But, it's not that great of a conflict anyway. If thousands of people from our country die because of a conflict, that's not a good situation.
easteast
considering how many servicemen we typically lose in a war, the casualties in Iraq and negligable. Think about it, this conflict has been going on for about three or four years now and we only hit 2000th dead recently. Compare that to, say, vietnam or WWII, and you realize that the death toll is actully very low.
It's hard to say at this early date. Right now, in the thick of things, things don't look too good obviously. But who's to say whether or not that the very action of the Iraqi conflict happening wouldn't set things in motion for the better or for the worse? Regardless, it's a little too early in the game and the standard waiting time to cast a judgement upon things as set down by the Historic Resouce Commission as well as numerous other historical committees is 100 years. See you then!
an internationally illegal action that started a precendent of attacking other sovereign nations without reason... or the beginning of the decline of the last superpower
But, it's not that great of a conflict anyway. If thousands of people from our country die because of a conflict, that's not a good situation.
gameguy6700
considering how many servicemen we typically lose in a war, the casualties in Iraq and negligable. Think about it, this conflict has been going on for about three or four years now and we only hit 2000th dead recently. Compare that to, say, vietnam or WWII, and you realize that the death toll is actully very low. very true, our tactics prove to be more effective in urban areas. but we should never forget those servicemen and women that died for our freedom
an internationally illegal action that started a precendent of attacking other sovereign nations without reason... or the beginning of the decline of the last superpowerfirebubbles
If by the fact that Saddam ruled you mean sovereign then yes. But they were in no way, what would be today considered a soveriegn nation. And yes, apparently murdering thousands of kurds, invading kuwait, and creating an oppression over the people you rule, is not at all any justification for removing him from power. *sigh*
you're poll doesn't have any good options:roll: wheres the one for the people who feel this war is pointless and that people in the future will laugh.DJ-PRIME90
because it wasnt a pointless war and people shouldnt think that we have made tremendous accomlishments in this war.
[QUOTE="DJ-PRIME90"]you're poll doesn't have any good options:roll: wheres the one for the people who feel this war is pointless and that people in the future will laugh.UrbanSpartan125
because it wasnt a pointless war and people shouldnt think that we have made tremendous accomlishments in this war. Seconded, however both of those posts are completely biased on both sides. There is a middle there. We did some good things, and we screwed up on others.
[QUOTE="firebubbles"]an internationally illegal action that started a precendent of attacking other sovereign nations without reason... or the beginning of the decline of the last superpowershahkanon
If by the fact that Saddam ruled you mean sovereign then yes. But they were in no way, what would be today considered a soveriegn nation. And yes, apparently murdering thousands of kurds, invading kuwait, and creating an oppression over the people you rule, is not at all any justification for removing him from power. *sigh* how many of america's allies do the same thing? so by that right conutries should take over those governments as well? i mean a lot of States oppress their citizens, try to invade others, and murder. we don't invade them... it isn't a good idea to start that kind of precendent because who defines the terms like oppression and corruption. that will open up many problems in the international arena, because countries would use that term for political advantage. and remember the reason that america went into iraq wasn't to free the oppressed citizens, it was to find the "weapons of mass destruction."
[QUOTE="shahkanon"][QUOTE="firebubbles"]an internationally illegal action that started a precendent of attacking other sovereign nations without reason... or the beginning of the decline of the last superpowerfirebubbles
If by the fact that Saddam ruled you mean sovereign then yes. But they were in no way, what would be today considered a soveriegn nation. And yes, apparently murdering thousands of kurds, invading kuwait, and creating an oppression over the people you rule, is not at all any justification for removing him from power. *sigh* how many of america's allies do the same thing? so by that right conutries should take over those governments as well? i mean a lot of States oppress their citizens, try to invade others, and murder. we don't invade them... it isn't a good idea to start that kind of precendent because who defines the terms like oppression and corruption. that will open up many problems in the international arena, because countries would use that term for political advantage. and remember the reason that america went into iraq wasn't to free the oppressed citizens, it was to find the "weapons of mass destruction." Wait, you relating allies to the actual domestic country? yea that makes sense. And please name countries that are considered "good allies," that commit such atrocities? If your gona reference Israel, that is a situation of bias, as both sides are fighting. The kurds didnt fight back. The terms of opression and corruption shouldnt be loosely termed, and arent, what makes you think so? They are wrong, and everyone knows, and i cant see how this would lead to political advantage, especially since, they arent "loosely termed" as you might think. And while we did claim they had wmds, you might forget the way in which Saddam murdered the kurds? It was a bioweapon, which imo is considered enough logic to present the justification that they might have wmds. So besides the evidence that was eventually proven false, there is still probable reason to think that Saddam had or was attempting to get wmds anywayas. I dont understand how its so hard to comprehend. The entire war was a critical feat for history. The occupation is whats going wrong, and needs to be fixed thus so. We had plenty of reason to invade, its just whether that was on the same priority as say Sudan, or N.Korea.
[QUOTE="firebubbles"][QUOTE="shahkanon"][QUOTE="firebubbles"]an internationally illegal action that started a precendent of attacking other sovereign nations without reason... or the beginning of the decline of the last superpowershahkanon
If by the fact that Saddam ruled you mean sovereign then yes. But they were in no way, what would be today considered a soveriegn nation. And yes, apparently murdering thousands of kurds, invading kuwait, and creating an oppression over the people you rule, is not at all any justification for removing him from power. *sigh* how many of america's allies do the same thing? so by that right conutries should take over those governments as well? i mean a lot of States oppress their citizens, try to invade others, and murder. we don't invade them... it isn't a good idea to start that kind of precendent because who defines the terms like oppression and corruption. that will open up many problems in the international arena, because countries would use that term for political advantage. and remember the reason that america went into iraq wasn't to free the oppressed citizens, it was to find the "weapons of mass destruction." Wait, you relating allies to the actual domestic country? yea that makes sense. And please name countries that are considered "good allies," that commit such atrocities? If your gona reference Israel, that is a situation of bias, as both sides are fighting. The kurds didnt fight back. The terms of opression and corruption shouldnt be loosely termed, and arent, what makes you think so? They are wrong, and everyone knows, and i cant see how this would lead to political advantage, especially since, they arent "loosely termed" as you might think. And while we did claim they had wmds, you might forget the way in which Saddam murdered the kurds? It was a bioweapon, which imo is considered enough logic to present the justification that they might have wmds. So besides the evidence that was eventually proven false, there is still probable reason to think that Saddam had or was attempting to get wmds anywayas. I dont understand how its so hard to comprehend. The entire war was a critical feat for history. The occupation is whats going wrong, and needs to be fixed thus so. We had plenty of reason to invade, its just whether that was on the same priority as say Sudan, or N.Korea.
Location...location...next door to Iran. America's true enemy.
I just love it how some people refer to the U.S. government and "us". "We screwed up", "We did some good things and some bad things", "We had plenty of reason to invade" etc.
[QUOTE="shahkanon"][QUOTE="firebubbles"][QUOTE="shahkanon"][QUOTE="firebubbles"]an internationally illegal action that started a precendent of attacking other sovereign nations without reason... or the beginning of the decline of the last superpowerMr_Manikin52
If by the fact that Saddam ruled you mean sovereign then yes. But they were in no way, what would be today considered a soveriegn nation. And yes, apparently murdering thousands of kurds, invading kuwait, and creating an oppression over the people you rule, is not at all any justification for removing him from power. *sigh* how many of america's allies do the same thing? so by that right conutries should take over those governments as well? i mean a lot of States oppress their citizens, try to invade others, and murder. we don't invade them... it isn't a good idea to start that kind of precendent because who defines the terms like oppression and corruption. that will open up many problems in the international arena, because countries would use that term for political advantage. and remember the reason that america went into iraq wasn't to free the oppressed citizens, it was to find the "weapons of mass destruction." Wait, you relating allies to the actual domestic country? yea that makes sense. And please name countries that are considered "good allies," that commit such atrocities? If your gona reference Israel, that is a situation of bias, as both sides are fighting. The kurds didnt fight back. The terms of opression and corruption shouldnt be loosely termed, and arent, what makes you think so? They are wrong, and everyone knows, and i cant see how this would lead to political advantage, especially since, they arent "loosely termed" as you might think. And while we did claim they had wmds, you might forget the way in which Saddam murdered the kurds? It was a bioweapon, which imo is considered enough logic to present the justification that they might have wmds. So besides the evidence that was eventually proven false, there is still probable reason to think that Saddam had or was attempting to get wmds anywayas. I dont understand how its so hard to comprehend. The entire war was a critical feat for history. The occupation is whats going wrong, and needs to be fixed thus so. We had plenty of reason to invade, its just whether that was on the same priority as say Sudan, or N.Korea.
Location...location...next door to Iran. America's true enemy.
http://www.ncr-iran.org/content/view/2877/71/
Do we even consider Iran on good political standing with the US? I dont believe so, let alone consider them an ally. And the fact that their leader doesnt even represent Iran at any point. It only suggests removal of the governing heads. The people of Iran are in love with the US. Iran is a key player in supporting the rogue/ or acting rogue nations of the middle east, and its mainly whose leading it.
maybe compared to a much less intense version of the veitnam war....AncientNecro
We don't know that for sure yet. The Vietnam War started off rather slowly like Operation Iraqi Freedom did. And then it accelerated into devestating numbers.
difficult to say with certainty considering it's not over yet and we don't know the outcome. guess they'd say something about spending too much money without enough progress
Log in to comment