954,052 Members — Technology Publication meets Social Media
Username:
Password:
Lost login information?
Have something to say? Contribute New Article Reply to this Article

Be honest with yourself

I registered with a new nick-name for not influencing your choice, and to be free in your decision
--------

After three years in Iraq.
After thousands of dead and injured soldiers; and still counting.
After billions of dollars spent, not on rebuilding Iraq, but on the war itself; and still counting.

One would pause for a minute and ask oneself with complete honesty;
Shall we get out of Iraq?

Consider this as a poll and vote with sincerity;
Shall we get out of Iraq?

warpeace2006
Newbie Poster
1 post since May 2006
Reputation Points: 10
Solved Threads: 0
 

Yes, then we should nuke the place and say screw everyone but ourselves.

server_crash
Postaholic
2,111 posts since Jun 2004
Reputation Points: 113
Solved Threads: 20
 

While I push for pulling out of Iraq, you have to ask yourself.... what happens if we leave? Do you think it would be right to show up, take over, and bail? Do you believe that we have trained enough Iraqi Police and Military to be able to stand up on it's own?

Comatose
Taboo Programmer
Team Colleague
2,910 posts since Dec 2004
Reputation Points: 361
Solved Threads: 215
 

Iraq is nothing but a quagmire. Staying there will do nothing but cost us nothing but losses of lives. We should have never gone in the first place. I am 101% for pulling out.

MIGSoft
Posting Pro in Training
473 posts since Jul 2005
Reputation Points: 10
Solved Threads: 2
 

I think they should come out, just not yet. You cant just go out all at once as the ramafacations of such an action will be immense. The bush administration knows this. The democratic party says that they are all for the removal of troops, but if elected, they wont immediatly leave either. It will be a slow process so the country can slowly get aclimated.

nizzy1115
Practically a Posting Shark
864 posts since Jan 2005
Reputation Points: 26
Solved Threads: 15
 

Iraq doesn't cost many American lives, only several thousand. We should stay in there, then invade Iran, followed by Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, and so on. After we conquer Australia we'll get two extra soldiers every turn, and that should make rolling through Asia like a walk in the park.

Rashakil Fol
Super Senior Demiposter
Team Colleague
2,658 posts since Jun 2005
Reputation Points: 1,135
Solved Threads: 176
 

You will never have peace without war.

Several thousand lives over many years is nothing. Thats what other wars would do in a week and nobody though it was terrible then. War is War. It is very ugly. Our troops are doing an amazing job over there, and that is why there are so few lives lost. God bless this country. If anyone thinks it is so horrible or its choices it makes are so wrong, then those people need to get their asses out of this country to let the millions that are waiting to get into it.

nizzy1115
Practically a Posting Shark
864 posts since Jan 2005
Reputation Points: 26
Solved Threads: 15
 
You will never have peace without war.

this is arguable but i have to agree...in my opinion there is no such thing as peace after what this world has come to:(

>shadow<
Posting Pro
536 posts since Aug 2005
Reputation Points: 21
Solved Threads: 1
 

When I take over the world, I can assure there will be peace.

server_crash
Postaholic
2,111 posts since Jun 2004
Reputation Points: 113
Solved Threads: 20
 

We went into Iraq without real goals. Well, the original goals (removal of WMD) were fake.

If we would have spend the trillions of borrowed Dollars on alternative energy, we wouldn't have to worry about gas prices, home heating and home cooling. Research, development and manufacture of alternative energy like wind, solar, bio-diesel, ethanol, butanol, fusion (cold or hot) would have created a lot of good paying constructive jobs.

Well, now we don't have any money left, and future generations of hamburger flippers are stuck with paying off the debt! Just my limited opinion.

Ene Uran
Posting Virtuoso
1,722 posts since Aug 2005
Reputation Points: 625
Solved Threads: 212
 

We have the moral responsibility to help the people of Iraq do their own thing without falling prey to terrorists or (worse) Iranian invasion.

The goals set out have largely been achieved, Saddam has been removed as a supporter of terrorism and terrorists as a group are too busy now to bother the US or Europe.
The only failure is the one of the political left and their cronies in the press to convince the world that the mission in Iraq was unjust and has failed.
Of course there are always people who will fall for any leftist propaganda.

jwenting
duckman
Team Colleague
8,392 posts since Nov 2004
Reputation Points: 1,662
Solved Threads: 337
 

The problem I have was how it was intermingled with the attacks on 911. I've not seen any conclusive evidence that supports Saddam as having ties to Bin Laden (in case you forgot, the culprit of the 911 Attack). If there were/are ties, I'd like to see those.... but I suppose taking someone's word for it is good enough?

Comatose
Taboo Programmer
Team Colleague
2,910 posts since Dec 2004
Reputation Points: 361
Solved Threads: 215
 
When I take over the world, I can assure there will be peace.

you got my vote!

>shadow<
Posting Pro
536 posts since Aug 2005
Reputation Points: 21
Solved Threads: 1
 

Comatose, there never needed to be such a link.
Under the 1991 ceasefire arrangements every UN member has the obligation to use whatever means (up to and including military means) needed to make sure weapons inspectors are provided full and unhindered access to any place in Iraq that they may desire.
Iraq has been in violation of their treaty obligations to that regard from as far back as 1995 at least, and the world has failed to take appropriate action until 2003.
Now the inspections are complete, and the troops are kept in place to support the Iraqi people in their struggle against domestic and international terrorists and criminals who wish to disrupt the democratic process in Iraq for their own purposes (a democratic process first disrupted when Saddam took power in a military coup).
The international forces act as police, training cadre for the Iraqi armed forces, and as construction crews to rebuild damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during the war.
They're quite effective at that, large parts of the country are now at peace (or close to), more schools and hospitals are operational (and offer better quality services) than most Iraqi people have ever experienced, and there are free elections.
Most cities in Iraq are now safer to walk the streets than say LA or Miami.

jwenting
duckman
Team Colleague
8,392 posts since Nov 2004
Reputation Points: 1,662
Solved Threads: 337
 
The problem I have was how it was intermingled with the attacks on 911. I've not seen any conclusive evidence that supports Saddam as having ties to Bin Laden (in case you forgot, the culprit of the 911 Attack). If there were/are ties, I'd like to see those.... but I suppose taking someone's word for it is good enough?


I don't see how. More than 15 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi's.Most cities in Iraq are now safer to walk the streets than say LA or Miami.
I don't doubt that. MS 13 rules LA right now and even the authorities are frighten of them.

server_crash
Postaholic
2,111 posts since Jun 2004
Reputation Points: 113
Solved Threads: 20
 
The international forces act as police, training cadre for the Iraqi armed forces, and as construction crews to rebuild damage done to Iraqi infrastructure during the war.


I have buddies in the US Army that tell me that the few Dutch soldiers are too busy with their hairnets to do any good! You must be sponsored by the Shell Oil Company that has huge interests in Iraq.

Ene Uran
Posting Virtuoso
1,722 posts since Aug 2005
Reputation Points: 625
Solved Threads: 212
 

If you listen to Fox News with the rest of the morons, then the war in Iraq is "Mission (just about) Accomplished".

vegaseat
DaniWeb's Hypocrite
Moderator
5,976 posts since Oct 2004
Reputation Points: 1,345
Solved Threads: 1,416
 

First of all, I am not an American and I will not state my opinion on the poll subject here, but I am driven to write couple of things:

(my public profile is blank and will remain so)
I happened to live and grow up through the war.
I also happened to be in Iraq last year. (technicly)
I think that those 2 facts qualify me to be taken seriously here.

1. It is sad that the only real people that go to war (soliders) are not consulted when big guys make big decisions.
Remember: Nobody hates war more than warriors.

2. My opinion on Iraqi people is that they are not and will not be any time soon ready for the democracy and freedom (read: lack of supression by dictatorship). Don't forget that it took a Saddam to keep peace in Iraq. The methods are... well, let's just say that Hitler wasn't so resurceful.

One more thing:

I don't see how. More than 15 of the 20 hijackers were Saudi's.

Iraq population structure is by nationality is:
Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%
and by religion:
Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

Saudi's come from Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq.

Chaky
Postaholic
2,017 posts since May 2006
Reputation Points: 230
Solved Threads: 47
 
Saudi's come from Saudi Arabia. Not Iraq.

DUHHHHH???? Why do you think I called them Saudi's? I just researched it for you, and it said 15 of the 19 were Saudi's... That is they came from Saudi Arabia.

server_crash
Postaholic
2,111 posts since Jun 2004
Reputation Points: 113
Solved Threads: 20
 

My bad.

I missunderstood your point. I don't know why but I tought you claimed that the connection was obvious between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. (DUHHHH!!!)


By the way, from what I hear, they are not realy fond of each other.

Chaky
Postaholic
2,017 posts since May 2006
Reputation Points: 230
Solved Threads: 47
 

This article has been dead for over three months

Post: Markdown Syntax: Formatting Help
You