Troops Out of Iraq

This is a very topical subject in the news just now, here in the UK, the USA and other countries of the coalition.
I was wondering who wants the troops pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible - and who thinks they should stay to finish the mission?

 

Should never have gone into Iraq........Afghanistan totally different situation, this should have been completed if Bush had just stuck to Afghanistan. And got ridden of the Tali-Ban and restored order and placed a Peace Keeping mission there, which the rest of NATO is half heartily trying to do, well avoiding casualties. Afghanistan could have been restored, Iraq will never will reform, well the troops are there, and when they leave the country will become a anti-American country.

Such a shame at such a Human cost, I feel sorry for the men and women that have given so much for one mans folly.

But hey history may make me either a prophet or totally wrong.

 

All I am going to say on this subject that here in the US, this is a volunteer army, many people signed up because they want to protect their nation. They very well know the danger, they know could go to war and proceed anyway.

I have friends who have been in Iraq and one who is going to Afghanistan in december. Whether or not they believe in the war they are ready to defend their nation, regardless.

I support them whole heartedly.

 

I think they should take em out. Like BCGary said they should have never gone into Iraq.

 

Defend their nation from what dyamond??? I never heard or saw anything about Iraq "Attacking" the U.S.A. The Tali-ban who controlled parts of Afghanistan where to all intent purposes responsible for the World Trade Center carnage, Yes.

But no Armed Forces are ever going to defend a country from any extreme terrorist act, wether it is from within like Oklahoma, or from outside like the World Trade Center.

I served with the "Reserves" here in my country, Canada, and am extremely proud of the men and women I served with, and some are in the heat of the battle in Afghanistan. The difference is the Canadian Troops went to Afghanistan to protect the majority of civilians from the minority exteremist under the NATO banner. Our nation did not support Bush's Folly in Iraq, and still don't.

Remember that the German people and Armed Forces said the same thing, when Hitler declared War against the rest of the world. Just because of one mans folly and now another mans,many good men and women have and will die.

That should never be supported in my opinion.

Bush has done more to damage his own country than any leader that has ever lead the U.S.A. America's reputation world wide has suffered, the American economy has suffered, and America's Education and Health system have also suffered from this mans policies.

Oh and dyamond, I truly love my American friends, but I just can't agree with your statement, but I do and will, defend your right to them.

 

Defend us from terrorists? Yes, I believe thats what they are doing. Even if you've never "heard or read" anything about Iraq attacking us, there could have been underlying issues that we dont know about, could have been a matter of time before they did, who knows?

I think thats what they are doing now. Would you prefer that instead of them fighting over there, they come here and do it instead?

Like I said, they know what they are signing up for when they sign up. Is it sad? of course but they know those could be the consequences.

Your speaking about education and health system and I though we were talking about the war? Did you know that Clinton had the opportunity in 1999 (i think, could be 2000) to take out Bin Laden? They located him, had thier weapons trained on him, and told Clinton he had a 1 hr window to make a decision. He kept stalling, telling his guys that he needed more time because he "didnt think Bin Laden was a threat". The window passed and Bin Laden got away, next thing we know.... 9/11 happened.

Im not saying the Bush had made no errors, not saying that one bit, he's made several but lets call a spade, a spade and to say that Bush is the only one at fault

is a bit preposterous.

Btw, Im not attacking you personally. I mean no disrespect what I say and If you feel that way. I apologize

 

I am very strong about my views on this and i say we should stay there (If i was able to join i would and hop the first flight over to do my part.) I think its the best thing if we stay over there if we cut and run now its gonna get bad over there real quick. And if we cut and run from what we started what is that going to say to the rest of the world? (I don't want it to be another Vietnam but it is different because during the Vietnam war our Government would not let our guys use what was needed to get it done.) I say after were done there we should move on to North Korea if whats his name starts that junk again. to send a message to the rest of the world that if someone is threating the peace we will bring them down. Thats just my view and i think its the right thing to do. Im not attacking anyone and I mean no disrespect to anyone it just what i think is right

 

No one gave the USA/UK the authority to be the worlds peacekeepers and that is just a guise to allow the exploitation of a countries natural assets.

the USA has always defended it's right to drive non efficient fuel vehicles and have cheap fuel so as Iraq being the 2nd largest producer after Saudi Arabia leaving the control of the production in the hands of a dictator was unpalatable.

don't forget that the west gave Saddam the weapons to attain his dictatorship but the problem was he would not be a puppet for the west as they had hoped.

The governments of the west were just looking for a reason to displace him and in my personal opinion i think Blair and Bush believed they could do it quickly but did not count on the fact that oppressed people when given freedom tend to go a little bit crazy.

i am not going to rant on about this just say i would like to see the troops get out but what would replace them (another dictator??) so maybe they have to stay for a while longer.

http://bestsmileys.com/army/1.gif

 

No one gave the USA/UK the authority to be the worlds peacekeepers and that is just a guise to allow the exploitation of a countries natural assets.(from BILLMCC66)

UK have a history of collonization.Maybe USA want to do the same(Yugoslavia,Avganistan,Iraq,maybe North Korea,Iran.....

 

keep an eye on the border Goran they are coming to get youroflmao

 

@dyamond - I agree with you 100%!! I couldn't have said it better - well stated. Good thing I read your post before I posted . . . I've calmed down quite a bit


@BCGray ref the below . . .

WTF? Hitler and his military said what about what? Are you equating Bush with Hitler, and our armed forces with the SS? Again, WTF?

Regardless if you are making such a statement or not - and I hope you are not - you have a very simplistic view of what is a very complicated situation. I don't support much of what the president has done - nor do I lay the blame for everything at his doorstep either. You know, it amazes me how people love to spout off about how "stupid" Bush is . . . while at the same time giving him the ability to mislead congress (what does that say about them . . . "He tricked us He lied!" they whine . . .), and our allies . . . who had their own intel concering Iraq's danger to the world and its support of terrorism . . . I guess Bush "lied" to them too . . . give me a break. Oh, I forgot to mention all the UN resolutions and such . . . did Bush lie to them too?

And - No matter what your stand on the war or Bush - to not fully support the men and women in uniform currently in harms way is reprehensible - they are doing their duty as their commanders have deemed it to be, and they deserve our support and respect.

God bless everyone serving in any capacity as a member of our armed forces - past, present, and future. You rock!!

Yeah. Unless it's something like Darfur that the rest of the world is afraid to deal with . . . then it's "Why isn't the USA/UK over there being the world's peacekeepers?" Bah. Your take on the situation is as simplistic as BC's.

 

roflmao YOU ARE THE BESTroflmao

 

Hey just a note to all debating the question is valid, deriding others users is not.

Don't want to see a good debate turn into a "Flaming War" or the thread will be closed

 

No No No.Me and Bill just have big time nothing else. Or maybe this is for others.rolleyes

 

Wasn't aware that asking someone to clarify a statement, or disagreeing with a position, was a "flame."

If you are referring to me, I didn't deride anyone that I am aware of . . . saying someone's position is simplistic is not a personal attack - at least it's not meant to be and was certainly not my intent - though I confess the "Hitler" comparison did get me a bit fired up. Being a former member of the armed forces I feel the analogy is inappropriate and offensive, and has nothing to do with the situation at all.

 

That kind of suspicion doesn't justify war. Imagine if you tried to take someone to court based on "suspicions about things no one knows if they exist or know anything about".

 

This was always going to be an interesting (and derisive) topic.

I would suspect that most peoples opinions on this subject will depend on where they are from.

While i don't believe that they had any right to go into Iraq in the first place, that is not what this poll is about.

While I would like them to leave straight away, they should not leave until the country is in better shape than when they invaded it, or at the very least that it is in the same shape.
Armed forces need to be there at the moment to protect those that are rebuilding and repairing the country as far as the amenities, health, education, agriculture, trade, transport and everything else that helps people to stay alive and hopefully lead a reasonable quality of life.

Send the politicians to war, keep your children at home where they belong.

To enforce the law you have to abide by it first.
Innocent until proven guilty, especially where war and/or capital punishment is the outcome

 

@BCG you really threw a bucket of cold water on that one, most members will now be afraid to voice there opinions for fear of offending someone.

the topic is very emotive and people have strong feelings about it be it pro or against i feel it only fair that they be allowed to express them keeping it within the boundaries of decency and being tolerant of the views of those who do not share our own stand point.

i am an ex serving member of an elite force and by the end of my military career had achieved substantial rank thereby seeing both sides of a military intervention.

the west do not always see things the same as the east and semantics can play a part. (i am not going there)

as Goran said UK have a history of collonization.Maybe USA want to do the same(Yugoslavia,Avganistan,Iraq,maybe North Korea,Iran..... and i have served my government with what i hoped was honour in a number of colonial uprisings so i look at it from the military point of view and try to be even handed.

the USA got involved in Vietnam at a time when the Brits were in Aden both ended up retreating without a sustainable policy of peace (they called it tactical withdrawal) and that may come in Iraq but men much better qualified than me will decide that.

at the moment all we can do is support our sevice personnel in the job they have been given.

@Dyamond
All I am going to say on this subject that here in the US, this is a volunteer army, many people signed up because they want to protect their nation. They very well know the danger, they know could go to war and proceed anyway.

i understand your statement was never intended to be aimed at Bin Laden, you are correct in saying they join to defend their country and that means against all those who would restrict the freedom of it's citizens.

i have very strong views on this subject and with a good knowledge of how the system works(only the selected few have ALL the facts) i feel qualified to attempt to enlighten some who believe every thing they read in the press.

good news does not sell newspapers but a scandal or derision of a public figure I.E Bush and Blair does.


as a finish i will say this is a personal opinion and not intended to influence the thoughts of others.

 

All I want to say is if you want to win a war don't start fighting.Nothing good come out from this war.Over 5500 dead young ones who if there were alive could be great support for the economy of USA.
This is something that we all should consider cos you will never get back them again.

 

Apparantly I have hurt some feelings.

In the logic and debating jousts I've been in, saying someone's position is simplistic or simple is not considered an insult - it's a valid debate point. Not meant to imply the person themselves are simple, etc. It would have been surprising if someone took it personally then, and I was very surprised it was taken so now. Perhaps this term is different in other places?

I apologise if it was taken as an insult. It was certainly not meant as one.

I agree the WTF was perhaps over the top - but I was honestly taken aback and confused by the quote it was appended to. Still am . . .

 

THAT'S WHY I LOVE MAJOR GEEKS.If we can make peace and be humble and accept our mistakes, why can't others.that is why we still have wars and WILL have in the future.Because everyone is a patriot and have pride,but we forgot something that we are only humans and nothing else.

BRAVO,Natakel:wave

 

lol - amen, brother!

 

You know, I voted for Out Now. I personally believe we never should have become involved in such an illegal war.

I do fully support the troops, but I do not support the government. Saddam had not actually attacked anyone, so in this war, the US is the aggressor and therefore in the wrong. But, because it is no longer a ground war, we cannot win. Perhaps if the entire force consisted of Delta Force, or SEALs, we might have a prayer, but the regular army, and marine ground forces are not trained for this guerilla fighting.

Even the LAPD would be more effective.

 

Amen!! I couldn't have said it better myself.. Great post

@Goran

What about the 3000 that were killed on 9/11?

 

This is a time of shame and sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity, my only event of today, to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.

It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one - no matter where he lives or what he does - can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.

Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet.

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of reason.

Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily - whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of the law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence - whenever we tear at the fabric of the life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.

"Among free men," said Abraham Lincoln, "there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lost their cause and pay the costs."

Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far-off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire whatever weapons and ammunition they desire.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach non-violence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some look for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.

This is the breaking of a man's spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all.

I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we know what must be done. When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this, there are no final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of others. We must admit in ourselves that our own children's future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanquish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

 

Something I wanted to address specifically.

If we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, we are doomed to repeat them forever.

One such mistake is scapegoating.

EVERY time there is a war, there is a considerable effort to make the other side look like monsters.

This is where BCGray's comparison of Bush and Hitler holds water.

Bush is making Muslims look like demons, just as surely as Hitler made the jews look the same.

But religion and political beliefs are superficial differences.
All of the above bleed the same. All of the above fear for their lives, and those of their families.

This time around Saddam was the boogieman.

Invade to dismantle his WMDs..... only he has none.

Okay. Quick plan change. Take out the boogieman. (Hopefully everyone forgets that in 1959 the US assassinated the Iraqi leader before Saddam, with his cooperation, nonetheless, and paved the way for him to take power)

Okay done.
Why is the US there now? Because they've made a mess, and caused a civil war?
The civil war was on LONG before the invasion.

To win the fight?
There are no winners in war. Especially if the objective keeps shifting. Even more so if there's always new "threats", and the fight must go on.

The US isn't defending itself. There isn't a threat.

3000 deaths to terrorism since 9/11??

What about the 40 000 deaths/year (average) in the US due to automobile accidents? (That's about a quarter of a million deaths since 9/11)

If concern for your safety was the real motive, don't you think there are things that should be prioritized BEFORE terrorism?

 

Boy Mada Milty
that one really hit a nerve with you, i understand your feelings and respect them, as an american you have more right to voice your opinion than others as yours are the majority of the military in there but that is not to say that the other countries are doing less they are all sending their sons and daughters to fight.

it does however seem that an unproportional number of the casualties are US it's as if they are being singled out as targets, this could be for a number of reasons I.E they are the largest force so are in more danger / their operational tactics are questionable (bad or doubtful leadership) / the hatred of all thing American and the west / or just resentment of the government of the USA but however you look at it the Grunt on the ground is paying the price.

i agree there are other thing that should be addressed in society first but some how they have to get the troops out first without leaving carnage behind.

 

Aren't you making Bush a scapegoat by blaming all of the wars ills on him?

I don't believe that is what he is doing. In the Q'uran it tells muslims to kill anyone who isnt a muslim and wont convert. Thats what they follow.

 

I don't believe that is what he is doing. In the Q'uran it tells muslims to kill anyone who isnt a muslim and wont convert. Thats what they follow.[/QUOTE]

be carefull Dyamond you are getting into semantics here and that will really invoke the wrath of some members

 

Im not trying to invoke wrath, but that IS what it says.

Suggestion taken

 

Sorry - where did I do that?
Not my intention at all. Although, he does play a large part. 4 vetoes during his presidency. Twice he's rejected laws allowing stem cell research, and twice he's rejected timelines for exiting Iraq.

"Not all muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are muslims" ~ George W. Bush.

I'm certain I can find similar passages in the Christian bible. Can you cite the passage? I'll find equivalent in the bible. Are you certain this part of the Qur'an hasn't been put into the spotlight as part of the attempt to make them look evil???

Does this mean all of the estimated 900 million to 1.3 billion muslims in the world are bloodthirsty killers?

 

I'll keep it simple, just my point of view.

We should have never gone into Iraq, but we did.

We removed all vestages of the existing government (evil or not is not the question, remove it we did).

We made a royal mess, mostly because we tried to save money after the first combat was done. My mom taught me you clean up your messes.

If we leave without setting something up we will have exactly what we claimed we were trying to avoid, a terrorist state, and will eventually have to go back at even greater cost, both in lives and money.

So even though we should not have gone in, we need to fix it now. We're stuck.

Afganistan isn't even close to the same situation, but the two keep getting mixed together. This was and is a just war, and we need to win it too.

The reservists were not true volunteers. In many cases technicalities that have never been used before are being used to drag unwilling people back into the military, such as officers who had honorably served their terms of service (and were recieving no money) being recalled because they had not filed an official letter stating they had resigned. In one extreme case they tried recalling a 80 year old woman (she was a doctor).

Reservists are meant for emergancies, which this war doesn't qualify for. Many guys and gals who willingly laid their lives on the line but didn't think they were commiting for regular duty have served several years, thereby loosing their homes, jobs, and possibly families, assuming they weren't KIA or MIA. Oh yeah, they also weren't trained to the same standards as regular military, but have had to learn on the quick.

They have extended the terms of service (and reduced the R&R time porportionally) of all ground troops, to the point mental illiness is on the rise, but will likely be ignored by our government and the VA.

Many in the military are willing to do what it takes, and they all deserve high honors. I salute each and every one who has served honorably, and view with contempt what Congress and our current president (and his staff of cronies) have done to this county. I hope we have learned at least one thing from Vietnam, don't blame the troops for our leaders mistakes.

I hope to God that we do not loose the Afganistan War because of some private agenda on our Presidents part. It is currently very possible.

Someone said there are no winners in war. This is false, just as the premise that violence solves nothing. If we had not fought Hitler, if he had been allowed to succeed, then the USA would have likely become a province, and I doubt his regime would have stopped with Jews. Sometimes, like it or not, violence is the only viable solution. We should never learn to love it as some cultures have, but we should always be willing to use it when absolutely necessary.

Another example, one that we aren't proud of, is the Native American. He was here first, but now lives on reservations. You think we're civilized? If a white steals from a native american or rapes one of their woman the tribal police are helpless, since they are a separate nation, to arrest the people doing it if they are white, even if those people are looking them in the face on tribal land. And in many cases regular law enforcement, nor the FBI will do anything either. There is plenty of injustice to go around, but they lost the war, and we, the citizens of the USA, now own their land. They were lucky in one respect, whole peoples have been killed to allow the invaders to own their lands.

Right or wrong, violence makes lasting changes.

Geeze, and I was going to keep it simple. STOP PUSHING MY BUTTONS!

 

"Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one"

John Lennon - Imagine

Sounds fairly obvious and simple :confused

 

No religeon? Not likely.

We can't all be agnostics or athiests.

Have no problem with the rest though.

To paraphrase...

Why can't we all just get along?

 

I disagree. Using Hitler as a comparison to Bush is over the top - though it seems to be a 'fasionable' thing to do of late.

Can you elaborate as to how Bush is making the muslims look like demons? Especially to the extent a comparison to Hitler makes sense?

I submit that Bush has now become the worlds boogieman; If it's bad, Bush did it. If it's good, Bush failed to make it bad. I've even seen blogs blaming him for the recent bridge collapse . . . sheesh

Much of the world thought he did - including the UN.

Don't see the point . . . allies come and go, and I hardly think the political climate of almost half a century ago has much bearing on the present situation. I think that era would make an interesting topic of debate, though, of it's own accord. Complicated period.

Gotta agree there.

I disagree

What exactly does one have to do with the other?

I've no doubt you can come up with something in the bible to compare - but that does not alter the fact that dyamond is right - the passage exists (I called a Muslim buddy of mine, and he said verse 9:5 is the one that is usually referenced). Do all Muslims follow this verse? Of course not, and I don't think this is what dyamond meant at all. Do a fanatical few cite the verse as justification for their acts of terrorism? Yes - obviously.
Religious fanatics of any creed scare the hell outta me - but in the last 20 years or more, the spotlight has been on Muslim religious fanatics - and not through bad press.

Speaking of citing sources - can you tell me where you came up with this:

I've seen it attributed to several people, but can't find a solid Bush reference.

 

Right you are, I did not mean that every muslim was a killer but many follow the Quran faithfully.

The verse I found was 9:5 as well (Kill the mushriqeen (pagans, polytheists, kuffar) where ever you find them. [Al-Qur’an 9:5]

Not trying to turning to turn this religious, so my answer to the orginal question, Yes they should stay.

 

This is why we ended up in Iraq, Bush's vendetta for his father (other Bush) why jump in because of Kuwait? How about OIL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

 

nevermind....

 

@Dyamond
All I am going to say on this subject that here in the US, this is a volunteer army, many people signed up because they want to protect their nation. They very well know the danger, they know could go to war and proceed anyway.

i understand your statement was never intended to be aimed at Bin Laden, you are correct in saying they join to defend their country and that means against all those who would restrict the freedom of it's citizens.

i have very strong views on this subject and with a good knowledge of how the system works(only the selected few have ALL the facts) i feel qualified to attempt to enlighten some who believe every thing they read in the press.

as i said in the earlier post "only the selected few have all the facts"

the article regarding the gulf war is correct that the the assault by coalition forces began in January 1991 but preparations were started 3 months earlier in October 1990 when US and UK special forces were on the ground in Kuwait for the purpose of recon and target acquisition to enable the main force to strike strategic points and for obvious reasons this was not broadcast via the press.

this was also the case in Iraq, months of preparation before the event to try and save lives no one can or will say what went wrong with the planning but it was not a short action as we were promised so the troops can not now get out because they need to protect and control the oil.

if we are all honest do you think this would have been the case if there had been no oil again a commercial and selfish decision.

why are we not in the poverty stricken countries of the world with our troops ANSWER no commercial value.

 

I'm with Darlene on this one. Anyone who can stand back and say the Iraqi War had/has nothing to do with oil is delusional.

His slip at the APEC summit (calling it OPEC) tells what is on his mind.

 

Hi! I have three relatives (cousins) who were/are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very interesting tread... but there are a few things I don't understand.

First, why is it assumed that those serving in the military support the President's Policy?

I love and support our troops, especially the ones I know, but do not support the President's Policy of using our resources to try and straighten out Iraq. If they embraced our way of life and wanted our style of government they would make it clear to us and Americans would want to help them. We always identify with and wish to help the oppressed; (well most of us/anti-immigration hate mongers not withstanding). To me, they appear to be dragged down into a religious civil war which we can not help them with.

Second, scapegoating and name calling is a waste of time and energy. i.e.. the comment about how Clinton had the opportunity to arrest Ben Laden before 9/11. The poles seem to indicate that we, as a country, are ready to elect wise, effective leadership. I hope a leader who has vision to improve our infrastructure and make non-fossil fuels a priority. i.e.. It is selfish and unnecessary for the pres to have backed "flexfuel" which will cause higher food prices and prolong our dependence on oil rather than support hydrogen and electric cars. If he backed hydrogen/electric the economy would boom with new building, new technology etc.

As a policy, in my life, I hope to go by what I see and not by what I hear.

I see middleclass and poor people struggling. Our children are being saddled with terrible debt from this war. Both food and gas are too expensive to allow earnings to be allocated to only the basic necessities. In both cases, the Islamic Right and the Religious Right, are focused on money and power; and male power in subjugating women. Both religions ask women to shut up and follow the leader... Well, what if your leader is a wacko... oh... like this pres?..just my opinion.

You must agree, there is a lot more to this attack on America then we generally discuss.

 

How is calling a spade, a spade scapegoating or name calling? Those facts are based on accurate information. The book was called Deleliction of Duty and It was written by Clintons top military aide at the time.

Doesn't this statement contradict what you said above?

 

In the 70' and early eighties Iraq was an Ali and helped with the release of hostages from Iran. Through the years it shifts back and forth depending on who has what to offer.
There was a scandal and hearings in the 80's of a military - well here you read it will probably find Osama's name there some where if you follow the paper trail. Yes as far back as that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

It was - is believed, speaking of scapegoats. that's the rap North took on to save face of the President at that time. We send weapons to these countries then years later it's the same weapons killing our troops. They grab boys out of high school before they have a chance to go to collage and learn all they were taught in high school is all wrong (heres the real truth).
The world trade center was bombed first in 1993, wiped out the parking structure but little else. It was known it was a target pre 911.

 

here's an example of middle east wars, how long they've been going on


http://ehistory.osu.edu/middleeast/battles.cfm

 

A lot of the stuff brought up about Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton is hindsight, you do the best you can and hope for the best. Fact is, all our former presidents did a lot of things right. I'm not so sure Bush Jr. is going to have that qualifier. He has consistently and repeatedly fired anyone who has dissented from his world view, and guess who has been proven right in the end.

To blame a president for the actions of a determined enemy doesn't work, everyone gets lucky sometimes, and sometimes you have a bad day. I don't blame Bush for 9/11, I blame him for how he reacted afterwards. We already had a war, we didn't need a second one. It was pretty obvious to me at the time it was a fabric of lies, but I suspect most politicians aren't that smart overall. It is easier to go with the herd instead of standing up when you have to, you might loose your cushy job.

As an air force brat I know one of the fundamental rules for active military is you don't say what you think. Shut up and soldier is not a formal rule, but it exists never the less.

Something else, if you are being hunted and shot at by people who clearly want you dead does tend to make you want to reciprocate. I have heard some so called experts say they won't follow us home, which is pretty stupid given the multiple attacks within this country. If I was active service I'm sure I would see things a bit differently than I do now.

 

I need another drink after reading this whole thread Right a reply

We Invaded Iraq because we wanted control of the oil even the our leaders admit that and I quote Bush-

"The oil can be used as a weapon against us"

I.e if they cut off supply or for example start selling the oil in Euro's,anyone who thinks oil wasnt part of the decision to go to war as adrenalyn said is dellusional,the only question left is how big part did oil play in the decision? I think a huge major part quite simply because the UK and US need alot of oil and the leaders in the US would make huge amounts of money controlling the oil.

The Iraq Invasion was doomed as soon as it was concieved, it was an experiment to see if the regime of a dictator in the middle east could be ousted by a invading foreign force,as I always knew or believed it couldnt and as we have seen the experiment is a huge failure,no good can come of with us staying,its over,the Iraqi peoples hearts and minds have been lost and as any battle commander will tell you this is the only factor of importance in this kind of operation.

To clarify Iraq had no terrorists,the people didnt hate America or the UK and they had nothing to do with 9/11,they have never harmed or threatened to harm any US or UK citizen and the taleban,binladen and muslim "EXTREMISTS" didnt like Saddam and wernt in co-operation with him,this is FACT irrelavent of what you have been told on TV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

Here's what will happen in the next couple of year or so,we will pull out as we already have been doing then the US will pull out but the coalition bases will remain there much longer to control the oil,the only thing that will happen if we stay are more of our troops will die needlessly,I feel sorry for the Iraqi people and the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi's who have died since the operation began but there is no solution only acceptance that we arnt making things better anymore and we never can

Even cheney knew that-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I

An now a poem-


Only kidding

 

Well said!

 

I don't think anyone disputes the fact that oil plays a part in the whole thing - Rikky hit the nail on the head - the question is how big a part does it play? In point of fact, the president said the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

quote:
"Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." End quote.


Bush? No - Jimmy Carter in 1980 . . . it's known as the Carter Doctrine

In my opinion, the whole trauma is a far, far more complicated issue then just oil. The region has been a bubbling cauldron long before we were born, and will probably continue to be long after we've gone to where ever Major Geeks go when their downloads are complete . . .

 

I still stick by what i said before but i would like to add afew things after reading this i held it back and was in abit of a hurry too but i say alot of people up on the hill are idiots things needs to change. If things don't change the way we are heading its going to be a very long and cold winter from what happens.

Take like in this country for one our boarder guards being put in jail for doing there job and another back in the 90's the gov stopped pushing the auto makers for the EV's (watch "Who killed the Electric car") and another is the drug problem the list goes on and on and i am sure its not this country alone but things need to change. i will add more later too tired right now.

 

Seeing terrorist organizations or any nation with terroristic tendencies take control of oil production would not impact any single nation. It would impact the world as we know it. It's not a matter of gaining American control on oil. It is leaving it in place.

Surely everyone can see the importance of protecting this resource?