What is your opinion on the war in Iraq?

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=167;results=2

They had a poll at FreeRepublic on what one would do in Iraq. I thought it would be interesting here.

Do whatever it takes to win.........60.7%S
Send in the bombers..................15.8%
Begin pulling troops out..............6.9%
Stay the course........................ 6.6%
Send in more troops....................3.8%
Cut and run..............................2.8%
Other......................................2.0%
Undecided...............................1.4%
------------------------------------------------------
Got love those conservatives that voted on sending in the bombers...lmao.

Anyways, I'll reword some of the choses..

 

This is an excellent thread to start. I am really torn on this subject. But my opinion is that we need to get in there very aggressive and dominate the entire situation OR we need to get out. I heard on the news they have a task force on Iraq that will be making some recommendations, so it will be interesting to see what they come up with.

 

going to war in the name of peace is stupid
the US should have never gone in Irak, all they managed to do is to screw up a country to get it's oil

 

The first option is a joke. There are no 'winners' in this war.

Whether our troops are withdrawn soon or not I think we are indebted to Iraq now and must have a major role in rebuilding their country.

This is our mess, we should clean it up.

 

I don't believe that it's our mess. I think that we stuck our nose somewhere it didn't belong. As far as mess, it's now a better place thanks to the lives of thousands of young American and British soldiers, let them finish cleaning up their own mess, and stop killing innocent children.

 

I disagree.

You think its a better place now? Absurd.

On what basis do you say it is not our mess? Didn't we start the war? Didn't we remove the infrastructure that was holding the country together? Didn't we send the country into civil war? Wasn't it our bombs that were being dropped?

This is coalitions tactic:

-Invade a country
-Kill anyone that fights back

 

Not to mention the millions being made from companys like Halliburton from rebuilding.

My personal opinion is get the troops out now, it's nothing short of an absolute disaster, the US led coalition thought that all they needed to do was remove Saddam, remember all that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED crap LOL.



What a total joke that one turned out to be.

If they pull out it's a disaster and if they stay it's a disaster.
I expect most of them by now wish that they were back under Saddams rule as in many parts of the country it looks like civil war is about to break out.
It will make the current (confirmed) death levels of around 3,700 Iraqis a month seem like nothing.

Whatever way you look at it it's a disaster.

But the US will not withdraw (look at the "enduring" (a.k.a permanent) bases out there.
Plus the oil.
Plus the strategic location in the Middle East.

They will definately not be coming home any time soon, that's 100% for sure.

 

If someone had the kahunas to contain Iran and Syria, I imagine that the whole Iraqi theatre would be quite different then what it is today. Unfortunately, no one seems to have that resolve.

 

They should create a special-ops group, which infiltrates insurgencies....specifically targetting bomb-makers. It's not like the common man on the street can build what's being built. It takes a level sophistication.

If they can do that, the media has less of an image war, which almost all media thrives on.

 

Where are the Weapons of Massive Destruction...

 

Not that facts matter to you, but for those who chose not to make up their own:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1672474&postcount=69

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=1806583&postcount=196

I'm surprised AGS didn't post the link, because facts are very important to him

 

Seems your quote as to the meaning of "Mission Accomplished" varys vastly to the official meaning of "Mission Accomplished" from the official Government wesite GTech.
This is the 2nd time I've pwned you in 2 days mate.

I am not making it up, it's there for all to see:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html

Because I know you like sources this one is quoted sraight from the White House website too mate.

There's even a nice video clip you can watch.

You quote CNN, I quote straight from the horses mouth (so to speak)

This is from MAY 2003, 3 and a half years ago!

LOL what a joke.

 

What my your opinion on the war in Iraq?

Its stupid.

 

No, it's pretty accurate. In fact, the link you reference does not mention "mission accomplished" at all. You're trying to compare two different things into one. Again, facts do matter. The "mission accomplished" sign was part of that particular ship's mission being accomplished and they were on their way home. When corrected, you attempted to shift that particular part, which you took issue with, as part of Bush's comments of the speech given on the ship.

Be honest with yourself. Be honest with others.

 

The Iraq Civil War situation is worst than the Vietnam War in that we can't leave now even if we wanted to because our invasion started the damn war. Our troops will be there for at least another 20+ years.

 

The way I see it, is we decentralized the violence. It's no-longer one guy in charge of killing Although really, if you compare numerically how many Saddam killed vs how much this violence has killed...it's not comparable. Saddam wins hands down.

Saddam just kept everyone in check, because he's dictator....dictatorship hold a certain level of cold-blooded practicality in areas like these. Instead of seeing people loosely attack each other, he'd kill you off (along with your family).

But your sort of wrong. We did cause more violence in Vietnam, with the supported coup of Diem. Diem was eventually kiled, and the power structure couldn't stay together afterwards. This lead to an esclation in the war....sort of like us getting rid of Saddam.

In the same numbers, no. Maybe a relatively small amount, yes.

 

Saddam had a bit of a head-start though Rick, he was in power for 24 years. And with the confirmed deaths rising all the time it really is only a matter of time.

 

In eight years (durning the Iran/Iraq conflict), he was responsible for roughly 500k+ deaths of Iranians, and 375k+ deaths domestically. That was his self-started war. And that was just a small portion of his gift to this world.

You still have him starving, torturing, and killing via chemical weapons.

But come-on, the world and America has seen worse....then current Iraq.

The goal in this world should be to prevent this:


1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (7 million)
1936-37: Stalin's purges (13 million)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution
1950-53: Korean war (4 million)
1958-61: Mao's "Great Leap Forward" (38 million)
1966-69: Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (11 million)
1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
--------------------------------
Most of those being products of a dictators or false idealogies. I remember a general durning world war II looked at the solviets as the enemy immediately...thinking that we should have defeated them as well. Perhaps Russia, China, and NK would have been better off...thus the world.

 

Yeah it was a vicious war costing thousands upon thousands of lives.

Saddam had a few friends helping him though.



As a general rule of thumb remember this:
Whenever Rumsfeld is involved in anything thousands of people die.