Ok. I live here in the good Ole USA. My question is should we get the Heck out or what? With the recent Elections and government, I think it is TIME the U.S. got the heck out of there...I have friends that are serving in that warzone....Let the Iraqui people govern their own nation is all that I am sayiing!

Just warning you when starting debates expect people to STRONGLY disagree with you -- and show it

Yes, I agree, we should get all our troops out of there as soon as possible. We wouldn't want to kill any of our own soldiers when we nuke the country off the map!

I agree, as soon as possible. But not now. Iraq still hasn't got an army strong enaugh to fight terrorists. They need your help.

The US and allies made the mess, so now they have an obligation to clear it up.

Nobody asked them to invade.


And this has already been discussed here: http://forum.gamingsource.net/index.php?showtopic=11701

Still, that thread has veered almost completely off the topic. We could keep this one to Iraq specifically for anyone who wants to continue to debate it. Please keep this one on topic though, people...

As for getting out of Iraq, well... no. As Theta said, the coalition has made that horrific mess, and the coalition are just about the only things holding the barely existant foundations up. If America pulls out now, the whole thing will collapse, and the terrorists will soon take over the country. Besides, I doubt we (UK) and the other forces there would be very happy with being left behind to do the dirty work for the US.

We're already in the region as an occupying force. We're building bases and increasing our capabilities in the surrounding area. The administration has no intention of leaving Iraq any time soon. Too much oil and to much pride (Bushs') is at stake to pull out now.

Who cares that we have wrecked people lives, destroyed families, killed innocent people and made the country a haven for anti-Western terrorists? Not us. Those folks over there have freedom, god damn it! No more sadistic oppression from some guy whose name 3/4 of people in the US can't pronounce correctly.

Besides, the Iraqi's are like children. They don't know what democracy is or how to run it. We need to show them how to do it so they can be like us. It's like teaching a kid to tie their shoes or ride a bike. It's hard at first but they'll catch on eventually.

And what about Syria and Iran? They're acting a little uppity too. Many would say a little too big for their britches as well. I mean, we're there and we have the moral authority...them being filthy terrorists and all. Why not tag them too? Apparently more than half the country thinks the President is doing a bang up job! "Four more years!!" is the new official rallying cry of the downward spiral.

Intelligence to hard to gather? Got pesky rules like no assassinations, requirement of Presidential finding, the illegality of torture or Congressional oversight? Screw the agency tasked to collect intelligence and set up a new arm of the DoD! Free from nit-picking and oversight... You can do what you want!

And those annoying reporters always asking around? Threaten them with the implications of "national security" and "you're either with us or against us." Failing that, PAY THEM!! They won't ask questions if they get a little something something. Hell, they might even promote you and your policies.

God...

We're committed now in Iraq. We owe the people there at least that much. We need to complete the nation building task, do it right, stay for only as long as necessary and then get the hell out. If we leave now, the place collapses and becomes a terrorist training and recruitment center.

We made this bed...we have to sleep in it.

-M

If we leave now Iraq will be weak and another Dictator will rise and every thing that has happened in the past few years would be useless.

That is a joke, right?

It is a joke but unfortunately that's not how a fair percentage of the US populace sees it!

Whilst I agree (and have said in other threads) that the US and the UK have a moral responsibility to sort out the mess they have made, I don't believe that morality would influence the US one IOTA. They went in to secure the oil and will stay until the oilfields are secure from terrorism or falling under the control of an unfriendly government. I can't see them leaving any time soon.

The US government and ethics have little, if anything, in common but this is capitalist greed and that matches exactly.

10 points to Malchik!

I was trying to be overtly facetious in lampooing the mentality of many of my fellow countryfolk.

The current debacle in Iraq is a sad commentary on the weaknesses of the American political system. We are a two party system which operates in a winner takes all scenario. If one or the other of the parties wins controlling majority, there is little or nothing that can be done about it.

American political parties are pillars of mediocrity and corporate largess. They pander to the most powerful bases, or the deepest pocket books...take your pick. Special interests, in this case corporate America and the religious right, have inordinate influence because there is no requirement for the dominate party to work with the less powerful party.

Let me give you an example of a case which illustrates the insanity of both the situation and the people who perpetuate it. (This may feel like OT but give me a minute)

Libby, Montana is a small mining town which for decades was home to an extremely large mine which, as by-product, released 10's of thousands of pounds of asbestos into the air on a daily basis for many years. A staggering percentage of the town's population has either sickened or died as a result. While the mine no longer operates, the effects linger.

President Bush, during the campaign, made a point of promising to restrict "frivolous" lawsuits against corporations, including cases of asbestos poisoning. The people of Montana voted overwhelmingly for Bush, but the folks in Libby voted for him a rate which exceeded the over all state average. Why?

The people of Libby are representative of many people in the US. They are voting against their own best interests, possibly blinded by promises of lower taxes and strengthened "morality?" When you can figure out why people do that, why they vote to invade others, vote to restrict their own civil rights, vote to trample the Constitution and vote to desecrate my beautiful homeland you'll have found a way to make America a responsible world citizen.

Until then, be thankful that at least the greed we've shown until now will be enough to keep us in Iraq until it is a reasonably stable place again. History cannot be changed...we went there for the wrong reasons, we're staying for the wrong reasons but leaving now would place in jeopardy the future of every Iraqi citizen.

-M

Place it in danger! The middle east has always been dangerous. They are a dangerous kind of people maybe they like it, its thrilling and exciting. When we bomb them it makes thier day, cause in the middle east the sun just dosnt come up till the bombs come down.

Or maybe we should stay lets take them over corprately, we got a good thing going, we have indians working the oil industry that are even cheaper than iraqi's LOL! This is a great finacial oportunity!!!! Hey maybe we can get people to think Iraqis are evil and make them into slaves too! Har Har Har screw other people!!!

Or we can leave, it will be fun to watch what happens when the insurgents start the massacres. We can film it and call it iraqis gone wild.

Nomatter what we do Im sure it will be immoral and messed up. America is made of people, and the only true evil in this world roots from people.

What I really think we should do? We should make a decision, either we are going to be immoral and we should go ahead and conquer Iraq completely or we should leave it the hell alone, toying with it and sucking it dry is just dragging out the procress of greed. We can either be greedy for a year by aresting all civillians and destroying all else, then rebuild it into america and go about being honest like we did with the native americans (sad but true) or we can stay and pretend we are there for them and keep leaching thier oil, Or we leave, I say we choose to leave. I dont buy that we cant make a Iraqi army fast enuff, thats BS if it was our true objective to make them self sufficent and leave it would be done.

I used to support our actions in the middle east, Im glad Sadams gone I always hated that bastard. But when Bush took troops that had Bin laden cornered and sent them into Iraq to find thier huge nuke factory and save the world from DR. Evil I lost faith. The root of the problem isnt what we are doing wrong in iraq its what we (Bush) intend to keep doing wrong in Iraq.

I certainly hope we're not gonna nuke Iraq off the map... That would be ridiculous. That would mean all our soldiers who fought and died there... Died in vain, and it would mean all the tax money spent on the war went down the hole for no reason.
I've been against this war from the start, I don't see how dropping bombs causes peace(pardon the name). But it is good Saddam is gone and it's even better that the Iraqi people get to vote now. As far as our soldiers, who I love them all deep and dear(Despite what Conservatives say about Liberals hating the troops), but we can't withdraw now... We invaded... We have to stay and finish the job and stabilize Iraq. Bush says this is all part of the War on Terror, I disagree with him, but if it is... He must realize we lost Iraq, as our presence only energized Terrorist factions... Making it much more dangerous for our men and women over there. I just hope this can be over soon with minium life lost, so we can bring our guys home.. And I hope they aren't sent to fight another of Bush's wars... Unless he actually decides to take Osama out.

Peace.

Just watch Fahrenheit 9/11 it just sheds light on so many things.

When Bush first became president his staff publically said that Saddam did NOT have weapons of mass destruction and his staff said that to the public!

And then not long later his staff completly changed their minds and said that he did, i'm not sure about this bit or not but i dont think that there was any real solid evidence that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda at all but dont quote me on that.

So no i dont think we should of gone in there, the only reason why we went (UK) is because when Bush says jump good ole Tony says 'How High' but we went in got rid of a dictator (which is good) and if we left now we'd of caused a civil war and Iraq would probably annex itself (which is bad).

But where there now and its our mess so we should clear it up and finnish it to the end but i just didn't like the way that we were lied to so much, Saddam could strike us within 60 minutes lol yeah right!

But if you want to invade someone invade Saudi Arabia, after all 13 of the 16 (or something like that) hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi and even Osma is Saudi and there is clear evidence that the Saud's are connected to terrorism, but no US wont invade Saudi Arabia after all they do own 7% of the US's economy

But that is a different topic so anyway back to Iraq no i dont think we should be there but we are and YES we should stay!

If that means Kerry would have been a better president, I will remind you that Kerry supported Iraq War and voted for it. Now he is completely against it. So I'm not sure, would have he atacked Iraq, if he had been elected, or not. Anyway, if Iraq wouldn't have been atacked, Saddam wouldn't have been removed (which is bad).
If that doesn't mean Kerry would have been a better president, I'll say nothing.

Whats important to realize about Kerry is he was a victim of a classic republican tatic of nameing, "flipflop" in this case. Most politians do change thier minds about things as events unfold ansd new information surfaces. Kerry wasnt a flipflop, he supported the war when the rest of us did, now like many of us he dosnt. Simple as that.

So when its popular to support a war, Kerry supports it, but when it becomes unpopular, Kerry is against it? Has he an opinion?

No you got my message all wrong i wasn't even thinking about kerry what so ever. What i was saying was that Bush and his administration lied to everyone.

It's a sign of maturity to be able to evaluate new information, and re-assess your decisions following such new information - and even more so, to admit that your initial decision was incorrect.

It's extremely childish for others to style such a change of heart 'flip-flopping'.

And anyway, what does Kerry have to do with it anyway?

It seems to be a tactic of Bush supporters to claim that Kerry would have done worse rather than to admit the Bush administration's mistakes.

The motives - or rather, excuses - for starting the war seemed to change all the time... from the claimed link with Al-Qaeda to the alleged weapons of mass destruction.. and then, when both of those turned out to be false, the war became a war against Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. It's a cynical propaganda exercise.

At first Kerry had nothing to do with this thread:

But now, as the talk turned to Kerry (not without my help )...

What information are we talking about?


No. Its just that Bush is human, and humans make mistakes, although as far as I know, he hasn't made any serious mistakes yet. Claiming that Kerry would have done worse is just a way to show that Bush was much better choice. Much better than Kerry, who would have hidden under a pillow after the September 11 atack and done nothing to stop terrorism. Or maybe he would have fought a 'sensitive war' against them. Atacked them with pillows or smth.

How do you know? Kerry has never been president during 9 11 and never will, saying hes would hide under a pillow and address terrorist with wrist slapps is unsupported and unproven hearsay. Bush is human, yes and humans make mistakes, and humans are greedy by nature (from birth). Bush's mistake is running America like a corperation instead of a country. And to say he hasnt made any serious mistake?!?! what do you think the whole war in iraq is? a lucky break? a stroke of fortune? ITS A MISTAKE!!!!!



We have no intention of nukeing Iraq off the map, why would you think that? Bush plans to control the money flow from iraq, by continuing "protect" iraq, and carry out this oil for food program. We could make iraq self sufficent, our colilition is not helping us because they are pathetic third world countrys. We train thousands of US forces all the time, but we cant train iraqis? thats BS, Bush dosnt want them to be self suffiecent, as long as we are there we hold the cards.

Well, Kerry has never appeared as a resolute person with all his waverings.


It didn't went as well as we had expected, but americans destroyed nest of terrorists and removed another stalin.
Of course, now terrorist activities appear more than with Saddam, but look at anthill. When undisturbed, it looks quite peaceful. Now try to smash it, how peaceful it will look then? The same is with terrorists in Iraq.

Oh, and there is no proof Saddam didn't have chemical weapons.

Removed a nest of terrroists! What terrorists, please dont say Al Quieda because there weren't any at least before we went in. The terroists there now are mostly our doing by going in there.

Please say your not being serious about saying Bush has never made a mistake, my god where the hell have you been the past few years, just watch Fahrenheit 9 11.

Yes we removed a dictator *small woo-hoo*.................................now what????? Removing Saddam is the only good thing we did, we fought a war so that Bush could secure Oil.

And the way things are going it wont be long until Bush acts like a secret dictator on the Iraqie people as well.

Hm. If there were no terrorists hidden, then where are all these who roam Iraq now from?


Well, watching that Moore nonsence explains your attitude.


Even if the war was started for oil, it had those good consequences I have stated above. Consequences, not motives are all that matters.


Ha... Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Well none of us are members of congress or part of Bush's cabinet i belive so we really cant say for sure what thier true motives are. It seems that we are in it for the oil, maybe by abusing iraq we can strengthen our economey.

But heres somthing the Bush supporters over looked, what about saudia aribia or how ever its spelled, thats where most terrorist are really from and we dont go there to stomp out terror, and they own much of the us economy. Funny isnt it?

As for Bush being a secret dictator, no I dont think so, but I also know that somtimes corrupt actions are taken by goverments our being no exeption to maintian control over themselfs. We are so trusting in our presidents arent we? Clinton wouldnt lie would he? Former president bush was honest wasnt he? Nixon? Basicly presidents are failable, and subject to act corruptly. I have every reason to belive our mission in iraq is BS at this point.

So? Consequences, not motives are important.


Well, Iraq was USA potential enemy. Saudi Arabia wasn't.

If they were there before Iraq's regime crumbled, where were they?



You not seeing it explains yours.



OK, fine. The US and UK went into Iraq and removed a dictator, correct, but they also bombed the living crap out of Iraq, killed a great many people, some military, many not, and their actions caused the subsequent deaths of many more civilians and caused the country to fall from a struggling, but fairly well developed country to a country that more or less has to be rebuilt from the ground up and is infested with terrorists who kill both the US and UK soldiers and the Iraqi people.




Well, first of all, how, exactly, was Iraq going to attack America, given that even the US government now admits Iraq had no WMD?

Secondly, the list of 'potential' US enemies includes about half the known world, including Saudi Arabia, and many with more cause to be on that list then Iraq.

Hidden.


Something like that, but I wouldn't overcolor so much. Good things outweight the bad ones.


Support various osamas.


Nope. Less than a half. And I don't believe there was another dictator, more worthy of removal than Saddam.

Ah. That would be in the same way that Iraq's WMD was 'hidden'. I get you.



Let me see - on the good side, a single evil person has been removed from power. On the bad, an entire country is blown to hell and about 100,000 people are dead as a result, and it's pretty clear more are going to die. No, I would definately say, in this case, the bad ones SEVERELY outweigh the good.



Name a single terrorist organisation that directly threatened the USA that Iraq had any proven ties with.



Gaddafi (of Libya). Kim Jong-il (of North Korea). Than Shwe (of Burma). Robert Mugabe (of Zimbabwe). Crown Prince Abdullah (of Saudi Arabia). Omar Al-Bashir (of Sudan).

Don't get me wrong, Saddam was evil, no doubt about it. All of the above are as bad, if not worse, though.

The evil person we are talking about has killed much more people and he would be killing right now if he hadn't been removed. It's hot in Iraq now, but it was hell with Saddam.


OK, you got me with this one. Its not because there weren't any, its just because I don't know any names. Yet.


I think all of them are evil, but Saddam is the most.

The supposed concern (at the U.N. meeting, at least) was WMDs. The logical target ought to have been North Korea, since they actually ANNOUNCED their intentions!

Yes, and I would have supported USA if they had atacked N. Korea, but Saddam was represing people more.

No it was figurtive to the first one and to the second your wrong saudi arabia did and does represent a threat to us by harbering terrorist, I though harboring terrorist was wrong.

Oh. OK then, I made a mistake.

OMG sombody admitted to a mistake, for that I give you mad props, most people continue to argue even when they know theyre wrong. I have before as well, i made mistakes too.

We went in when we shouldn't have, and now it would be disastrous if we left. Now we HAVE to stay in Iraq until it is stablized.