Iraq war

spill_no_sick:

rock00chick:

I think there wasn't enough planning for the war, and even though in war, people do die...but fighting for something that never existed was stupid. Saying that, if the weapons had actually existed, then it might have all turned out differently...but they werent, so it hasn't

Saddam had already killed thousands, so whether he had bombs or not should have been irrelavent, and there wasn't any circumstantial evidence, but anyone with knowledge of Saddam's actions and a common sense knows he did

Damn you, I was gonna say that!

lilrebel:

I wonder if any of you guys listens to the news... Cause before the war in Iraq, you didn't hear anything of that country. And isn't there a quote that says: no news, good news? But since the war in Iraq, there are every day bomb assassins and suicidecommando's. Was the war such a good idea then?
And the arguments made by Bush aren't correct either. There are bombs which can destroy an entire country. No way, there were no bombs in Iraq. Why did Bush want to start a war? Because of the simple reason named OIL! That's all. That is the only reason why Bush wanted Saddam out of his sight. Ok, I'm not saying Saddam was a holy person, cause he isn't, he was an awful dictator. But looking at Bush and then at Saddam, well, I'm starting to see some resemblances. I don't even want to know what's happening at Guantanamo. Tortures, maybe... Isn't that what Saddam also did when he had Iraq in his power?

I think that starting the war in Iraq wasn't a good idea. Bush just wanted to reach the point that his father never reached.

I hate the news, they are all one sided liberals who get everyone in america to think so and so is bad...they don't tell the whole truth. They never tell you about the good stuff happening in Iraq, do they? By good stuff I mean helping rebuild Iraq, Iraquis(sp?) thanking soldiers for the help...I mean god, there is so much we don't know.

I'm not too sure about the 2nd gulf war. There stuff suggesting for and against it.

For:
Saddam had killed thousands of innocents already, and propbably would have carried on.
He may have have nuclear or biologocal weapons, which maybe could have been a threat to the world.

Against:
Saddam hadn't actually done very much around the world and little to no news about him was around.
Bush needed to out do his father but actually going to Iraq and removing Saddam.
More innocents than actual soliders would be injured as always with the now too common, 'Shock and Awe' campeign.

ALthough I could go on I'll leave it, there are more views against the war than for, but isn't there always. I think that more consideration should have gone into the governement meetings before the war, rather than after it!

Comrade182:

I'm not too sure about the 2nd gulf war. There stuff suggesting for and against it.

For:
He may have have nuclear or biologocal weapons, which maybe could have been a threat to the world.

haven't that been proved is the lies made by politician and secret service to make the people believe Saddam got the weapons that can threatening their life and to get support from public for the war??

I don't think it stand...


(if i'ven't got things wrong )

i heard this from someone that the Iraq war is n`t really a war until congress says it. Bush just brought the troops to Iraq without the say-so from Congress. so in ''legal'' terms if you will, there is no war. also, i feel stupid saying this after all these years, does anyone know the reason why w`re in Iraq? is it for oil or Iraqi freedom? i never really knew.

Warning_iNSOMNIACiDIOT:

i heard this from someone that the Iraq war is n`t really a war until congress says it. Bush just brought the troops to Iraq without the say-so from Congress. so in ''legal'' terms if you will, there is no war. also, i feel stupid saying this after all these years, does anyone know the reason why w`re in Iraq? is it for oil or Iraqi freedom? i never really knew.

Neither. Officially, at least.
Originally we invaded Iraq because of terrorist connections (a lot of them, which I will recognize as valid), and information saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
We did end up freeing Iraqis, but we threw them into something their social structure couldn't accomodate, and now they're headed for civil war which our government is blatantly denying.
"There is no elephant in the room," we say to ourselves as it makes itself comfortable on the couch to watch the evening news.

i dont think we should be in iraq... i think once they found sadam husein (sp?) they shouldve got out... now its like theyre trying to clean up a country that they bombed in the first place... and its a touchy subject with me personally because i had a 20 year old cousin who was in iraq and they shot at the wrong vehicle and he died...

paradoxical:

Warning_iNSOMNIACiDIOT:

i heard this from someone that the Iraq war is n`t really a war until congress says it. Bush just brought the troops to Iraq without the say-so from Congress. so in ''legal'' terms if you will, there is no war. also, i feel stupid saying this after all these years, does anyone know the reason why w`re in Iraq? is it for oil or Iraqi freedom? i never really knew.

Neither. Officially, at least.
Originally we invaded Iraq because of terrorist connections (a lot of them, which I will recognize as valid), and information saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
We did end up freeing Iraqis, but we threw them into something their social structure couldn't accomodate, and now they're headed for civil war which our government is blatantly denying.
"There is no elephant in the room," we say to ourselves as it makes itself comfortable on the couch to watch the evening news.

i heard that most of the terrorist attcks were Saudi Arabians and none were Iraqi`s. so i have no idea what Bush is thinking about ''war on terrorism''

There were no WMDs. Yes Saddamn Hussein was a threat but they could have removed him without the massive death toll.

Stupid fucking government.

i disagree whole heartedly with the iraq war, and its not because i dont like bush.
he went in on faulse and dodgy apprehentions, he PRESSUMED that they had weapons of mass destruction, then when they found out iraq didnt they are still there?!?
then Howard sent in Australia, and thats not fair because it has ABSOLUTELY notihing to do with us excpet howard being bush's puppet, so many lives have been lost and the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better, isure they captured saddam hussain, but things havent really changed.
i find something contradictory in the phrase "fighting a war on terror"
what does war create if not terror?

i have to admit that i agree with the war and the men and women out there are doing they're jobs to the best they can, even though if any of they're kit gets lost or broke they have to replace it when they get back.

Im about to make a very long post. Please actually listen to what Im saying, it would be appreciated. If I try to talk about this with any of my friends, they say "Bush sucks, hes an idiot" and thats the end. Thanks.

Ok, take a deep breath, i am going to ask you to do alot:
-set aside all the lives lost
- set aside the 35,000,000,000+ (35 billion+) dollars it costs everyday to keep troops in Iraq
- set aside the 200,000 lives lost, those are just american lives, not counting the other ones
- set aside how we destroyed our oil allies, and now gas costs an arm and a leg
- set aside how this war started out on terrorism and ended up in us rebuilding an entire country
-set aside all the lost family members, all the kids how are never going to make it to college, the dads who wont get to see there kids grow up, the moms who wont get to see there daughters graduate, all of those innocent lives who thought they were helping out a better cause
- set aside the hundreds of lives lost in the bombing of the twin Towers
- set aside the massive amount of pain and trama people who live in Iraq must go through everyday
- set aside all the bad things, and focus on these few good things

Iraq finalized its major political parties for the december 15th election to select it's first full four year parliment, a step towards forming a real government, a republic, where the people choose the leaders, not over-bearing, power obsessed dictators. After there government regains stability, so will the country, which would be what sends our troops home. Now, instead of setting things aside, i want you to think about all these things that will happen when the government gets fixed:

- they will finally be acting as a country, united, instead of following under the command of one excuse for a "leader"
- they will be able to help end all the poverty that has streched out over Iraq
- people will be able to live in Iraq without constant fear of bombs explodeing or guns going off, like the war zone they are in now

But you can look at this from a totally different angle as well. Did Iraq want to be Americanized? They are totally seperate from the western culture of the world. Did anyone ask them what they wanted. I dont remember seeing Bush over there asking, "Hey, how would you like your country goverend?" One thing can be said, poverty was an issue in Iraq, Iraw has alot of issues that the government they were under couldnt fix, but thats no reason to force ours down their throat. Iraq isnt our country, and despite how much "rebuilding" and "reconstruction" we do, that fact wont change. Personally, I dont ever think Iraq's culture will deminish, at least while Im alive, and I dont think it should. Diversity keeps the world intereting. Have 300 countries that are like clones of America isnt a positive direction to head in, in my opinion.


Honestly, I dont know, its way over my head. How can anything causing so much trama and so many deaths be worthwhile?I think war is an awful thing, and I thought this one was pointless, just a waste of lives, but something is happening, something good is happening, but was it worth it?

I just wanted to make people think. It seems people get set in the "I hate Bush mode" too easily.

You know the war on Iraq was originally called
Operation Iraqi Liberation

ie: OIL
So they changed the name

Annie In Your Coffeemaker:

I_worship_tre_Cool:

Pickle:

Where's your points and proof? I've stated mine but where are yours? No, 90% of the media is not 'Anti-Bush' because the media is controlled by the cabinet. Some is not and you may be referring to that but most of it is all 'Another victory in the war on terror' which is an oxymoron in itself because you can never defeat terrorists because they will always be there. As long as there is one demented person with a chip on their shoulder, there will be terror. What is important is how you defend your ground against it and how to handle it.

Right, and it would have been much better to leave 600 WMD in Iraq so they can blow other things up, I thought the Trade centers were enough terrorist attacks, but if you would like more, by all means, lets bring the troops back. Homeland security is overrated anyways.

There were NO WMD in Iraq. Proof? http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/index.html From his ex-weapons inspector.

He lied about his reasons for going to war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/04/iraq/main647128.shtml

that article is from 2004. The WMD were discovered last month. It would be nice if your sources were up to date

I_worship_tre_Cool:

Im about to make a very long post. Please actually listen to what Im saying, it would be appreciated. If I try to talk about this with any of my friends, they say "Bush sucks, hes an idiot" and thats the end. Thanks.

Ok, take a deep breath, i am going to ask you to do alot:
-set aside all the lives lost
- set aside the 35,000,000,000+ (35 billion+) dollars it costs everyday to keep troops in Iraq
- set aside the 200,000 lives lost, those are just american lives, not counting the other ones
- set aside how we destroyed our oil allies, and now gas costs an arm and a leg
- set aside how this war started out on terrorism and ended up in us rebuilding an entire country
-set aside all the lost family members, all the kids how are never going to make it to college, the dads who wont get to see there kids grow up, the moms who wont get to see there daughters graduate, all of those innocent lives who thought they were helping out a better cause
- set aside the hundreds of lives lost in the bombing of the twin Towers
- set aside the massive amount of pain and trama people who live in Iraq must go through everyday
- set aside all the bad things, and focus on these few good things

Iraq finalized its major political parties for the december 15th election to select it's first full four year parliment, a step towards forming a real government, a republic, where the people choose the leaders, not over-bearing, power obsessed dictators. After there government regains stability, so will the country, which would be what sends our troops home. Now, instead of setting things aside, i want you to think about all these things that will happen when the government gets fixed:

- they will finally be acting as a country, united, instead of following under the command of one excuse for a "leader"
- they will be able to help end all the poverty that has streched out over Iraq
- people will be able to live in Iraq without constant fear of bombs explodeing or guns going off, like the war zone they are in now

But you can look at this from a totally different angle as well. Did Iraq want to be Americanized? They are totally seperate from the western culture of the world. Did anyone ask them what they wanted. I dont remember seeing Bush over there asking, "Hey, how would you like your country goverend?" One thing can be said, poverty was an issue in Iraq, Iraw has alot of issues that the government they were under couldnt fix, but thats no reason to force ours down their throat. Iraq isnt our country, and despite how much "rebuilding" and "reconstruction" we do, that fact wont change. Personally, I dont ever think Iraq's culture will deminish, at least while Im alive, and I dont think it should. Diversity keeps the world intereting. Have 300 countries that are like clones of America isnt a positive direction to head in, in my opinion.


Honestly, I dont know, its way over my head. How can anything causing so much trama and so many deaths be worthwhile?I think war is an awful thing, and I thought this one was pointless, just a waste of lives, but something is happening, something good is happening, but was it worth it?

I just wanted to make people think. It seems people get set in the "I hate Bush mode" too easily.

Yeah, there are small triumphs but were they really worth it in the big picture? Was it worth all that turmoil, scandal, lies and pain for the innocent on both sides just so a country could have a government that they may not even be able to maintain once we finally pull out? Look through history. No country has ever had another come in and take them by the hand and set it up for them. Government is something that is unique to all countries because none of them are the same. It takes years of trial, error, leaders, dictators, parties to develop for that individual country. I think we went in there with a weird vision of a protege and instead of letting them figure it out and growing stronger by it, we're spoon feeding it and it may not be the heathiest flavor.

Bush tired once to reduce oil dependency because he felt that maybe he should live up to the promise he made. However, bills can be revised and sent back to the floor. Was it ever? No it wasn't. I get the feeling it was a fluke. And the economy was in the clear! We were at 0! That was on CNN! And now we are once again in millions upon millions in debt and are borrowing money from China and that is a fact stated from a political article in this issue of the Rolling Stone.
Yeah, the war is espensive. So is providing funds for people who need help affording medical care, lets quit that too. And screw education, we need ethonal-products way more than an educated society.

Al Gore is quoted on page 45 column 2, second paragrpah as saying "I talked to a CEO of one of the ten largest compaines in the United States, who support Bush and Cheney. He told me, 'Al, let's be honest. Fifteen minutes after George Bush leaves the presidency, America is going to have a new global-warming policy, and it doesn't matter who's elexted." And I think that the smartest CEOs, even in places lik eExxon-Mobil, now understand that the clock is ticking and the world is changing, and the United States is not going to be able to continue living in this bubble of unreality.'"
Ok, there is a reason Al Gore isnt president...
Anyways, gee, I wonder why he would ever say such a thing, it's like he lost an election to the guy and intends to run again and win. Wonder what makes him want to degrade Bush...

Ford now has more cars that can be fueled with ethonal, but do you see a lot of ethonal stations or more gas stations? The country sees it but nobody else in higher authority does. No, Bush can't do it by himself but he should be a leader and push![/color]
yes, because George Bush can totally make you drive a car that runs on ethonal. He can buy it for you, put the keys in your hand, heck, he might be feeling nice and start it for you. Gas prices have to rise before the idiots in America realize it's an issue. If they can afford gas, and cars take it, thats whats going to happen. Auto compaines are not making more hybrid cars or cars that run on ethonal, they may say that, but when it comes down to it, they produce a ton more that run on oil, dont they? And i understand that, its exspensive to change assembly lines to handle the producing of those cars, and the consumer doesnt want it, so they won't do it.

Until gas prices skyrocket and the consumer demands ethonal, ethonal will never be popular and as widely used as oil.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

a war on saddam was needed, but the reasons given at the time were false. the "reasons" for going to war were based on suggestions that there might be WMDs in iraq, not that there definitely were.

Pastor of Muppets:

a war on saddam was needed, but the reasons given at the time were false. the "reasons" for going to war were based on suggestions that there might be WMDs in iraq, not that there definitely were.

Yeah, and they were right, there were weapons in Iraq.

I did read your long post and I'm so sorry to make such a short reply

but those statistics just tell us that war in general is negative
all war sucks, it all has obvious negative consiquences
we had a lot of bad shit because....well, we kept giving more and more reason to go to war
Osama, WMDs, Hussein, terrorism was always the backbone, we kept going in for more reasons, so it's a huge scale war
of course we'll be in huge debt, America has been in worse debt because of war (remember our first one, that one with that other country who kept trying to control us? yeah, worse debt, much worse debt

and we all knew lives would be lost, it's fucking war
not as many lives as you say, but a devastating amount

and don't give me that bullshit on oil, we get 80% of our oil from Asia (Saudi Arabia mainly
our prices went up do to supply and demand because they know how to do buisness over there
"Those lazy Americans will keep their huge cars, they won't move their lazy ass, if we raise the price, the worst they can do is drive to protests against their president because we can do some fuckin sweet buisness."