tibet. have great powers mean you can do alot of things to smaler countries without any1 even thinking of criticizing you.
That's the beauty of being a super power though. You don't have to care what anyone else thinks. How do you think we got away with attacking and occupying Iraq o,o? By caring about what other countries think?
Well... we did have allies before we went into the war.. so I'm sure that helped..
So what? Just b/c we are a super power we can act like other countries don't matter? No.. I think the US is too smart to not care.. after all, if all those "little" countries were to form a stand.. we would PERISH! Come on.. US vs the WORLD.. that would be a bad situation. I am sure that the other countries didn't care.. simply b/c US had allies to begin with.. but if we had gone in there ALONE.. I am pretty sure that shit would have gone totally wrong....
Primera Espada
03-28-2008, 01:34 AM
well, surely if Obama is elected we'll pull out real fast.
Hillary is actually quite similar in bush when it comes to military plans. I can't see this as a good thing.
McCain will stick around for awhile, but with a democratic led congress, and McCain's relatively liberal conservative views I don't think he'll stick it out for too long.
So, I dunno. I guess we'll have a lot more to say about the topic in november.
Babbo
03-28-2008, 02:08 AM
Well... we did have allies before we went into the war.. so I'm sure that helped..
So what? Just b/c we are a super power we can act like other countries don't matter? No.. I think the US is too smart to not care.. after all, if all those "little" countries were to form a stand.. we would PERISH! Come on.. US vs the WORLD.. that would be a bad situation. I am sure that the other countries didn't care.. simply b/c US had allies to begin with.. but if we had gone in there ALONE.. I am pretty sure that shit would have gone totally wrong....
We had allies... And we went in without UN (ie an NGO whose membership is made up of almost every country on earth) support/consent. It's really an incredibly moot point to talk about cowardice when most countries could never even pull off starting such a war let alone occupying iraq and successfully withdrawing without anything bad happening <.<
Primera Espada
03-28-2008, 04:27 AM
well that's just the thing,
if we successful withdraw and nothing bad happens, then great, we won't be seen as weak or whatever, we'll be seen as listening to the american people and doing what's right (blah blah blah politics)
But if we pull out and another vietnam happens, america will lose what little respect as a military force it currently has.
While this is not too important at the moment, it will definately mark us as targets for terrorists.
Why?
Cause that's how they operate. They rely on emotional reaction.
All that being said though, I think Iraq is well off enough that we could afford to start pulling out now, slowly, no prob.
It's the quick, obama method that will leave people thinking we just got scared, cut and run, etc, and will be proven that we were RIGHT to be scared when the country gets overrun by extremists.
i dont think you will be 'overrun' but it will destabilize your hold on the area, there are many american basses in the middle east, guarding american intrest and partners, once iraq is lost and the american will be precieved as weak you might start to see attacks on those countries and basses.
the result would be dire on oil prices and american prestige around the world.
We had allies... And we went in without UN (ie an NGO whose membership is made up of almost every country on earth) support/consent. It's really an incredibly moot point to talk about cowardice when most countries could never even pull off starting such a war let alone occupying iraq and successfully withdrawing without anything bad happening <.<
You like picking on me... don't you?
Well.. if something bad happens when we get out.. who is the WORLD going to blame? We can't believe that just b/c we are a superpower we are the BEST and that we are going to be SAFE from any more terrorist attacks.. we have to show those evil bastards that we will NOT put up with their shit and that America will fight to get rid of their buts.... so lets stay and destroy that evil, and lets give the people PEACE!
Primera Espada
03-28-2008, 08:06 AM
you made sense right up til the end.
Yah, bring peace by crushing everyone who isn't peaceful.
As long as there's suicide at the end, that works, but I don't think that's the plan.
speedphantom
03-28-2008, 08:18 AM
It's all for oil and to give the economy a bump. You know how much money they're making with all the weapons companies producing mountains of munitions?
As if America would just go in to another country to depose a dictator and to uphold justice. Also, if anyone thinks that the war has made the world a safer place, you can be sure that all terrorists around the world will hate America more. I can't remember the exact figure but terrorist attacks have inreased by over 200% since the beginning of all these wars.
@LUV - you want to achieve peace through destruction? Contradictory if I may say so. You think the terrorists are evil, the terrorists think you're evil. Quite subjective isn't it?
If global security really is what Bush is after, he sends his armies to Iraq. Going by the same logic, it would be just as right if all the "terrorists" decided to drop by America and start fighting since the hatred seems to be mutual.
Espada: Well.. I am talking about the evil guys here, and sometimes you have to kill some innocent ones while trying to catch the bad guys...
I mean just the people that are causing problem and are killing, raping, or hurting others... the US is there to protect and help and we should do everything we can to help.
I know that innocents will be lost, but you tell me if there is a war where innocent people haven't died... of course.. we should try to save as many as possible, but its still going to happen....
Babbo
03-28-2008, 08:36 AM
You like picking on me... don't you?
Well.. if something bad happens when we get out.. who is the WORLD going to blame? We can't believe that just b/c we are a superpower we are the BEST and that we are going to be SAFE from any more terrorist attacks.. we have to show those evil bastards that we will NOT put up with their shit and that America will fight to get rid of their buts.... so lets stay and destroy that evil, and lets give the people PEACE!
Bah you're just on the other side of the fence (though in point of fact Babbo doesn't have a real position along the fence since we're gonna withdraw whether we like it or not). Babbo just doesn't see how backing off from finishing something no other country could start is a sign of weakness >.>
because in the middle east power is everything, if you are weak you are bullied, look at lebanon, EVERYONE bully them, they are precived as weak and the result was being the battlefield of 3 countries.
when you show weakness in the middle east you get devoured, simple as that.
ookami
04-08-2008, 09:07 PM
I'm going to Iraq in three years if the war is still on anyway I've been briefed. The reason we went to Iraq was because some Lame ass (George.W.Bush) Cried wolf they have weapons of mass destruction he said there have been no ressults to suggest there ever was weapons of mass destrution, the second reason was because they were burning up the oil fields. I find it sick that the third reason was beacause people we diying for no reason what so ever. We get trained to clear buildings, kill people, defuse bombs and apllie first aid now theres only a few things there that can be linked to oil and weapons thats a fact.
general info about the conflict: there are two major streams in islam, shia and sunni, they got seperated after the death of muhamad, a new leader was to be chosed. some supported a blood relative of muhamad and some a good friend of him, both claimed that their side continue the prophet way and the result was a civil war in which the shia side (those who supported the blood relative) lost and their heir was killed, from then the two sides really were at each other throats.
iraq is near iran, the world center for shia muslims, and their shia pop is around 60% of the country. during sadam time the sunni rulled. as brutal as sadam was he wasnt a ally of the terror cells, every element that hurted his regime was crushed, and that included extremist muslims. when sadam was overthrowed the shia came to power and the sunni became pissed, they decided to take the country back by supporting groups like al qaeda. fights between shia and sunni erupted, each supported by outside forces. the shia themselves made a religious army, the ma'adi army.
so what do we have now? the sunni tribes are fed up with the terrorist foreingers that they used to support, they want a cut in the new iraq, they are drived by economic and social status reasons and they start to fight the sunni terrorists.
on the other hand we have the shia, while in the past the shia had fought the sunni now things change as the ma'adi army and the iraqi forces start to clash here and there. hopefully if the gov and the sunni tribes will join forces they might bring relative stability to iraq, enough for american troops to start to pul out.
but the risk here as i see it is the sunni tribes, they are allies as long as this alliance work for them so hope that whatever promises the americans gave them, they will fulfil cuz stability or war will be decided by this.
IngenuityGap
04-09-2008, 01:53 PM
The reasons we were given at the time were more than valid for any country to look at war. However, in clearer hindsight this was obviously the incorrect choice. At this stage, though, it becomes a near impossibility for a direct withdraw to occur without leaving Iraq in a very nasty state. Basically having Saddam at the top kept the ethnic violence under a lid, but now it's obviously a severe worry.
With that said, though, an orderly withdraw from the country is very desirable. The issue now is seeing if the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, as well as the Swamp Arabs can work together or if the country will split into different regions. The Sadr army getting orders to disband in the south end of the country is a huge step and shows that Shia and Sunni will work together in the end. At least until the power is decided, anyway.
What really bothers me about the Iraq war is that it was done as personal business on the end of the President and his Chiefs of Staff, with Cheney and Rumsfeld as the major influences. Rumsfeld even encouraged his military advisors to come up with a "new style" of plan that relied on a minimum of manpower and a maximum of quick tech. As a result, nearly 0 planning went into post-war operations and landed the Coalition in it's current state.
The second part that bothers me is it took valuable manpower and focus away from Afghanistan, which had become the main training ground for many terrorist groups. These groups generally got their funding from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq (though that was only just starting before the invasion) and the recruits from Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. This area should have been pounded much harder with many more troops, if this was done properly in the first place we wouldn't be worrying about the terrorist surges around Kandahar and Kabul.
IngenuityGap
04-09-2008, 02:03 PM
It's all for oil and to give the economy a bump. You know how much money they're making with all the weapons companies producing mountains of munitions?
As if America would just go in to another country to depose a dictator and to uphold justice. Also, if anyone thinks that the war has made the world a safer place, you can be sure that all terrorists around the world will hate America more. I can't remember the exact figure but terrorist attacks have inreased by over 200% since the beginning of all these wars.
@LUV - you want to achieve peace through destruction? Contradictory if I may say so. You think the terrorists are evil, the terrorists think you're evil. Quite subjective isn't it?
If global security really is what Bush is after, he sends his armies to Iraq. Going by the same logic, it would be just as right if all the "terrorists" decided to drop by America and start fighting since the hatred seems to be mutual.
1) The oil funds are nowhere near what was expected pre-war and the costs have already far exceeded any benefit those would provide economically. As for the weapons manufacturing, the industry was already well in place before the war began and is producing at roughly the same pace. This isn't like WWII where the major industries were all or mostly converted to weapons manufacturing.
2) The terrorist attacks continue to increase partially as a counter to the US in Iraq, but even more due to the hand wringing at home. Signs of discontent or weakness are looked at as advantages by the terrorists. An example is every time a Canadian dies in Afghanistan it's a huge deal on the news and the opposition politicians push for a withdraw from the mission. After these stories the attacks always increase as it is viewed as a sign of our weak will. If they make us uncomfortable enough to leave, they've won and can go back to pushing the far fundamental end of Islam without Western interference.
3) Yes, the idea of forced peace through destruction is repugnant. I'm of a mind closer to the Dalai Lama that peace produces peace. From my view just wars protect the peace, unjust wars shatter it. However, just because each side views the other as evil, don't fall into the trap of moral equality.
4) Remember, GWB isn't and hasn't been the driving force behind this. Cheney and Rumsfeld have/had a large degree of influence on the decision making and Bush tends to be the puppet.
yahoosoda
04-13-2008, 01:49 PM
I'm not American but I think the whole debate on whether or not the US should have gone to war against Iraq is over. The act is done. Stop faulting Bush over and over again.
What the US should now focus on is what to do next.
An immediate pull-out from Iraq will be disastrous. If the US leaves right now then they would just have proved the radical Islamic terrorists right and there will be growing resentment from the middle-east because the only point-of-view that they see are those from the terrorist.
To leave Iraq when it has barely recovered sends a very strong signal to the rest of the world regarding the US. It says that the US doesn't bother cleaning the mess that they have started and this will empower more terrorists.
but dont you think that maybe the people who made this war should be investigated? a serious investigation concerning the possiability that personal intrest caused the war that so many people paid with their lives? and if the investigation find them at fault shouldn they at least be renounced from their job? after all 3000 american lives were lost because of this war and the number only increased.
for example after the yom kipur war in israel,(2700+ losses, severe in israeli standarts) the people demended investigation and the people at fault were discharched from duty. at least that way those people wont do the same mistakes and the country wont pay the price.
of course this is an american affair and not an international one.
Inevitable.Exit
04-13-2008, 07:32 PM
The problem is, a large part of this war was just to cement American interests in the middle east forcefully. How could Iraq possibly have been a threat when their entire government and military was dismantled in ~1 week. This has and will continue to be about oil and other interests.
4000+ Americans (mostly young. A lot around the 18-24 age) have lost their lives to complete a mission that has NOT been clearly defined. Meanwhile the US economy is tanking whilst the government is outputting BILLIONS of dollars a month all while giving the Iraqi "government" an endless check.
Tell me why Iraq is one of the most oil rich countries in the world and yet we are still paying for their bridges, buildings etc? Sorry but a slow-gradual pullout is required at this point. People claim the troop surge has worked but recent attacks have shown that the insurgents (patriots?) are just adapting their tactics to combat a larger force of US troops. If we keep holding the Iraqi governments hands, how can they ever be a successful "democracy" (remember, democracy is NOT always the best system)? A lot of muslims and middle-east experts have even said they believe that once the United States leaves Iraq the sectarian violence will calm down.
Either way, I, an American wholly believe that we need to stop trying to police the world and enforce our values on others whilst we can't even fix damage caused by Katrina years ago. This administration has been an utter failure and anyone who would argue that should really look at the facts.
and equal amount of experts say that the violance would grow.
the violance isnt to defeat america, blowing markets full with iraqi civilians dont hurt america but iraq, they do that for internal power struggle and religious reasons.
IngenuityGap
04-13-2008, 08:31 PM
but dont you think that maybe the people who made this war should be investigated? a serious investigation concerning the possiability that personal intrest caused the war that so many people paid with their lives? and if the investigation find them at fault shouldn they at least be renounced from their job? after all 3000 american lives were lost because of this war and the number only increased.
for example after the yom kipur war in israel,(2700+ losses, severe in israeli standarts) the people demended investigation and the people at fault were discharched from duty. at least that way those people wont do the same mistakes and the country wont pay the price.
of course this is an american affair and not an international one.
Yes, I do fell that the ones who misinformed the country to war should be seriously investigated. Sadly, it isn't too likely that this will happen. Too many high-ups that are too well connected with the large corporations and that have done favours for the up and comers in both parties.
In addition, the CIA needs to be taken to task for it's intelligence gathering in the last decade and the other major groups (FBI, Homeland Security, NSA, ATF) need to have the same done in regards to inter-agency cooperation. There are too many stories of small clues picked up by one agency that could have helped another's investigation, but were no shared. Intelligence and domestic security are two of the top areas to focus on when speaking of combating terrorism. Without these two areas, nothing else works as well.
IngenuityGap
04-13-2008, 08:37 PM
Exit- Keep in mind the famous quote: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." - Sir Winston Churchill
As for the question-within-brackets, the insurgents in Iraq are mainly from other muslim countries that want to divert their fanatics OUT of their countries. See: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria. If the insurgents were all Iraqi's fighting for Saddam and the previous government, you'd have an argument about their patriotism. These men are just there to spread terror, confusion, violence, and death to crush both education and western values. Religious extremism is not the way to go, in any country, for any religion. And that's what the suicide bombers are.
ookami
04-13-2008, 09:28 PM
I don't like the way muslims are treated today they're just trying to live their lives. The sucide bombing is nothing to do with their religion to put it simply there religion (islam) worships Allah , Allah translated into English means god they are following the christian religion just differently. they seek to protect the holy land there blowing them selfs up because britain and america have invaded.The last time britain invaded that place was the crusades. so similar to the crusades, now in the present day they're calling it a holy war and compareing Binladin to salha-a-din its a mockery a disgrace saladin was noble. Terrorism is a myth the muslim people or what they're now apply named(labled) sucide bombers know they are doing right by god because the main thing god wanted was peace and they are prepared to blow themselves up to send messages basically saying (don't fuck with us). Pardon my french.
but they dont blow themselves on american and british forces, they blow themselves in markets and mosques of the other sect(shia or sunni). that got nothing to do with american invasion because the fact is that the majority of dead in this conflict is by muslim arabs on muslim arabs but from diffrent sects.
ookami
04-13-2008, 09:39 PM
They feel the holy land is under threat a way to hurt somone alot is to hurt those close to them.
i didnt understood the last post.
anyways, if the current runs of things in iraq is that muslims kill muslims when there IS and occupier then how will things look when the occupier will leave? when there will be no 1 to actually regulate the violance? the answer is a genocide.
if the americans pull out now the result would be tottal chaos, the local arab tribes will try to overthrow the shiite and the shiite will fight among themselves for the future of iraq, being secular or religious and puppet of iran.
and every country around iraq will send their rejects to kill everyone.
the fact is that the insurgents who fight against american forces are not doing it for the benefit of iraq or they wouldnt kill so many of the people they came to defend.
so america need to decide if they are willing to let iraq to detteriorate into the level of genocide or to stay and pay with blood.
a hard choice.
ookami
04-13-2008, 09:49 PM
George Bush said hes extending the time in Iraq I think . we are making progress but its still hell out there. I'm glad Gordon Brown is't exactly friends with Bush he may not follow on this pointless voyge.
well the same goes to the british and any other country that have soldiers in iraq, leaving means that there will be even more killing without some1 to at least try to hold the tide. but really as i see it its these countries decision, if they can live with what will happen when they leave then they should do that. after all most of the violance on the iraqis brought to them by their own hands (the arab tribes fight al qaeda now but a years ago they supported Al qaeda in order to get the control back from the shiite), so why should young american and british soldiers die for a people that refuse to grasp the future?
ookami
04-13-2008, 09:59 PM
I get what your saying its sort of like leverage somthing we have over Iraq (like a mouse trap we take the cheese the trap snaps down on us) we leave Iraq It gets worse and comes back to bite us in the backside.
IngenuityGap
04-14-2008, 01:20 AM
This isn't about muslims and how they live their lives. This is about a very, very small extremist portion that is taking things a very violent route because they were educated this way. Any form of extremism should be looked at very suspiciously and should be treated carefully, regardless of race, creed, or belief.
Likewise terrorism isn't a solely muslim concept; any group that uses violence and fear as ways to intimidate a population into their way of belief is repugnant. Which is why education is so important, education is the enemy of a dictatorship or fundamentalist society. If people think and question and debate, then the forced ideals can't stick.
the outside terrorists come from two places, iran for the shiite and saudi for the wha'abi sunni(a certein school inside the sunni sect, this sect barely accept even some other sunni groups). its true that overall they are a minority but keep in mind that:a) even a minority in the middle east can be massive
b)the wha'abi are a very intolerent sect of islam, barely accepting other islamic sects and the biggest source of this ideoligy is saudi arabia (when you hear about saudi sponsered mosques they are wha'abi) and that group is very religious and very violant.
its sad that most of the terror that plague iraq isnt carried by iraqis but by outsiders that work for the sake of their twisted ideals.
Inevitable.Exit
04-14-2008, 01:53 AM
I see a lot of talking about how opposing sects are killing each other...but these same people have been arguing/fighting/killing for years. The facts are that the past regime in Iraq kept everything balanced. People knew their roles in society. Remove that government now people are going to want to fight to control where they live. A lot of the insurgency is to kill "Occupying Infidels" as some would say, some is directed at opposing sects, and some is just focused at Muslims who extremist feel aren't doing what they should be doing (jihad etc).
It definitely is a hard choice. If we leave, you're correct there will be lots of civil war etc. But at the same time..this violence isn't going to stop. Ever. And I'm not sure how many people whom are still pro-war propose that we (mostly America) continue to fund and operate this war. I mean we aren't even getting high enough recru