What do you think about the war in Iraq?

I was just wondering what everyone else thought about the war in Iraq...I have a few friends that are over there fighting, and I think it should end....That is just me...I just think the war has gone on enough...We are not looking for Bin Laden anymore, and people are just killing people just to kill people over there...Not necessarily our guys are killing people, but it to me seems like people in Iraq and Iran just cannot get along and have a very easy access to bomb parts and weapons...I'm not trying to start a war on here about the subject, but I would like to know what other people thought about it....

....this could get ugly

90mustang wrote:

....this could get ugly

yepp....


and you (jdusty) should provide more reasoning....this is your topic, after all...

Honestly i think the war in iraq is no longer a fight for freedom or on terrorism anymore. We are now over there for reasons that don't quite fit the bill.

This is going to get real ugly real quick. I'm staying out of it.

Your right man unless people can keep the **** down and acutally have a intelligent conversation about this. We do almost every week in my Poli Sci class.

Well then forget I even asked this question...Someone DELETE THIS PLEASE...

I like how people see this and just get rid of it. Maybe we could talk about an issue like this if people didn't start throwing rash staements out there. I would really like to because we do quite often in class.

i think it sucks we are there(and losing troops), but i support our troops 100%. i may not agree with the reasons why, but we could at least support the soldiers themselves. things have changed over the past few years and now people wonder why we are over there.

I agree i support the troops 100%. But as to the reason we are there are pretty gray to alot of the public right now. Some of the soliders wonder why they are still over there anymore. Have two guys in my poli sci class who served before college. Good sources of info of what you can get from them.

Kierra wrote:

i think it sucks we are there(and losing troops), but i support our troops 100%. i may not agree with the reasons why, but we could at least support the soldiers themselves. things have changed over the past few years and now people wonder why we are over there.

How exactly do you support the troops but not agree w/ the reason they are over there and think is sucks we're there? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it's a honest question.

I support them in the sense that i do care they are over there and. Such like i said though two of my good friends who were over there don't even know a really good legit reason for being there anymore.

I think our commander in chief says it best

Dubua wrote:

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.

Honestly, I support the troops, but I do not support the war, I don't think we should be there, and it utterly **** me off that we have an idiot in office, who's strings are being pulled by a man that is clean and pure evil....

Lol wow man. That is perfect. I couldn't agree more with the man.

PwrRngr wrote:

How exactly do you support the troops but not agree w/ the reason they are over there and think is sucks we're there? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it's a honest question.

I'll answer that one, because my position is the same. I support the troops for doing what they have to do. They're employees of the government, same as I'm an employee for XYZ company. I don't blame the troops or anything like that, because they don't have control over their commanders (and commander in chief) The only thing they have control over is their own lives.

You can't hold the troops responsible for the war, as they're just doing their jobs. It'd be like holding you responsible for the company you work for going bankrupt, even though you had no part in the decision-making process.

So in short, I support the guys that are out there fighting for our country and doing what they're supposed to, however I don't agree with the reason that they're there, or the war in general. I do give the troops the utmost respect for what they're doing.

Very nicely put MX. I couldn't have put it more clearly. It's not the war we specific support or why but the people period. Most all can agree that this thing has gotten to the point where it never needed to make it too. I just can't see how any of our current administration sees the need and hopefully when things get a change this will stop or stop before that.

P.S.: Told you we could be civilized.

What I think is funny is our so-called President says we are making progress over there. They have had their first true democratic elections in god knows how long and who do they elect? A man who has strong ties to many terrorist and mercinary groups! I personally say that we have trained their "military" and "police" enough and its time for our brave men and women to hope a flight back home. To be honest, the war in Irag (aka: invasion) was nothing more than a ploy by our government to gain middle-eastern support and for control of oil.

Oh...and don't forget. According to our current government, if you are not for the war in Irag, you are not a Patriot.

Man it would all be solved with john mclane lol.

All jokes aside i will agree on that we wanted control for the oil industry. And we did train them but what are going to do assasinate every person till we have in leadership who we want? We can't do it in a probable sense.

As for our government i don't think they know what a patriot is anymore. i believe bush to be a confused individual trying to please people who don't matter.

Yeah..

This not nearly spicy enough for me. Let me get it rolling.

More blood for oil.

wow......Well my friend actually said he believed bush to be a modern day hitler. I agreed after thinking about it.

I very well might be the only one with this position but i support the war. I supported it from the start not because there were WMD which we found there was not but because it was a chance to debunk a evil dictator that had ravaged the middle east for so many years. It was chance to provide stability to the region and eleminate the threats made to the united states made by a legidement government not just some cracked out terroist sitting in a cave. I'm sure we all knew that not all iraqi's would run to the troops with open arms. I know we all dont like the way the war is going but it is what is to be expected by trying to restructure a hardline government. not everyone wants to change. I do think the thing that would have made the world of differents was if they had preplan a way to set up infrastructure right after occupation. If that would have been done rather than hunting down one man it would have solved alot of the civil unrest. Fact is to stabalize Iraq we will have to be there for many years to come. Example look at the bosnia and the serbs. UN troops are still there and just last week i think it was serbia was going to declare its independents and the Troops had a major battle with oppositionist. Facts of life human nature is not inharently good we all like to take what we want as ours. In the end i support the troops because there are just the pons in the game that may just be for oil but i feel we did something good and we have to make sure we follow though with it and not give it a chance to return to its old ways or worse.

^^^ I see where your coming from. But The first thing was war on terror or at least thats what the general public thought. And while they need a restructuring of government, we have clearly stuck ourselves in somewhere we didn't need to be in the way are. Even though i agree with the restructuring it's hard to be somehwere your not wanted. Being the United States we have big heads. We think we are the world police. I am not saying that the wars are bad just some of them are for the wrong reasons.

PwrRngr wrote:

Kierra wrote: i think it sucks we are there(and losing troops), but i support our troops 100%. i may not agree with the reasons why, but we could at least support the soldiers themselves. things have changed over the past few years and now people wonder why we are over there. How exactly do you support the troops but not agree w/ the reason they are over there and think is sucks we're there? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it's a honest question.

i see what you're saying. i mean like.. i have friends that are soldiers, and ill back them up (as people) no matter what they go thru. However i dont think we should have them over there because i myself, do not know why we are over there. from my basic civilian point of view, without watching then news that often, i only see and hear of soldiers dying but i dont hear of any huge accomplishments.

guys please keep in mind this is only my opinion, everyone is entitled to a different one. keep this topic civil.

robbie wrote:

wow......Well my friend actually said he believed bush to be a modern day hitler. I agreed after thinking about it.

Because bush took away our guns and have soldiers on our streets taking away jews...

Pinhead.

mx107marlin wrote:

PwrRngr wrote: How exactly do you support the troops but not agree w/ the reason they are over there and think is sucks we're there? I'm not trying to be rude or anything, it's a honest question. I'll answer that one, because my position is the same. I support the troops for doing what they have to do. They're employees of the government, same as I'm an employee for XYZ company. I don't blame the troops or anything like that, because they don't have control over their commanders (and commander in chief) The only thing they have control over is their own lives. You can't hold the troops responsible for the war, as they're just doing their jobs. It'd be like holding you responsible for the company you work for going bankrupt, even though you had no part in the decision-making process. So in short, I support the guys that are out there fighting for our country and doing what they're supposed to, however I don't agree with the reason that they're there, or the war in general. I do give the troops the utmost respect for what they're doing.

Exactly.

but there are a few people who just see it the military as one unit.. not intentionally.. but it just happens. soldiers dotn decide where to go, they're told where and what. yes they had the decision to join, but we cannot criticize people for their decisions. i support my friend EJ in the marines, if you knew what kind of guy he is, you would know that its his place.

Ryan88 wrote:

robbie wrote: wow......Well my friend actually said he believed bush to be a modern day hitler. I agreed after thinking about it. Because bush took away our guns and have soldiers on our streets taking away jews... Pinhead.

here come the flames.

i dont think he meant as much in a literal 'doing what hitler did' kind of thing.



everyone is entitled to their opinion. if others dont agree just simply state you dont, or keep it quiet to avoid blowing things out of proportion. text is a lot harder to read with sarcasm and tone of voice, keep that in mind because you can read it in a total different way than it was meant and start something out of nothing.

Kierra Thank your for clarifying that. No I did not mean it in a literal sense. More of sense in that he wastes lives to accomplish something that has no way of being completed quickly or quietly. I really don't think that keep the soliders there for as long as they have is smart. While we might have alot of forces we should not be there. If restructuring is needed then i beleive the UN should come into play. They make countries play nice together. It's not americas job to go in and police when something isn't right. If we are attacked or needed thats fine. This whole thing needs to be taken over the US though. IMHO.

robbie wrote:

wow......Well my friend actually said he believed bush to be a modern day hitler. I agreed after thinking about it.

I disagree with this statement completely. While I do agree there are LOTS better things Bush could have done (I feel he should have), he's not even in the same category as Hitler.
Hitler is in a category with Stalin, Ze-Dong, and Tojo. All of those people murdered multi-millions of innocent civilians.

As far as sitting back and doing nothing, I semi-disagree there. The US took the same approach in WWII and look what that did. We (the US) sat back while the war raged throughout Europe and Asia. Then, while we were sitting back enjoying our American lives, Japan attacked us and destroyed almost all of our navy. Had the US continued to not be involved (because we only worry about ourselves and don't care what happens in the rest of the world) we would be ruled by the Japanese.

There comes a point when a nation must involve themselves in world affairs. The hard part is telling when that time is appropriate and when to ignore it. As a whole, I'm fairly neutral on the war. If there was a good way of pulling our troops out I would be all for it. But, if we just pull our troops out Iraq will be left in a terrible situation. Pulling out is more complicated than just saying, "ok guys, everyone's leaving tomorrow."

PS: I did say I would stay out but I thought there would be much more flaming then there is.

History lesson, since so many people don't seem to know:

In 1990, an Iraqi diplomat asked the US ambassador there what the US response to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait would be. The ambassador gave some diplomatic non-answer to the effect of "I have no opinion on that." (mind you, I wasn't there. This probably happened sometime in late spring or early summer, while I was on a 4-month all expenses paid vacation in tropical Panama City, Panama)

On August 2nd, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. (I wasn't there then, either. I was in Minnesota, visiting in-laws and recuperating from the aforementioned vacation)

US quick reaction forces were deployed to Saudi Arabia, at the request of the Saudi government. (I thought that SURELY, I could not be so lucky as to be sent on another exotic vacation so soon after the last)

The United Nations passed numerous resolutions, insisting that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait.

On November 2nd, 1990, my luxurious airliner (C141) landed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, after which a limousine (bus) took me and my entourage to the port of Ad Dammam to pick up our rental cars (HMMWV). We then erected luxurious GP Medium accomodations in a lush desert oasis.

Iraq didn't withdraw its forces from Kuwait, even as of the January 15th, 1991, deadline.

On January 16th, 1991, US-led coalition forces launched Operation Desert Storm, beginning with a campaign of airstrikes. (I listened to the news reports on AFN radio, from my new sunny vacation spot just outside of Hafr al Batin, Saudi Arabia).

On February 23rd, 1991, US-led coalition forces began a ground campaign, pushing Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and cutting them off from support by sweeping through Iraq and around Kuwait to the west and north. (during this time, I continued to listen to AFN radio reports, while embarking on the next leg of my vacation itinerary, to As Salman, Iraq)

For the next few days, I assisted hungry, thirsty, hearing-impaired Iraqi soldiers in taking a little R&R by making travel arrangements for them to various resorts in Saudi Arabia.

On February 27th, 1991, US President George H.W. Bush ordered a cease-fire, as too many US weapons were glowing red, too many trucks and buses had suspension problems from hauling too many Iraqi prisoners of war, too many Iraqi arms were tired from being held straight up in the air, and there was a critical shortage of any and all white fabrics throughout southern Iraq.

On March 3rd, 1991, Iraq formally accepted AND SIGNED a cease-fire agreement. Among the numerous conditions agreed to by Iraq:

The destruction of their chemical and biological weapons **** (because they had used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, and used them against the Kurds in northern Iraq, and they had THREATENED to use them against US forces and Israel during Desert Storm).

The suspension and disassembly of their chemical, biological and nuclear weapons production lines and research programs. (see above for reasons)

The consent to and cooperation with United Nations inspectors to ensure that the above two conditions were met.

The northern and southern "no-fly zones", to ensure that Iraq did not continue to aggress against the Kurds in the north (or Turkey), or the Shi'ites in the south (or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait). These zones were to be patrolled by US and British aircraft to enforce compliance, and the Iraqis were not to interfere with this.

On April 17th, 1991, my vacation ended, and I went back to work at Fort Carson.

On February 15th, 1992, I'd had enough of vacations, and sought honest employment.

On January 20th, 1993, Geroge H.W. Bush decided HE'D had enough of the Presidency, and handed the reigns over to William Jefferson Clinton.

Iraq violated EVERY SINGLE CONDITION of the cease-fire agreement. President Clinton directed airstrikes in response to several of those violations. Eventually, the Clinton administration declared its commitment to seek "regime change" in Iraq.

Clinton did not accomplish this, and George W. Bush assumed that responsibility on January 20th, 2001.

On September 11th, 2001, 19 al Qaeda terrorists seized control of 4 US commercial passenger planes. They crashed two of them into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and one into the Pentagon. The 4th airliner crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers mounted a counterattack. Nearly 3000 people died. (More than at Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941 - "a date which shall live in infamy")

Saddam Hussein, the President and dictator-for-life of Iraq, praised this action.

The cease-fire had actually BEEN effectively null and void since its very first violation, and therefore the war technically continued.

"Regime change" was effected.

BUT.....al Qaeda, al Qaeda-linked, and Iran-linked terrorists waged war against the new Iraqi regime, seeking to install their own Wahabbist theocratic government.

.....and it continues.

(more later....I've got to get to a supervisors' meeting)

I think posting in this thread is like putting your hand in a basket of rabid ferrets. Man, I'll never to THAT again...

Moss wrote:

This not nearly spicy enough for me. Let me get it rolling. More blood for oil.

Haha, I like this guy.

ImagoX wrote:

I think posting in this thread is like putting your hand in a basket of rabid ferrets. Man, I'll never to THAT again...

Ha ha ha

Back OT...
Being in the Military I support the war. I have pretty good job security when we're at war as a bomb loader. I mean, bad guys do need blowing up right? I'm not going to dig too deep into why I think we should and will stay over there for 5 more years (at least).

BTW There is no way to quickly pull out all military personnel over there without consequences.

Tell me, if this were a war about oil, why has gas continued to go up? If the US was "getting good" with the oil barons over there wouldn't we get oil cheaper thus reducing gas prices?

OK, I'm back. I zipped through everything after the first Gulf War, because I was short on time. Now I'm going to fill in some more.

Throughout the 90's, Saddam Hussein had been playing a big shell game with the UN inspectors. An entire government ministry was created in Iraq which had as its sole mission the tracking and "management" of inspectors. And track and manage and interfere they did, as shown in the following two links:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/16921.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9657-2003Jan18

Within a matter of DAYS after the collapse of the Saddam regime, some Americans began howling, "Where are the WMDs?", followed in short order by, "Bush lied, people died." Makes sense, right? If there were no WMDs, and Bush said that there were, he must have lied. Right?

Well, what about all of THESE people?:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly **** of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

As you can see, it's not quite that simple.

Now, that's the primary STATED reason that we went into Iraq in 2003. But that's not the ONLY justification, and that's where the argument that no WMDs found=unjustified war falls apart. The fact remains that Iraq did NOT comply with the UN resolutions that it agreed to comply with when it entered into the 1991 cease-fire agreement. The fact remains that Iraq repeatedly targeted and occasionally fired at US and UK aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

Finally, remember that a number of months passed between the time the US initially went to the UN asking for authorization to use military force, and the time that the US eventually took action on its own, having failed to obtain such authorization, largely due to opposition from France, Germany and Russia. (All, by the way, who turned out to be major players in the UN "food for oil" scandal which was later uncovered.)

There have been reports that WMDs were smuggled from Iraq into Russia by Russian Spetsnaz troops, that WMDs were smuggled from Iraq into Syria aboard stripped down commercial aircraft, and that WMDs were smuggled from Iraq into Syria aboard convoys of trucks, all during that time frame.

Beyond that, there was Saddam's support of Islamic terrorism. Iraq paid $25,000 to the families of each Palestinian suicide bomber. Over time, they paid out over $35 MILLION for this alone. Do the math, boys and girls. That's 1400 dead terrorists. Now: how many INNOCENT deaths do you suppose that money bought? There's also the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, which included a commercial airliner mockup. An Iraqi defector, Captain Sabah Khodada, reported that he himself had been involved in training terrorists at that facility, to include training in hijacking measures. Consider also the fact that at least two wanted terrorist fugitives, Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, had found sanctuary in Iraq. Incidentally, following the FIRST World Trade Center attack, the bombing in 1993, the bomb MAKER, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled the United States to Iraq - his native country. The Iraqi intelligence service funded a great number of terrorist organizations, including at least two - the Army of Mohammad and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad — which were wholly-owned subsidiaries of al Qaeda, and in the case of AoM, Iraq funded it specifically because of its goals of attacking American interests.

None of this is top secret, buried in filing cabinets behind locked doors under 24/7 armed guard, surveillance and specially trained crazed sharks with ******* lazers on their heads. It's ripe for the picking. Google is your friend. (but CNN isn't)

So, there was AMPLE justification to go in after Saddam and his whole rotten crew.

Now, let's look at the strategic aspects, with regards to the wider war on terror. This is an easy one. Look at a MAP. Iraq is located right smack-dab in the middle of Splodeydopistan, bordered on all sides by a good half of the nations where splodeydopes come from, and sitting conveniently IN BETWEEN Iran (which is the PRIMARY economic and ideological supporter of splodeydopes and has been since 1979) and the rest of them. A friendly government in Iraq cuts the supply chain in two, and allows for a tactical jump-off point for military operations into those countries, should that be necessary.

All of that being said, I think it's time for the new Iraqi government to stop quibbling and whining, and to walk on its own two feet like a big boy. And THAT won't happen as long as we're right there to pick them up and kiss their boo-boos when they stumble.

I had no problem with the smackdown. But I'm not impressed with the helping them back up, patching their boo-boos, and buying them a brand new suit of clothes with matching accessories.

daaamn mccook8..
thanks for all of that.. really. im 19 so these past few years i was too busy growing up and being a kid to really look at clinton, bush sr., and all these past few years of war. that sand box looked too damn tempting.

a lot of people ( including me) dont know that some of our previous leaders and thier council have also been on the same side as bush against the wmd's. there has been a history of them from saddam so its not like it was just a random guess and on a whim.

its true.. there was ample justification. and i would rather hear that from someone who lived it first hand, than a reporter trying to make a fat paycheck.

Owen, you are the man. Both of your post were very good. That sounds like it should be in the news paper! I'm saving that in word if you don't mine. That's alot of good straight up information!