What are your views on Iraq?

Do you think we should be in Iraq?

  • Yes, I'm 100% for the war.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but we need to finish it up soon

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but I think a withdrawl date is in order

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, but we should at least finish the job

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, we need a withdrawl date soon

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, we need to get out now

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#1
I'm curious... what are everyone's views on the war in Iraq? Most people I talk to are one of two things. For or against. I don't find many in between people. I'd like to get a debate going about this war. My views are simple, we're there because Saddam violated the 17 UN resolutions that were set in place. Violation of human rights, WMD's etc... What are other peoples views? Use links for articles to back your views up.
 
#2
I'm curious... what are everyone's views on the war in Iraq? Most people I talk to are one of two things. For or against. I don't find many in between people. I'd like to get a debate going about this war. My views are simple, we're there because Saddam violated the 17 UN resolutions that were set in place. Violation of human rights, WMD's etc... What are other peoples views? Use links for articles to back your views up.
I don't really know what you're looking for here - either you think the war was unnecessary to some degree, badly planned, based on lies, unjust and badly managed - or you think the war was necessary in some respect. That the danger would be greater the longer no action was taken, that the wmds and the super- secret ebola labs were a threat, that it was the obligation of the free world to end Saddam's regime, that it was a good thing to defend the Iraqi people, and give them an opportunity for freedom, etc.

But there still hasn't been a real debate in the US about the validity of any of these points. And now the argument seems to be that "since we're there, everyone should support whatever is being done since we're there now". So I guess I understand your frustration... ;)

The reason I'm against the war is this, though. It's because the entire invasion is based on the idea that a country, through it's sheer power, can facilitate (favourable) change in a country with the use of force. Or in other words, it's based on the idea that "we" can presume to do good things, even though we are doing very bad things. That tyranny would work out fairly good, if only we bless it with our great powers of goodness. And the very thought is simply offensive.

edit: you should have an option in the poll saying "I've got a plan, you son of a bitch. We need a time- machine so we can go back and tell you to fucking listen to what I bloody told you ahead of the goddamn war!!". Or something similar.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#3
I don't really know what you're looking for here - either you think the war was unnecessary to some degree, badly planned, based on lies, unjust and badly managed - or you think the war was necessary in some respect. That the danger would be greater the longer no action was taken, that the wmds and the super- secret ebola labs were a threat, that it was the obligation of the free world to end Saddam's regime, that it was a good thing to defend the Iraqi people, and give them an opportunity for freedom, etc.

But there still hasn't been a real debate in the US about the validity of any of these points. And now the argument seems to be that "since we're there, everyone should support whatever is being done since we're there now". So I guess I understand your frustration... ;)

The reason I'm against the war is this, though. It's because the entire invasion is based on the idea that a country, through it's sheer power, can facilitate (favourable) change in a country with the use of force. Or in other words, it's based on the idea that "we" can presume to do good things, even though we are doing very bad things. That tyranny would work out fairly good, if only we bless it with our great powers of goodness. And the very thought is simply offensive.

edit: you should have an option in the poll saying "I've got a plan, you son of a bitch. We need a time- machine so we can go back and tell you to fucking listen to what I bloody told you ahead of the goddamn war!!". Or something similar.
I'm curious as to what people think about the war. Is it needed? For whatever reasons. I'm curious what others views are on it. I guess what I'm trying to get at is if people support it for whatever reason. Some people do not support it at all, where others really think its a grand idea...
 
L

LS1nut

Guest
#4
Yes one thousand percent..........and I have no problem with a withdrawl date that only the President, the top military commanders, and the "need to know" congress knows about.

There is no need for the media and the entire country and world to know about a withdrawl date.
 
J

Jabato

Guest
#6
Folks, I'm not sure if this thread is for US people only.
 

pro2A

Hell, It's about time!
#8
My views on Iraq have changed as the war has progressed.

When it first started, I believed the reasons that were given for invasion were valid. How couldn't I? All our leaders were saying they had all kinds of hot intel proving that Iraq was gearing up to do some terrorism. The talking heads on the news were backing this up. Both parties VOTED to authorize military intervention in November 2002, so I thought there must be something to it.

Once it got started, I was very proud of our military taking Baghdad so quickly and thought that peace and prosperity was the next logical step. But I didn't realize that what this strategy REALLY amounted to was a case of "island hopping" where there are no islands. We took Baghdad, but we left millions of potential insurgents all over the place AND we left hundreds of thousands of buried weapons caches untouched, to be used against us later. We also failed to impose martial law immediately upon seizing Baghdad, and allowed chaos to run rampant. Stupid.

Equally stupid was our government's refusal to utilize Baath party officials and their knowledge of their own country and people. Instead, these potentially useful people were rejected and added to the pool of potential insurgents. Maybe now people understand why Patton decided to use certain former Nazis in key administrative posts after the German surrender. It was to keep the fucking place in control during the transition from dictator to democracy.

For the next couple of years, I've been watching our government screw the military. At no point have we ever had enough troops to complete the job. There have been foul-ups with the troops body armor and armored vehicles. We keep having to send our people in to pacify the same areas over and over again (and when we've done it, we've told the troops to do it with their hands tied behind their backs -- gee, sounds like what the Vietnam soldiers had to put up with).

We also keep sending the soldiers back to Iraq for repeated tours. My brother-in-law is back there now for his 4th or 5th tour as a C-130 navigator. At least in Vietnam, the troops did one tour and their obligation was complete. Not so this time. This time the government is sucking the military dry.

Over ALL of this, the part that makes me think this whole thing was a big mistake is that nothing has seemed to change. Every few days, we hear about a few more of our people being killed or wounded. Every few days, we hear about a few hundred more innocent Iraqi civilians being killed by other Iraqis or foreign terrorists. Where's the progress?

I haven't noticed any progress at the gas pumps. Despite all the talk about the importance of "national security", our own borders are still out of control. And, the thing that gets me most is that we have HUGE problems here at home, but we've sent half a trillion dollars over to the middle-east for NOTHING. No progress.

It's like EVERY single justification for invading Iraq has been revealed as a lie. That is NOT the fault of the troops.

What do we do? If someone with an ounce of sense in his head President, I think he'd send over about 500,000 troops, finish the job and bring our people home. We need to elect someone who isn't a party politician to the presidency. Until we do, whoever is elected will simply use the troops as pawns in their little political power grab game.
My friend is a 1st Lt. in the 82nd Airborne and he told me that when they originally went into Iraq the commanders said in order to stomp Iraq and the terrorist insurgents they would need to land half a million troops. The politicians didn't listen and we landed a little under 200k. Therefore we are in the perdiciment we're in now. This is really the only thing Bush has done that i dont agree with. I think thru the whole war this is the only thing he really messed up on. If we landed 500k troops on the first day I strongly believe this war wouldnt be as messy at it is today.
 
L

Libertariangoddess

Guest
#9
My views on Iraq have changed as the war has progressed.

When it first started, I believed the reasons that were given for invasion were valid.
I agree. We were misled into believing that there were WMD's, among other fallacies.

My views on Iraq have changed as the war has progressed.


What do we do? If someone with an ounce of sense in his head President, I think he'd send over about 500,000 troops, finish the job and bring our people home. We need to elect someone who isn't a party politician to the presidency. Until we do, whoever is elected will simply use the troops as pawns in their little political power grab game.
Again, I agree. If he is not going to send over enough troops to get the job done now, and done correctly and completely, then bring our troops home now!!!!
 

CMK_Eagle

Registered Member
#10
I have always strongly supported the decision to invade, and still think it was the right one. IMO, the WMD issue was a convenient excuse, something analogous to putting Al Capone away for tax evasion. Of course, like virtually everyone else in the world I believed that Saddam did have them, but I never bought that they threatened the US in any way. The reason I supported the invasion was to remove a brutal dictator who wasn't going to be forced from power any other way. It may be painful, but I believe we have an obligation to clean up the messes we made during the Cold War. Furthermore, I wholeheartedly agree with Tony Blair's comments last year in LA that the success of democracy in Iraq will be a devastating blow to Islamic extremists.

As far as the way the war's been managed, I think SgtCrom's said all that needs to be said.

I agree. We were misled into believing that there were WMD's, among other fallacies.
So if we were misled, where's the evidence that Bush knew that Saddam in fact had no WMD's?