The war in Iraq.

[thesphinx]

Hello!
I was just wondering what you guys thought of the war in Iraq,
There has been many discussions of why we went there and stuff.
but personally i think as americans it was our duty to go there because they needed help and no one was helping them and as americans we can't just let them suffer and die.
not to mention that the terrorists over there were a real threat to our country,
and the World!
well i just wanted to hear some of what you guys thought of the war and why.


No:flaming
No:spamming
No:insulting

[JJJ]

i dont agree wiv the war in iraq im english and blair is getin in aload of truble over it. Yes we needed to make sure the terrorists dont bomb any mor innocent people but part of the reason for goin in was to find nuclear wepons wich there wer none bush has mor bombs in his bacgarden than wot iraq had.

[Bankai15]

I am split on it because it was good that we overthru saddams govement but dont like the standing around just being cannon fotter.

[Sapphire]

I am totally against it. England should have stayed out of it. We should have left Bush to go in on his own. Yes, it is a good thing that Saddam was overthrown. But the other reason (WoMD) was completely false. The USA, China and Korea have more than nuclear weapons than Iraq. But Bush did not decide that he had to invade China and get rid of their WoMD, did he? The reason Bush went was for oil. Plain and simple. Blair was wrong to send our troops in as it was driven by Bush's greed.

[Phantom]

reason Bush went was for oil. Plain and simple. Blair was wrong to send our troops in as it was driven by Bush's greed. ROFL LOLOL!!! HAHAHAH!!!

anyways http://eastern.ytmnd.com/

[JoshDude]

The reason Bush went was for oil. Plain and simple. Blair was wrong to send our troops in as it was driven by Bush's greed.

Haha, your probably 100% right. But im just an Australian... i have to worry about my stupid Goverment, before others.

[Whisper]

thats not why he went in
and if England had refused then you'd be breaking NATO
And youd make a very powerful enemy because like it or not all of north america and its allies were behind america after 9-11 it took YEARS before things changed

Canada has had a few troops in iraq because of an agreement we have with the United States
but for the most part we just sent allot of troops, tanks, choppers, cargo planes, artilery cannons etc.... into afganistan inorder to free up more american troops for iraq

We've spent close to 30 billion on new equipment for our troops
some of it we wont see till like 2012 erugh
but were there
were helping
and they like us (afgan citizens)

same thing will happen in iraq if we stay
if we leave hatred will grow in a whole new generation

and 9-11 will seem like horse play
and it will be our fault cause we left to soon

this is already the SECOND time we've had to go back

i say we finnish it

in Iraq and Afganistan

[DomSoulWraith]

Ya. I'm against it, but now that I think about it..... if we leave it will be like another vietnam! We leave thinking the south can protect themselves.....next day, they're over ran with northerners (or visa versa I can't remember. lol).

[thesphinx]

Sorry it double posted..

[thesphinx]

thats not why he went in
and if England had refused then you'd be breaking NATO
And youd make a very powerful enemy because like it or not all of north america and its allies were behind america after 9-11 it took YEARS before things changed

Canada has had a few troops in iraq because of an agreement we have with the United States
but for the most part we just sent allot of troops, tanks, choppers, cargo planes, artilery cannons etc.... into afganistan inorder to free up more american troops for iraq

We've spent close to 30 billion on new equipment for our troops
some of it we wont see till like 2012 erugh
but were there
were helping
and they like us (afgan citizens)

same thing will happen in iraq if we stay
if we leave hatred will grow in a whole new generation

and 9-11 will seem like horse play
and it will be our fault cause we left to soon

this is already the SECOND time we've had to go back

i say we finnish it

in Iraq and Afganistan


i totally agree as much as its costing our goverment and not to mention the people dying over there we need to wait until they can set up a stable goverment and once that happens then we can gradually leave until they can fill in with there people.
but it needed to be done or we would still be having more 911's and also everyone over there that was suffering!
I just want to know WHY? everyones against the war??
please tell me?

[theonetheycallbob]

Well here's my idea on the subject. Bush was doing what he saw fit, and anyway if you know anything about the way the U.S. government works you would know that bush cant declare war himself. Congress helped him. And anyway we are there now so suck it up and deal with it. We did help the Iraqi citizens didn't we??

[theonetheycallbob]

And people you need to get over the fact that oil is a major product or that country, THAT IS NOT WHY WE WENT IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[0=]

We went in because it helped the corporations that were feeding money to Bush and Cheney. He sold his case to congress based on "what if" clauses of a report, all of which have proven to be based on faulty intelligence. President Bush should be considered an international criminal for this.

[fdsgfg55465]

i think if we start puling out and let iraqis take over it will be better than wasting time and money staying there but we can leave some there but just start puling out

[Bankai15]

That is the plan but not enough iraqi solders are trained and ready to fight. Unfortunetly most of the solders dying right now are iraqis. So unfortunetly I think we will be there for a long time.

[thesphinx]

if we dont stay there for a while it will go back to the way it was we need to stay there until they can stand on there own feet we need to do it.

[JJJ]

The soldiers need to get out of irac and let them deal with there own problems. Contrys shood face there own isues ferst. Bush went in for oil we have a teecher at scool who was british intelligence and he told us all he was allowed to tell us wivout brecking the rules. He was in the ferst british unit to go in to irac and he sed the ferst thing that hapened was that the american miltary secured the oil wells under bushs orders. Luckyerly are teecher was a intelligence oficer and so he was pulled out wich is good as he is a alrite teecher.

[cmpcmp]

JJJ, that is the biggest load of shit that I have ever heard anyone try to pass off as truth.

-First off this "intelligence officer" was on the battle field?
-How is he supposed to know what US soldiers orders are? let alone where they come form? Did he over hear the order directly?
-Third are you aware that Oil is Iraq main economic source of money? so no money = bad for the Iraqi ppl.
-and fourth are the Americans straight taking the Oil? cuz if they are im sure some one in the media would love to run that story.

[0=]

if we dont stay there for a while it will go back to the way it was


No, it will be worse. They had a leader and a stable government before we went in, now it's just a full blown civil war.

[thesphinx]

i wouldn't axactly call it a stable goverment...

[cmpcmp]

Well, stable is kind of a loaded word, it was "stable" as in no constant war, but the force that kept that from happening (and did several times actually happen) was mass killing, things like u try to assassinate me I kill every 4th person in ur village justice.

[thesphinx]

yeah, but i think once we're done there it will have been worth it.

[chelsea714]

well I think that the Iraq War is a waste of our country's resources and our citizen's lives. I guess the initial reason for the war was that Iraq had nuclear weapons...well they don't. So what now? Some may say that we should help them out, well in that case are we going to help out every other third world country with serious problems? What about Sudan, or Rwanda and Burundi? The US can't just go save the day, and killing over 100,000 of their citizens doesn't exactly help

[cmpcmp]

First off, ur 100,000 number is very disputed, as it relies on the word of people door to door (if some one wanted the US to look bad, all they have to do is say o 10 people in our family die etc etc).

Second of all, as the most powerful country in the world I think that we have an obligation to do certain things like try and get rights for oppressed people, stop genocide (think rwanda, sudan) but all with in reason of course. We can't fight the entire world at once.

[JJJ]

JJJ, that is the biggest load of shit that I have ever heard anyone try to pass off as truth.

-First off this "intelligence officer" was on the battle field?
-How is he supposed to know what US soldiers orders are? let alone where they come form? Did he over hear the order directly?
-Third are you aware that Oil is Iraq main economic source of money? so no money = bad for the Iraqi ppl.
-and fourth are the Americans straight taking the Oil? cuz if they are im sure some one in the media would love to run that story.




He was sent in with the ferst load of troops i dont no y, thats goverment bisness he doesnt tell us but he was investigatin iraq and he was with the ferst troops.

The ferst set of britsh troops went in with the US soldiers and he was with them. They wer given a load of instructions and then a message came out over radio that bushes orders wer to secure oil wels.

We went into iraq not to get oil or to terrise pepel but to protect them so how is takin away there only sorce of money good.

I dont care whot the media says they werent the ferst to go into iraq they talk crap anyway.


It is the truth and your the one talking absolute shit.

[Maverick]

Hahaha JJJ you are the one talking absolute shit. You can't even make a competent post. Your claim is bullshit and has no backing except from what some teacher said. You have lack of understanding of this issue and seemed to have misinterpreted what your teacher said and created your idea of the truth. You're just spouting off claims while cmpcmp always has facts so look at yourself.

[Bankai15]

Hahaha JJJ you are the one talking absolute shit. You can't even make a competent post. Your claim is bullshit and has no backing except from what some teacher said. You have lack of understanding of this issue and seemed to have misinterpreted what your teacher said and created your idea of the truth. You're just spouting off claims while cmpcmp always has facts so look at yourself.

Both of you stop fighting! Everyone has there own opinion on the war, but degrading and abusing one another is not the answer. (I expected better of you Anthony). There are good resons for going over there and bad ones but the war is real and we are in it. But critsizing it is not helping. So just respect one another m'kay.

[Maverick]

Freedomfighter no one here is fighting. This is a debate forum and we have right to challenge the opinions people post here. When we challenge a post realize its the post that's being challenged, not the person him/herself personally.

[Bankai15]

A debate is when a group or person makes a point on a subject and the opposing person or group makes a counter point. I wouldent say that " Your clame is absolute shit" is much of a point as in more of a opinion.
No harm intended, just making a point myself.
Have a good day.

[Underground_Network]

In my opinion, i hate the war, but a) i think if we pull out of iraq all the work, although rather worthless will be degraded to meaningless and iraq may fall under bad hands again. but b) i have no clue why we went there, there were no nuclear weapons, saddam hussein was a rival of al-qaeda, not an ally, and there really is no reason if iraq is not a threat to us. In my opinion Bush just wants to feel as if he can rule the world by taking out countries with governments that are in shambles.

[cmpcmp]

"i have no clue why we went there"
lets think....
-Saddam killed 100's of thousands of people
-would do things like attack his neighbors
-there had been UN resoutions on the Country for over 10 years, some of the later ones promised action of some kind that no one would follow up on at all
-It has been estimated that 100,000+ Iraqi children (that estimate id very very low) have died becuase of the sanctions, (which Saddam caused to happen)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions
-has used gas attacks on enemies and own population
-has attempted to acquire WMD's

-But most of all.... his sons were the most evil, sick and twised sons of bitches to walk the face of the planet that the problems that existed showed absolutely no sign at all of being solved any time soon, that is assuming that they wouldn't have gotten worse.

yes, before the invasion there was "peace" if u define peace as the absence of war, but the only thing that was preventing that problems that we are seeing now was that if u did anything to threaten that peace ur ass would end up in the bottom of a mass grave of 1000's of people, that just so happened to be the unlucky people that were vaugly connected to you.
-------------
The way i see it, if we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, Saddam would still be there and all of the old problems would still exist. Perhaps instead of Iraq, the foreign terrorists would instead be insurgents in Afghanistan, effectively making Afghanistan the new Iraq.

But besides that, I think that the sign that we are willing and will take the fight to people that have a flawed Ideology before it is allowed to create vast empires is a very strong message that every person who supports radical Islam, or any flawed Ideology for that matter.

Middle east hate for westerners isn't something that we created by going in to Iraq, the propaganda and the images of daily life that people that latter become terrorist are feed day in and day out aren't dependent on actual bad acts from westerners, they could make up lies all they want and that would be their reality. When you don't accept things like the existence of the holocaust, there really isn't much hope for truth and reason taking hold and being used as a reference point. The fact that places like this exist today scares the hell out of me, and i don't know what we should do, as sitting back and doing nothing doesn't help.

Many people say that Radical Islam is the Nazism of our time. They are for sure very similar with a few substitutions. replace "Jews and all non Arians" with "infidels", Eugenics with "(radical) Islam", middle east rouge states with Germany, and what you may have is a formula for disaster.
------------------------
O and JJJ, the reason that quoting unnamed, uncheckable, and unreferenceable sources for information that just so happen to also convieniently not be able to tell that whole story, is becuase all of the things that I have typed after the "--"'s

If you wana play that game, my ex-dentist worked for the A.U.P. (Agency of unexplained phenomenon) and told me that 9/11 was in inside job, done by aliens. He worked there so it must be true, but he also witnessed a mob killing and testified so hes in the Witness protection program and i can't tell you where he is under penalty of law.

[Underground_Network]

There are plenty of places that are having innocent people killed in Africa, such as Darfur, that just like Iraq are of no threat to the U.S., so why not go there? Oh, wait Bush is racist against african-americans, i.e. Hurricane Katrina.

[Bankai15]

There are plenty of places that are having innocent people killed in Africa, such as Darfur, that just like Iraq are of no threat to the U.S., so why not go there? Oh, wait Bush is racist against african-americans, i.e. Hurricane Katrina.

First of all what proof do you have that bush is racist at balcks. And if you are gonna blame bush for that confusion on katrina then blame that fucking retard Ray Nagen and he is racist at white people with his quote of "Nawlins should be a chocolate city".

[Underground_Network]

I say a majority of the gov't is racist and Bush has shown no sympathy for African-Americans. Has Bush even stated that the major genocides in Africa mean shit? No! He's not necessarily racist towards any americans but he could give a damn about african countries, especially if they're poor and have no impact on the U.S. economically (oil, natural resources).

[cmpcmp]

There are plenty of places that are having innocent people killed in Africa, such as Darfur, that just like Iraq are of no threat to the U.S., so why not go there? Oh, wait Bush is racist against african-americans, i.e. Hurricane Katrina.

Under your example of racism, EVERY president of the united states has been racist because they haven't stooped killings in Africa. Not no mention basically every world leader since the invention of armies with boats and the knowledge of death in Africa.

-I think we should confront genocide and all major matters like in all around the world including Sudan, (past) Rwanda (that was Clinton BTW).

How is it that you get the notion that no white people were effected by the Katrina disaster? Is bush also racist against whites because he didn't help them? or are you to argue that he some how managed to selectively not give aid only to black people? And since when is the president the one in charge of hurricane response?

The facts is, is that Katrina was a disaster on EVERY LEVEL
-Natural disaster
-Failure of government, on the local, state, and federal level.
-Failure of the people, after the hit stores were looted of everything that they had (including non food / and stuff that could not possibly be usefully in a hurricane situation, TVs come to mind (there was no electricity).) also stuff like shooting at aid helicopters.
-the levies weren't designed to withstand category 5 hurricanes.
-F.E.M.A. (federal emergency management agency) screwed up in a very big way, and yes it is their job to do the Federal level response stuff, as implied in the name.
------------------------------------------
O and i forgot, Bush also hates Black people soooo much that he likes to put them on his senior staff, yes look it up if you don't believe.

[JJJ]

anthoney, cmpcmp thats your views i beleve wot my teecher sed was rite and yes he is a real teecher not just sum made up dentist. If u dont beleve it dont, but that is wot my teecher sed and i beleve him. How am i ment to get any proof that i can put on here?

i ave my views and u ave yours, there are meny resons bush and blair went into iraq yes sum are good but sum are just plain stupid.

[Underground_Network]

Look, have any of the previous presidents decided to go to war to aid a country (the answer is probably yes but not on the scale of iraq) The Iraqi war is meaningless, all of the possible democratic candidates for pres except Hillary Clinton are against the war. Hillary is undecided. Considering the next president will probably be a democrat, we will most likely pull out of Iraq unless the war is won or lost before 2008. If your going to try and fix Iraq, why not fix other countries and help with other conflicts? Why not invade other possible threats like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela? Why? Because Iraq is weak. A way to make Bush look good is to beat up on smaller countries that are causing us problems. Bush could give a damn how many American lives are lost in the war. He doesn't give a fuck! Get that through your little freaking mind!!

[Bankai15]

Look, have any of the previous presidents decided to go to war to aid a country (the answer is probably yes but not on the scale of iraq) The Iraqi war is meaningless, all of the possible democratic candidates for pres except Hillary Clinton are against the war. Hillary is undecided. Considering the next president will probably be a democrat, we will most likely pull out of Iraq unless the war is won or lost before 2008. If your going to try and fix Iraq, why not fix other countries and help with other conflicts? Why not invade other possible threats like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela? Why? Because Iraq is weak. A way to make Bush look good is to beat up on smaller countries that are causing us problems. Bush could give a damn how many American lives are lost in the war. He doesn't give a fuck! Get that through your little freaking mind!!

You need to chill out. Everybody has there opinions on the war and to say that everyones elses opinion is shit is selfish. So YOU need to get through YOUR MIND that not everone else thinks like you!
And if you dont think we whent to war to help another country? Um let's see..... WORLD WAR TWO!
And if we pull out so soon we will have lost the war. Iraqs goverment is not stable enough to control the country. I would become a terrorist breeding ground and all the american lives lost in the war would have been for nothing.

[Underground_Network]

I already said i disagree with evacuating Iraq, but i think without real proof that Iraq is/was a threat to us, we should have never gone there in the first place. There are more important places for us to send our troops; and yes i realize people have their own, individual opinions, i'm just arguing mine.

[cmpcmp]

Look, have any of the previous presidents decided to go to war to aid a country (the answer is probably yes but not on the scale of iraq)
well, lets see....
-WWI
-WWII
-Vietnam
-Korea

Bush could give a damn how many American lives are lost in the war. He doesn't give a fuck! Get that through your little freaking mind!!

so now you claim to know Bush's own thoughts, interesting.
--------------------------
anthoney, cmpcmp thats your views i beleve wot my teecher sed was rite and yes he is a real teecher not just sum made up dentist. If u dont beleve it dont, but that is wot my teecher sed and i beleve him. How am i ment to get any proof that i can put on here?
I think that its time some people learn that this is a debate, and in a debate if your going to reference something it has to have at least some kind of source so that it can be corrected/referenced if it is wrong. Im not saying it has to be written in stone on mount siani, but quoting people that were somehow supposed to belive that are un named and unreferenced and could very very easily have been made up, or made the information up them selves.

That is definitely past the point of where I would put the line for citing information, as we should all keep some kind of standards when debating here.

[Underground_Network]

Lol i'm a mind reader... What about those supposed letters the gov't sent out asking if dead soldiers wanted to reenlist? That was supposedly at least partially Bush's fault. I really don't know, I just think this war is worthless and i disagree with Bush's ideals and what he's done during his presidency. But to add to what i meant about finding any other time like this is that there are other countries that could use a hand or that are possible threats to the U.S. Why Iraq? Why not focus more on North Korea? Why not invade Venezuela or Cuba? (I think it was the Venezuelan pres who said he wanted Bush dead or something like that). During Vietnam and Korea there were no other major threats, and Vietnam and Korea are big countries, that most people know about. Iraq isn't that big a country and really didn't get a lot of notice up until the possible nuclear threats. Another place to invade could be Iraq's supplier of weapons, Iran. And to end, WWI and WWII were completely different, although the invasion of Iraq could lead to WWIII.

[cmpcmp]

During Vietnam and Korea there were no other major threats
well thats pretty much a load of shit, ever heard of the COLD WAR????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War
The Cold War was the period of conflict, tension and competition between the United States and the Soviet Union and their allies from the mid 1940s until the early 1990s.
There were repeated crises that threatened to escalate into world wars but never did, notably the Korean War (1950-1953), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), and the Vietnam War (1964-1975). There were also periods when tension was reduced as both sides sought détente. Direct military attacks on adversaries were deterred by the potential for massive destruction using deliverable nuclear weapons.
the U.S. supported the South Vietnamese government against North Vietnam, which was backed by the Soviet Union and China. (Byrd)

or perhaps a nuclear war that would end the world wasn't a threat?



and Vietnam and Korea are big countries, that most people know about. Iraq isn't that big a country and really didn't get a lot of notice up until the possible nuclear threats.

and your point is.....?

Another place to invade could be Iraq's supplier of weapons, Iran. And to end, WWI and WWII were completely different
So, your saying that some how attacking Iraq was a bad idea because we have so far been unsuccessfully in really creating a free state that is democratic and peaceful, so we should instead have tried to attack Iran, the mother of all Islamic Fascist republics and that would have worked out better??

Also if you know your history you would know that in WWI the US didn't enter until the end of the war because they thought that Europe had its own problems and they should deal with them on their own. We didn't attack until it looked like the British and French would loose and Russia had already succumbed to revolution. Also America refused to enter the Japanese side of WWII untill we were attacked at pearl harbor.

[thesphinx]

i just want to get 1 thing over
to everyone
thousands of people were dying
thats enough of a reason to go over anyway.
and i dont understand why everyone was saying that there was no threat against us?
there was remember 911?
it would happen again if we hadn't of gone over there.
not to menntion the living hell that was going on.
im not saying that other 3d world countries dont need help but i think iraq at the time was the biggest threat and was pretty bad conditions with the people living there.
so i really dont see how you can say going over there was a mistake?
people are so selfish.
we're living in houses with heat and we wake up every morning and we dont have to worry about our next meal. if we will get shot today. and a 100 other things

[Underground_Network]

Admins please delete (double post).

[Underground_Network]

I don't want to go to Iran, Bush does. Don't yell at me about Iran. I'm just saying since iran is giving the Iraqis their weapons to kill U.S. soldiers doesn't that make them murderers? I also think that its not really a great idea to invade Iran since the president of Iran promised a counterattack on any group that attempted to do damage to Iran. I was just stating the options, and obviously Bush wants to start WWIII based on what your saying. So congrats! All hail Bush the causer of WWIII! YAY!!!!

[rob]

the surge of troops is having a positive effect at least. "only 10 bodies in the morgue today instead of 40-50"

[Underground_Network]

Still the more troops we waste in Iraq, the less troops we have for a different conflict. If someone like Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela (yes their president said the video game Mercenaries 2: World In Flames would cause WWIII), decide to engage in conflict with the U.S. Bush is going to have no choice but to use a draft and that all americans between the age of like 18 and 35 have to join the army, because we're very low on soldiers and equipment too. Just watch the news. We'd be losing a decent amount of people from this site if this happens.

[Maverick]

Bush is going to have no choice but to use a draft
Do you realize that Bush doesn't even have the power alone to start a draft? That has to go through Congress. Remember Congress is the one that authorized the war, not Bush.

Just watch the news.
Haha no if the news you're watching is feeding you that bullshit you shouldn't watch them. The news media is a very unreliable source, especially in politics.

North Korea is being worked with diplomaticly. Last I read they agreed to disarm. As far as what Chavez says about video games I can care less. Venezuela isn't a country I don't think we need to worry about, yet anyway.

If a draft happens you have to deal with it. If our country is being attacked it's better to institute a draft and fight them over there than here. If you don't want to defend this country that gives you freedom then leave. Our country didn't get where we are now from peace and dipolmacy.

[Underground_Network]

Eh screw it, you bring up a good point. Truth is i wouldn't mind fighting for this country, i just don't want my life to go to waste. My dad said we'd move to Canada if the U.S. instituted a draft, but still i just don't like Bush. I can't quite get my finger on it, but there's just something about him that pisses me off, maybe its because most of the music i listen to is anrachistic, anti-bush, or because my dad hates Bush. I don't know, i just think that Bush is not the best president he could be, although i think he was a better choice over Kerry, but thats not saying much

[Underground_Network]

I'd edit this in but it wouldn't make sense. So i'll post it separately here. When it comes to the media, well listen to the song Underground Network on this site: www.myspace.com/antiflag
It talks about how fucked up the media is, but note this song was made before Bush was president. I agree with you that the media misinterprets things and certain stations such as fox are rather biased. But still based on what i've seen the War in Iraq has not effected us much, other than taking the lives of many Americans. It's not effecting us that much, if anything its pissing off the Iraqis influencing another terroristic attack, this is my opinion. I understand you have a different opinion. You bring up good points, but i will continue to counter them. GRRRR THIS MEANS WAR! We have the same perspective on some things, so understand that i'm not 100% against what your saying, but also note you have not persuaded me to join the darkside, even if they do have cookies.

[cmpcmp]

Still the more troops we waste in Iraq, the less troops we have for a different conflict
you do realize that there are 120k troops in Iraq (somewhere around there) and that the US military has a reported size of 750K? If North Korea attacked (with what? canoes? they lack navy vessels) i'm pretty sure the most powerful army in the world would be able to fight them off. Not to mention that we also have people called allies, who, even if they don't necessarily agree with our policies would still protect us and vice versa.

[Sapphire]

The situation in Iraq was unstable before we went it, is unstable now and nomatter when we pull out (be it now or 30 years down the line) they will still be unstable. I am gald that Blair is starting (slowly may I add) to pull our troops out, but for me at least, it is not soon enough. We should all get the fuck out of there. They no longer pose as a threat (not that I believe they ever did) to the US or the UK so our "job" is done.