Do You Support the War in Iraq?

[Sayeret]

Knowing all we know now do you support the war in Iraq?

[HooyahCQB]

Voted option 2 because nothing's perfect. Some things could have been done a little differently, but I believe it was overal necessary.

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

[Ratamacue]

Voted option 2 because nothing's perfect. Some things could have been done a little differently, but I believe it was overal necessary.
Same. Alot of mistakes have been made, but hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure that the US's intentions weren't entirely pure, but I support it overall.

[Sayeret]

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia?

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia?

It's not strategically located.

[Sayeret]

Voted option 2 because nothing's perfect. Some things could have been done a little differently, but I believe it was overal necessary.
Same. Alot of mistakes have been made, but hindsight is 20/20. I'm sure that the US's intentions weren't entirely pure, but I support it overall.

That’s pretty much how I feel. When I have more time I’ll explain more in detail.

[James]

Not at first, but now we need to finish what WE started and bring our men and women home.

[TALOS]

answered number 2, I think the US would have been better served consolidating A-stan and getting elections finished first, then looking at Iraq, but all in all Saddam had refused for 11 years to abide by the cease fire requirements

[username]

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia?

They already get the oil they need from them(they have power there and work cohesively, where as saddam didn't he did not do what he was told). Saudi's also have alot of money invested in the US and thus have alot of power in the US.

[username]

I voted for No but I have another opinion about the war. What i mean is the way the war was instigated(media propaganda, WMD bull**** etc) and conducted was a total joke and everyone knows it. So in that respect I am totally opposed to the war.

However I would like to see an Iraq liberated from Saddam and his brutal and unjust rule. So now that Iraq has been invaded to tell the troops to get out now is not acceptable. Neither however is leaving the current coalition in the way it stands there. They need a much bigger effort. It's a pipe dream to think you can secure and rebuild a country with $150,000 troops plus however many forgien workers the current state of Iraq clearly shows this.

[Umm-Qasr]

I also voted for option 2 cuz the removal of Saddam was a thing that the average Iraqi would't dream about. But unfortunately there were a lot mistakes along the road like breaking up the army, opening the borders, unnecessary challenging al-Sadr by closing his magazine etc ...

But for the long run it has been a good decision!

[Argyll]

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia?

It's not strategically located.

Go and look at a map and tell me why Iraq is more strategically placed than Saudi Arabia?

Especially since Saudi has all the Ports to allow vessels in to load up with supplies!!

[army cadet_ngcsu]

I chose option number 2. I think that we needed more troops from the get go, needed to stop the initial looting immediatly instead of letting it go on, we needed to stop dealing with the Iranians, closed the borders, took Falluja immediatly after it had been "reoccudied" by terrorists, we also should never had sent that Iraqi Brigade in there that was supposed to run Falluja, we also should not have completely dismantled the entire government, etc, etc, etc.

Rumsfeld also still needs to resign...

[Satyr]

I dont think there was any basis for starting a war against Iraq. Would also like to see an Iraq liberated from Saddam as i think the iraqies deserve better than that, but the same goes for N. Korea, China, Libya and god knows how many african states. I dont support the war, but im not against it, but i do support the troops over there. They dont really have a say in this and just go where their government wants them to be. Not their fault if a war isnt justified.

You have probably read this before. Anyways, i think that N. Korea and Iran is/was a bigger threat against the US and/or Europe. Perhaps even China and Libya, so in that way i think it wasnt justified to attack Iraq.

edit: Ok, i just read this little thing through again...couldnt quite remember it. The first part about Iraq, China i agree with, but i dont agree on the rest in case you wonder =)
Still, i think it's an ok read and makes room for some discussion.

Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

[Satyr]

double post

[martinexsquaddie]

voted 3 not sure the reason was wmd's no wmds have turned up and the whole things seems to have turned into a night mare.

[SHAM]

Voted option 6 because the whole reason for the war was a farce, we knew it before hand and it has been confirmed after the land battle was finished, and now look at the state of the place. They might have hated saddam but lets be honest, the arabs hate westerners and americans expecially even more.

[achilles]

The war in Iraq is just one unjustified, illegal, redundant and poorly planned hegemonical demonstration that has nothing to do with the 'war on terror'. Yet, it has a lot to do with establishing an American geopolitical base in the region, something that does not seem to be achieved any time soon, if ever. Do i have a gloomy view for this redundant war? Yes i do

[Sayeret]

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia?

They already get the oil they need from them(they have power there and work cohesively, where as saddam didn't he did not do what he was told). Saudi's also have alot of money invested in the US and thus have alot of power in the US.

My point was we shouldn't go to war just for oil but we didn't go to Iraq for it's oil and I support the war for several reasons, even though I don't think it was done as effectively as it could have been.

[Sayeret]

You have probably read this before. Anyways, i think that N. Korea and Iran is/was a bigger threat against the US and/or Europe. Perhaps even China and Libya, so in that way i think it wasnt justified to attack Iraq.

Even though North Korea and Iran were producing WMDs and support anti-American and anti-Western terrorists they are changing some of their policies in response to diplomatic and economic pressure. Iraq kept trying to create WMDs and hide them despite years of diplomatic and economic pressure. Libya isn't threatening the US and neither is China, which I don't believe is support anti-American terrorists and if they are they are at least talking with the US.

[budgie]

Okay I chose the second largest group "no but have another opinion".


I didn't support the starting of this war because Bush and Co spread about a bunch of lies, half-truths and cheap insinuations to get support for it (mostly from their own people because re-election is what counts). there were no WMD no Qaeda connections and so on.

There's also the way Bush snubbed the world community and traditional allies who cautioned against it and then used the media to whip up anti-European sentiment with blames for sanctrions, scandals and alleged shady deals that really had little to do with the governments in question. He delegitemized his war by turning his back on International law.

On the other hand deposing dictators is a noble cause. This is why I support the troops who went over there believeing that they at least were doing some good, regardless of the motives of politicians (oil?)

That said there are plenty of dictators who need deposing. More urgent humanitarian tragedies could have been solved with military intervention in early 2003 and since, which begs the question "Why Saddam, why now?"

I knowSaddam was bad but hadn't done (or even been able to do) anything really bad for a decade or more. Stealing money from the Oil for Food program? Easing sanctions and ending the program would have been a simpler solution than war. What harm could it do if saddam had no WMD? What we didn't know that? Re-enforce inspections. Wait we already had in late 2002 - and they were working. There's a peaceful solution to all of the arguments of the pro-war camp. Admittedly none of these would have (directly) removed the Baath regime and fostered Jeffersonian democracy, but what have we given the Iraqis since Saddam? Read on...

Now here we are two years down the track with insurgency and Chaos and a large number of Iraqis who feel, while grateful their dictator has been toppled, that the foreigners have outstayed their welcome. We must ask now that Saddam is gone, why occupy the country any longer?

Unfortunately they have issues: ethnic and political divides threaten to cause a civil war. A quick 'election' and pullout this year won't solve this. It makes sense in many ways to keep the troops there to stabilise the country but can they? I hope so. Unfoirtunately as Powell said, "You break it you own it."

Remember the 'Iraq war' is a convenient misnomer. It is actually a series of wars. First a brief one against the regime, then against a combination of Baathists rebels and Foreign terrorists. When these are dealt with there will still be other insurgents who want to fight the occupiers. Eventually there may even be a civil war between Iraqis. So which war are we talking about? The War on terror? That was part of Bush's 'Qaeda connection' - it was proven false at the time and okay, became prophetically true in some ways thanks to Bush starting the war anyway, but remains only a part of the problem. Besides would Zarqawi still be there if there were no foreign occupier?

Finally a part of me thought "No because Bush is President." The American voters made their choice and that won't change for a while. It may be however that since it was Bush that started this war, seen by so many as illegitemate, he is such a divisive figure internationally and so unpopular in the Arab world that as long as he's at the helm people will never be happy with the conduct of the war. Perhaps handing leadership over to an international body would help but who wants the job? A coalition of Arab nations would be more palatable but they have no interest in helping Iraq achieve democracy.

In short I support the troops, not the President. (Please don't insult my intelligence or yours by insisting I cannot have it both ways. That's the way I feel and I stand by it). While there was always a case to make against Saddam it was too flimsy to justify action. Now that action has been taken the US has an obligation to see it through - and there are many opinions on how best to do this. That does not however vindicate or Validate Bush's original policy IMO and it is still the President's fault.

[Opening Batsman]

No. 3

[Ratman]

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia?

Because they are our ETERNAL FRIENDS!! Who cares if their connections to 9/11 and international terrorism are approximately 72.68 times more transparent and direct than Saddam's Iraq.

[Ratman]

Okay I chose the second largest group "no but have another opinion".


I didn't support the starting of this war because Bush and Co spread about a bunch of lies, half-truths and cheap insinuations to get support for it (mostly from their own people because re-election is what counts). there were no WMD no Qaeda connections and so on.

There's also the way Bush snubbed the world community and traditional allies who cautioned against it and then used the media to whip up anti-European sentiment with blames for sanctrions, scandals and alleged shady deals that really had little to do with the governments in question. He delegitemized his war by turning his back on International law.

On the other hand deposing dictators is a noble cause. This is why I support the troops who went over there believeing that they at least were doing some good, regardless of the motives of politicians (oil?)

That said there are plenty of dictators who need deposing. More urgent humanitarian tragedies could have been solved with military intervention in early 2003 and since, which begs the question "Why Saddam, why now?"

I knowSaddam was bad but hadn't done (or even been able to do) anything really bad for a decade or more. Stealing money from the Oil for Food program? Easing sanctions and ending the program would have been a simpler solution than war. What harm could it do if saddam had no WMD? What we didn't know that? Re-enforce inspections. Wait we already had in late 2002 - and they were working. There's a peaceful solution to all of the arguments of the pro-war camp. Admittedly none of these would have (directly) removed the Baath regime and fostered Jeffersonian democracy, but what have we given the Iraqis since Saddam? Read on...

Now here we are two years down the track with insurgency and Chaos and a large number of Iraqis who feel, while grateful their dictator has been toppled, that the foreigners have outstayed their welcome. We must ask now that Saddam is gone, why occupy the country any longer?

Unfortunately they have issues: ethnic and political divides threaten to cause a civil war. A quick 'election' and pullout this year won't solve this. It makes sense in many ways to keep the troops there to stabilise the country but can they? I hope so. Unfoirtunately as Powell said, "You break it you own it."

Remember the 'Iraq war' is a convenient misnomer. It is actually a series of wars. First a brief one against the regime, then against a combination of Baathists rebels and Foreign terrorists. When these are dealt with there will still be other insurgents who want to fight the occupiers. Eventually there may even be a civil war between Iraqis. So which war are we talking about? The War on terror? That was part of Bush's 'Qaeda connection' - it was proven false at the time and okay, became prophetically true in some ways thanks to Bush starting the war anyway, but remains only a part of the problem. Besides would Zarqawi still be there if there were no foreign occupier?

Finally a part of me thought "No because Bush is President." The American voters made their choice and that won't change for a while. It may be however that since it was Bush that started this war, seen by so many as illegitemate, he is such a divisive figure internationally and so unpopular in the Arab world that as long as he's at the helm people will never be happy with the conduct of the war. Perhaps handing leadership over to an international body would help but who wants the job? A coalition of Arab nations would be more palatable but they have no interest in helping Iraq achieve democracy.

In short I support the troops, not the President. (Please don't insult my intelligence or yours by insisting I cannot have it both ways. That's the way I feel and I stand by it). While there was always a case to make against Saddam it was too flimsy to justify action. Now that action has been taken the US has an obligation to see it through - and there are many opinions on how best to do this. That does not however vindicate or Validate Bush's original policy IMO and it is still the President's fault.

well said. Thanks for the post.

[Dalleer]

Well , what I post in this message is completely generated on my own opinions , of course. So here goes:

When this whole "there's going to be a second war in the gulf" - deal started , I was skeptical about Saddam Hussein's ability to produce mass quantities of WMD's and his balls to use them against the US or any other nation , for that matter.

The deployment in Afghanistan was going on those days too , but apparently the Americans deemed it necessary to go to Iraq too. I wondered , to myself , if Afghanistan wasn't enough since the job there is still far from over.

So the war started , and at first it seemed easy to just roll into Baghdad and forget about all the other stuff. But then this insurgency started. And the US had a tough time on finding any credible WMD's from the country.

Maybe there had been WMD's and they had just been moved away (hell , that's what I'd do) , or maybe Saddam hadn't had the guts or resources to go any further with his projects. Bottom line is , now the rest of the world got the impression that the invasion of Iraq was in vain and the Americans went there just to... topple Saddam's regime ?

Alright , that's fine with me if that's the case , but they should've said it in the first place. To me it seemed that the whole justification for the war was build around the WMD's and how they were supposed to be so deadly. Did the Bush administration really know of this ? Or , did they believe so ? Or , was the whole WMD - "media campaign" just something to mask the real campaign that was just to overthrow Saddam's regime ?

I know , I've got lot's of questions and not very many answers.

Next , I thought about what Iraq is like now. There must be a half-a dozen different "Hajji" - organisations with their freakin' AK's in hand running around Iraq. And yeah , now Al-Qaeda's in there too.

They've got an insurgency going on in there. Maybe the US underestimated the situation following Saddam's fall , it seems to me. No-one planned for something like this , but luckily once this got started the coalition over there has been fast on reacting to them.

The situation now ? Well , I still think that this war could've been diverted and the low-intensity involvement with SF - forces into Afghanistan could've been the key for a long time. Now , alot of US servicemen and women will die over there , and who the hell knows what will the next president think after Bush concerning the situation in Iraq ? After four years and these casulty rates , I can only hope that the American people still believe in the "just cause" of operation Iraqi freedom.

Going straight to the point, we needed a secure source of oil. Withought oil, America would shut down.

Why not invade Saudi Arabia?

They already get the oil they need from them(they have power there and work cohesively, where as saddam didn't he did not do what he was told). Saudi's also have alot of money invested in the US and thus have alot of power in the US.

My point was we shouldn't go to war just for oil but we didn't go to Iraq for it's oil and I support the war for several reasons, even though I don't think it was done as effectively as it could have been.

You would be so surprised.

[SHAM]

I wonder are there any stats out there on where the tankers are going from iraq with the oil?