0

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?

12
Contributors
30
Replies
32
Views
11 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by server_crash
0

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?

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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:(

0

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.

0

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.

0

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?

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

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

0

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.

0

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.

0

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.

0

Jt: I'm not arguing that Saddam shouldn't have been brought to Justice.... certainly he should have.... but how I, and many other people in the U.S. feel, is that W. Used the attacks on 911 and the hunt for bin laden to go after Saddam. This "war on terror", which came about mainstream due to the attacks of 911, and this "OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom)" have nothing to do with one another..... but many Americans were lead to believe, by our President, that somehow they were/are connected.

At the start of OIF, the majority of the population supported the war, and little by little, people started to speak out against it.... I just want to ask you, how much support for going into Iraq, do you think the President would have had, had 911 not happened?

0

Everybody here are talking about everything regarding occupation of Iraq, except the real reason.
As I said, I was in Iraq last year and lesser of 2 reasons is crystal-clear to me....OIL.
I served aboard Crude oil tanker and happened to ship oil from Iraq to (suprise, suprise) US. ALL CRUDE OIL TANKERS WAITING FOR THE LOAD SHIPPED TO US!! Almost all oil is going to US with exception of UK and other countries that take part in campagin in Iraq.
Seen it with my own eyes.

Other reason is drinking water and that is EVEN BIGGER reason. Why? Iraq has (have to look up) 2nd or 3rd worlds largest natural reserve of drinking water.
If you find that odd, just compare today's prices of crude oil and equal amount of drinking water.

U.S. is not letting that go that easy.

0

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.

The Dutch forces were completely demoralised by the way they are being treated by their own political leadership.
When an Iraqi looter was hit by a ricochet from a warningshot and killed the Marine firing the shot was arrested and tried for murder.
He was cleared of all charges, but not before his name and face were plastered all over the news as a murderer.

They even went as far as to take a government jet, fly police to Iraq, and drag the guy out of his tent in handcuffs before his fellow Marines.

0

Chaky, the US could have gotten hold of that oil FAR easier and cheaper had they just done what France did and sign a nice deal with Saddam.

Poison gas for oil, plutonium for oil, you name it and Saddam was willing to take it in payment for oil.

The fact that the US didn't go that way tells enough, oil was the last thing on the administration's mind (unless it was trying to prevent Iraq from threatening the flow of oil from Kuwait and Saudi like they had done in 1990) when they ordered the troops into the country.

0

Yes, it was the las thing on the administration's mind.
First was drinking water.
Those are only 2 things on it's mind!

As I see, US policy is: why buy if you can take?

P.S. Most of the chemicals used to produce the main excuse for invading Iraq was sold by US. There is hard evidece of that.
Why they never found it? Probbably Saddam used it all on Kurds.

0

P.S. Most of the chemicals used to produce the main excuse for invading Iraq was sold by US. There is hard evidece of that.

Wrong. Most were delivered from France and Russia.

But of course the avid Bush haters won't ever believe anything that contradicts their ideas...

0

George W. Bush has made more terrorists than before he initiated a war.
Bush is not evil. He's just an ass clown.

(On a side note, I advise Ministry's Rio Grande Blood...)

0

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

Logical, but compassionless.

You'd make a great 'Adolf, Jr.'
:twisted:

This question has already been answered. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.