Do you support the war in Iraq?

[jefnvk]

I also believed that overthrowing Saddam might bring about a democracy or some kind of rationale regime in Iraq that would influence others in the area.

I fail to see how that has happened, unless yo uhave some gazing ball that can look into the future.

We didn't have the stable democracy/republic that we had till years after teh Revolutionary war. Doesn't mean that it won't happen.

People have just seemed to get into the idea that they can have what they want, when they want. Things take time, and doing things right often takes much more time. Would it be good if someone could clap their hands, and have the ME turned into a stable place? Sure. But you cannot turn half a century or more of hatred into peace overnight.

 

[Eghad]

Soldiers do what they are told. The rest of the country pays for them. They have a right to help decide what happens. Sure, these guys and girls are in harms way, but that goes with the job. It makes you respected but it doesnt give you more rights.

Soldiers follow LEGAL orders, they are nor bound to follow illegal orders.

George Washington once said that when we assume the soldier we do not lay the citizen aside. No, we dont have any more rights than anyone else. We are still entitled to vote and give our opinion as a private citizen and have access to other rights.

There is a difference between supporting an administration and the troops in the field.

I beleive that a war would have been fought sooner or later in Iraq. I have no qualms about Saddam being taken out and the people liberated.

The present administration doesnt understand the true meaning of war. The object of a war is to win. That means using overwhelming force and numbers.
The current administration refused to do that. There was no real planning for this war other than to beat the Iraqi Army and wait for the Iraqi people to bow down before the liberating heroes and assume they would pick up from there. The terrorists are not going to give us the chance to fight force on force big battles if they have a choice. The chance of the current administration having an effective plan and my winning the lottery here in Texas are probably about the same.

This administration in the form of Rumsfeld has blown it so far. The only thing that has saved us in Iraq are the soldiers in the field. All the credit in my opinion goes to ,military folks in the field in Iraq doing the sweating and bleeding.

The current administration had done a disservice to our troops in Iraq by not listening to those who would inject some common sense and planning into this mess. This, if it continues for the next several years will have an effect on our military that is not good.

blind followers are just as bad as sheeple.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Do you support the war in Iraq?

Yep.

 

[Derius_T]

OKAY: FOR THE LAST TIME

This is not a "tell me how it is in Iraq" question. You may discuss that all you wish, and I might even read it, but that is not what THIS thread is about. For anyone with a GT under 7, the question was:

Knowing what we know NOW, should we have invaded IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Wow, did they teach you that level of sarcasm at the liberal arts academy?

Are you denying the fact that Sadaam was a sadist, who tortured, maimed, and brutally murdered 1000's, if not more of HIS OWN PEOPLE, for his sick, power-hungry, amusement? Are you denying the fact that a madman like that NEEDED to be taken out, NO MATTER THE REASONING? Or perhaps you condone that type of behavior? Perhaps we should have allowed HITLER to continue his work on the Jews also? The fact of the matter is, that oil, or political gain, or whatever else aside, the BEAST NEEDED DEALT WITH.

As a matter of fact, he should have been dealt with much more decisively; dragged out into public view on CNN and summarily excecuted. The fact is that these extremists see America as 'weak' for NOT DOING EXACTLY THAT.

If they were dealt with PROPERLY, with a no-holds-barred show of force, they would be less inclined to continue to take pot shots at our guys trying to rebuild their country. A bucket of pigs blood and some bullets would probably do the trick.....

And we can't leave now. We MUST STAY THE COURSE, or it will be seen as further weakness, and initiate more attacks. You have to realize how these extremist idiots think.....your scathing sarcasm won't affect them.....

 

[Handy]

Stop calling for the destruction of the Jews.

Glenn,
In case your comments are somehow leveled at me, let me clarify:

Israel is now a state and friend of the US. But their behavior, IN REFERENCE TO THEIR OWN LAWS, stinks. The Palestinians have a legitimate beef with their occupiers - who have repeated violated law and treaty to take over Palestinian lands. Much of the violence is a direct result of this lawless behavior and its tacit backing by the Israeli government in the form of military support of squatters in Palestinian land.

Israel and Palestine need to become seperate states. And Israel, as the side with the upper hand, needs to lead that process, not sabotage it.


I don't agree with the violence that either side uses. But given the relative military and economic differences between the two sides, I'm not too surprised that the Palestinians resort to bombing soft targets rather than being mowed down by tanks and helicopters.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Derius_T,

let's step off the Hyperbole Express for a second.

First of all, Saddam was no Hitler. He was an incompetent buffoon who couldn't even take Iran in a stand-up fight, and the post-Desert Storm Iraqi military was not half as dangerous as before. Incidentally, we weren't so bothered about Saddam's treatment of his own people when he was fighting Iran, and therefore semi-buddies with us...I guess tyrants are not quite as bothersome when they're fighting someone we dislike even more.

Second, the number of tyrants in the world worse than Saddam are legion. I mentioned North Korea, whose leaders are bya ll counts worse than Saddam has ever been. They are responsible for 50,000 American deaths, they admit to having both nukes and clandestine nuke manufacturing capabilities, they have test-launched long-range ballistic missiles across Japan already, and they are oppressing and starving their own people on an epic scale.

Why, then, did we not invade North Korea first? Why not any of the other tinpot dictatorships of the world, some right in our own backyard (Cuba)?

Third, I am a little offended by your "stay the course at all costs" attitude. You have stated before that we must stay the course, however many American casualties it costs, just so we can "save face". You're willing to waste irreplacable American lives just so you can feel we're not considered weak by the other Arab nations? That's an easy position to hold when you're sitting Stateside in an air-conditioned house.

I'll lend a little more credence and respect to that opinion when I see you heading down to your local Army or Marine Corps recruiter, so you can put your money where your mouth is. Maybe you wouldn't be quite so generous with the lives of our soldiers if you walked patrol on the streets of Baghdad...you know, just to make sure we'll stay the course.

Personally, I think the country is going to disintegrate in civil war the second the last pair of American boots leaves their soil. I don't think that overthrowing Saddam and effecting regime change in Iraq was worth one American life. Freedom can't be dished out...if the Iraqi people don't want it for themselves, no amount of American lives sacrificed in that hellhole can make it stick past our presence.

 

[cuate]

Do I support the War in Iraq?

Being a former Marine I take great umbrance at they who slap the United States in the face and that includes some Americans.

Almost all of the terroristic bombing and atrocities worldwide is definitly proven to be by islamics. I do not care one whit what happens to the insurgents either in Gitmo, Iraq POW enclaves, or the general insurgent population. They cut off heads, we interrogate, whatever that implies.

I was alive during WWII, I don't hate Japanese, Germans, or Italians, that was then, this is now. I am more comcerned with them and their mosque yodelers, here and abroad than with illegal invaders from Mexico.

They are similiar to hard drugs, in that they hate the American way and are detrimental to the peace and dignity of the US. I would be pleased to see them interned in the US until the cessation of war, assuming of course that we win it. I predict that upon out pullout from that cesspool an Iraqi Civil War will occur and our efforts will have been better served with nuclear means.

 

[Ala Dan]

Not Being Disrespectful, But

I'm with King George II, the war in Iraq shows the world that these
United States will not support terrorism in any form.

Best Wishes,

 

[CobrayCommando]

Why did we enter Iraq?

Point: Because we suspected WMDs to be there (which there are, yous ignant if you think Saddam didn't hide a few hundred chemical warheads under the sand, for gods sake he hid a Mig Foxbat under there)

Counterpoint: Korea has WMDs, we haven't invaded them

Point: Because we wanted to depose an evil dictator who tortures his people

Counterpoint: Kim Jong is an evil dictator who tortures his people, we haven't invaded them

Point: Because we need oil and a stable base of operations to secure more oil

Counterpoint: ...

What I'm about to say will make you hate me, but I still support the war. We need to buy time for our economy to transfer to alternative materials, and we can't afford to have a bunch of crackpot towl wearing left hand wipers controlling our supply of oil. If they just decided to stop selling us oil, our economy would collapse. What is the world economy riding on? Oh right ours.

Before you condemn me I will almost certainly be in Iraq in several years time.

 

[OneInchGroup]

Iraq, or Iraq and Roll?

Interesting what one tiny little poll question can elicit. I especially enjoy the folks trying to tell everybody what to think and simultaneously tell them that they have not earned the right to think at all. Interesting. Guess I'm going to offend about 30% of all the polled here. The Iraq war will likely be seen 25 years from now as what it actually was, the most amazing demonstration of armed forces supremacy ever seen in the history of combat. We rolled over more opposition, moved farther and faster, secured more territory, and suffered less casualties, than has ever occurred anywhere, anytime. Yet, somehow, we have CNN and the other agenda services still whining about the whole deal. Our warfighters were better at their jobs than anyone ever thought possible, and our superior technology, planning, and firepower kicked the opposition's ass so hard that their only solution was to become an army of turncoats, switching to civilian clothes so they could hide from us. Now we have a situation where our troops are being asked to multitask, be ambassdors of goodwill, etc. while at the same time taking casualties from the remaining cowards who sneak out and fire a few rounds or toss grenades and then go hide some more. THIS IS THE WAY THESE PEOPLE HAVE CONDUCTED THEIR INTERNAL POLITICS SINCE THE EFFING CRUSADES. The only thing wrong with what we are doing now is that we are being so politically correct that it is costing us lives. This is the way it has gone in every conflict since the disloyal opposition in the USA has been allowed to run off at the mouth and try to politicise our wars. Anyone watching the posturing in Congress has got to see that fat Teddy Kennedy and his crowd are actually happy every time we lose a Marine because they can cry with the relatives and at the same time point at Dubyah and scream "Your Fault!" and get a few more votes stored up for the next election. The situation there is not what should go on, if our country acted like any of the countries in the region. Once we get the Iraqi military back into a reasonable level of readiness, then we can turn THEM loose on the insurgents, and see how fast they go into the mosques themselves and get rid of the coward/terrorists that remain. We just need to act like a true superpower, and keep the pressure on the last of the old regime nutcases until they burn out. Let's not do like we did in My war, set a departure date, so the bad guys know how long they have to keep up the fight until we are scheduled to pull out. Look how nicely that worked out, with half of S. Vietnam and Cambodia massacred as our choppers were landing on the ships with the last of our troops and diplomats aboard. Thanks in part, as usual to all the bleedng heart John Kerrys, etc. of the time. I hate to tell anyone to shut up, but what I see on the broadcast news every day is like a crawl down memory lane, with all the coverage focused not on what we have accomplished, the lives saved and the people freed from oppression, but just more of the same anti-war spin trying to make it a guilt trip for everyone not wearing a semtex vest. I hated the liberal antiwar "journalists" back when they were talking us into giving up on VietNam, and I hate seeing the same sonsonfbitches and their descendants feeding us the same pack of lies now.
I'd like to see just one Democrat today with the attitude of a Harry Truman, when it came down to what to do about the Japanese. Gee should I send in our men to get killed, or just send in two pieces of our technological "Edge" to stop the war without further loss of our own? Good choice Harry. The last Dem I know of that had both brains and balls. By the way, that was the capper to my Dad's war. Mine ended with that Saigon Evac fiasco. I hope the current one, in which I've got 2 nephews and a batch of cousins, ends more like Dad's war than mine. No offense to all the Libs out there, I understand you just don't know any better and are too brainwashed to be educable.

 

[jefnvk]

I think invading NK would have been a bad move. Not so sure China would have sat back and let that happen.

 

[toivo]

I am all for giving our thanks and respect to the military. But anyone who says that the military should have more of a voice than civilians in the affairs of our country should look up the word "totalitarianism." Whatever you call it, it ain't democracy.

As for Iraq, now that we're rid of evil Saddam and the non-existent WMD, the problem is the extreme difficulty of creating a stable, unifed democracy in a fragmented and violent country. We haven't committed enough troops or other resources to really stabilize the country, nothing like what we committed in Germany and Japan after WWII, and those were countries where you could at least count on a certain degree of national unity and common purpose. And we're half-stepping; look at the Iraqi Constitution fiasco. In postwar Japan, the Occupation authority wrote the Constitution, handed it to the Japanese government, and said "Sign this." It's called taking responsibility. You break it, you bought it.

Iraq has been a mess for almost a century, and we're not going to put it right in a few years. The situation has to be weighed and measured: What are we spending and what are we gaining? As a "cakewalk," the Iraq war might have been worth it. But that forecast was just more bad intel. What we're in now is not a mopping-up operation: It's the real war, the one that that was bound to erupt once the dictator's iron hand was removed from the people's throats and they could get busy hating each other. The real question is "What now?"

The current course of action is just not working. The Sunnis want to be back in power, the Shiites want to buddy up with Iran and declare an Islamic state, and the Kurds want their own country. And we're staying there to keep them from attacking each other and to track down guys who are attacking us just because we're there. We're enforcing a stalemate and making ourselves into sitting ducks in the bargain.

Just one man's opinion.

 

[butch50]

And if we pull out now, the press is going to have a field day with how we were defeated by a few insurgents. Their buddies, seeing that the US operations can be crumbled if you get to the press, will be all over us.

The press is going to try to have a field day with any material they get. It is their job to sensationalize whatever they can - they are there to make a profit. So who gives a flying s___ what they say, do or think?

7 Marines killed today. We have now sacrificed 1,800 of our children to George Bush's dream fulfillment. The real reason for this war?

The real reason George Jr invaded is because Saddam slapped his Daddy in the face and got away with it for 12 years. This is a Family Vendetta, pure and simple. Wake up people!

 

[jefnvk]

And if we pull out now, the press is going to have a field day with how we were defeated by a few insurgents. Their buddies, seeing that the US operations can be crumbled if you get to the press, will be all over us.

I guess more where I was going, is this:

We pull out. Media declares it another defeat for the US. Troops are demoralized, they all died for nothing in the end. Liberal yuppies run around saying 'I told you so' and 'War is never the answer'. US loses a lot of face in the world, not because we really lost, because that is what people are lead to believe.

In the M.E., the terrorists think they have won. They have defeated the U.S., the best military in the world. They are on fire, picking up new recruits every day. What do they do now that the fighting is over in Iraq? My guess, is that they don't go home and reminisce.

No longer are their resources being sucked down into the Iraq fight, and now that they have beaten the US once, they come after us again. But this time, on our own turf.

Now, we have another big attack on our hands. We can't go after them again, public support won't let us. We just lost 1800 people on a losing war over there, we aren't going back in. Seeing no counterstrike, they get more strength and attack again.

At least, that is my way of looking at it. One possible scenario.

 

[butch50]

jefnvk

You have made some very sound points. The way we should have waged war on Iraq would have gone like this:

1. We warn Saddam once. He ignores us.
2. We invade Iraq and totally destroy their military and Saddams regime.
3. We leave a note on the front door of the Palace that says: Dear Iraqi people, if you allow another dictator like the last one we will be back and do the same thing again. No matter how many times we have to come back, we will.
4. We return home and let them sort out their affairs.

PS, this does not mean that I would have supported the war, but it would have resolved all of the current problems we have, and would answer your questions about encouraging even more terrorism.

I am not for wars in general, but if and when we do have to fight one, it should be extremely brutal and fast and then we leave. One taste of it should be enough if we do it right.

 

[BreacherUp!]

Butch,

1. We warn Saddam once. He ignores us

How many UN resolutions and US warnings were there over a 13 year period? I lost count

2. We invade Iraq and totally destroy their military and Saddams regime

We did destroy their military. It ceased to exist as a military. The reigime ceases to exists as a regime. What you have left of the regime are the people who have everything to lose.

3. We leave a note on the front door of the Palace that says: Dear Iraqi people, if you allow another dictator like the last one we will be back and do the same thing again. No matter how many times we have to come back, we will.

Saddam's in jail, his two sons are feeding worms, and 3/4 of his regime are captured/ killed.

4. We return home and let them sort out their affairs

Can't do that. Once we invaded and defeated that country, it becomes our burden to restore that country. Had we left, we would've been in such dire straights with the international community that we'd have no leg to stand on. Additionally, the insurgents would still be there, except they'd be in control.

but if and when we do have to fight one, it should be extremely brutal and fast

I think destroying a country's military and taking over in 3 weeks is brutally fast. Especially a country that once had the 4th largets army, and was feared by every country in the ME.
Yes it has been tough. No one said it would be a cake walk. Rebuilding the country is certainly much harder than destroying it. The US is keeping the Iraqi's feet to the fire in order to get their constitution in place on schedule. SECDEF has already announced planned troop reductions within the next year. We're not in the clear, but we are doing a damn good job.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I don't think we are fighting a losing war. The problem is we are fighting a war on capitol hill and in the mass media. Forget the PC crap and go after those causing the trouble and kill them. Don't be polite, get brutal. The terrorists cannot act in a vacuum. Someone is helping them, whether smuggling supplies, smuggling terrorists, making the bombs, providing safe houses, etc. Track them down and kill them too.

The democrats need to stop their bitching and support the war. It doesn't matter why or how we got there, we are there. If the democrats don't like the way it is being handled, let them step up with their plan of attack and we'll give it a try. Instead of trying to help with winning in Iraq, the democrats merely sit of the sidelines and run their mouths in an attempt to improve their own ratings in the polls.

You cannot win a war fighting like this.....

 

[butch50]

BreacherUp! - We agree on most points.

We both agree we wasted too much time giving too many warnings. Warn once, then act.

We both agree that we did destroy their military and regime in record time.

We disagree on this though: My opinion is that we did not have to stay there to rebuild their country. They can do that. If we didn't like how they rebuilt it we should go destroy it again, and leave. They can rebuild it. If we don't like how they rebuild it again we go in.......But we don't have to stay there between each round.

BUT, ultimately we shouldn't have gone there to begin with. This mess started with us going in to liberate Kuwait, which we shouldn't have done to begin with. Everything we are dealing with now is a consequence of us going into Kuwait, and then staying there.

 

[BreacherUp!]

Butch, I looked but couldn't find the exact answer for you. I'm almost positive that soem article of the Law of War or some convention states that conquering armies are responsible for the security and safety of the conquered nation unitil that nation is able to govern on its own. I looked at the '54 Hague Convention (which I know we are not a party to), but if some of you international law buffs could help out, I'd apprecite it. I want to get this right (even if I'm wrong).

 

[butch50]

If you are correct, then it is time to change that "rule". Or just maybe, we should keep our troops in this hemisphere. There's a thought .