We are still there to prevent destabbilization of the country so terrorist regimes don't take over.. it's not that complicated to understand.. as soon as we commited to action that country we also commited to making sure it didnt' fall into the wrong hands by leaving it without a stable government. Though, I didn't support the war to begin with.. it's obivous to see why it's necessary to remain there..
We are still there to prevent destabbilization of the country so terrorist regimes don't take over.. it's not that complicated to understand.. as soon as we commited to action that country we also commited to making sure it didnt' fall into the wrong hands by leaving it without a stable government. Though, I didn't support the war to begin with.. it's obivous to see why it's necessary to remain there..
EMOEVOLUTION
but that isnt working and its safe to say what the US is trying to do, will not work. So we should just leave. It wouldnt be any worst since we poke our nose into their land.
Years of battle and it seemed that progress is only minimal, but the US leaving what's little left of Iraq to die would be irresponsible.
one_plum
why not? I mean, what the US is trying to do is nearly impossible, to somehow change the people of Iraq. Of course, it wont happen over night but the chances of the US actually doing something to make the invasion somehow look positive, are slim to none.
It's not really that fair to criticize without personal expierience.... Yeah, the troops got a lot done, of course the television will tell you prodominately bad things that happen. Think of it like this, militia's are still shooting, bombing, and targetting people. That's a problem. Better fix it, yes? Yes, you want to stop the people that want to kill you, period. I don't see why you wouldn't want to stop those people. Edit: Oil is a pretty lame excuse, I'm still paying way too much for it. If it was about oil, America would invade Russia, Saudi Arabia, and (North?) Dakota.
i honestly believe we should just drop it. the goal of the terrorists is to make the US not be the "international police" anymore, so lets let them do that, see how they're doing in a year (suckishly) then put them on israili type life support. they still exist, they're still useless, and they still will be. but who cares? it costs us 300 million a year to keep a country from dissappearing, and to keep a good 50 million people alive, obama is throwing trillions around. whatever.
We are still there to prevent destabbilization of the country so terrorist regimes don't take over.. it's not that complicated to understand.. as soon as we commited to action that country we also commited to making sure it didnt' fall into the wrong hands by leaving it without a stable government. Though, I didn't support the war to begin with.. it's obivous to see why it's necessary to remain there..
Tjeremiah1988
but that isnt working and its safe to say what the US is trying to do, will not work. So we should just leave. It wouldnt be any worst since we poke our nose into their land. Yeah so we can have another Vietnam. The US wont let that happen, we need something positive to come out of this war to show it was not a failure.
Years of battle and it seemed that progress is only minimal, but the US leaving what's little left of Iraq to die would be irresponsible.
Tjeremiah1988
why not? I mean, what the US is trying to do is nearly impossible, to somehow change the people of Iraq. Of course, it wont happen over night but the chances of the US actually doing something to make the invasion somehow look positive, are slim to none.
The instigators of the war should have thought of that in the first place. Even just starting the war was in violation of international law. It doesn't make sense that soldiers and civilians on both sides are suffering while those who made the war happen got away with it.
I thought it was to get rid of Saddam? Well they did, so now what? They havent fount any nukes, so :?, why are they there?
Tjeremiah1988
pst. we went in there so that big oil would be able to get lucrative oil contracts and the administrations buddies in would get lucrative military contracts. they did and continue to do so. we're there to protect those interests.
I thought it was to get rid of Saddam? Well they did, so now what? They havent fount any nukes, so :?, why are they there?
pst. we went in there so that big oil would be able to get lucrative oil contracts and the administrations buddies in would get lucrative military contracts. they did and continue to do so. we're there to protect those interests. To sack a land, if you care to say.
[QUOTE="FunnyMouth"]It's not really that fair to criticize without personal expierience.... Yeah, the troops got a lot done, of course the television will tell you prodominately bad things that happen. Think of it like this, militia's are still shooting, bombing, and targetting people. That's a problem. Better fix it, yes? Yes, you want to stop the people that want to kill you, period. I don't see why you wouldn't want to stop those people. Edit: Oil is a pretty lame excuse, I'm still paying way too much for it. If it was about oil, America would invade Russia, Saudi Arabia, and (North?) Dakota. I agree with the oil statement. This is a list of the top ten countries we import oil from 1. Canada 2. Mexico 3. Saudi Arabia 4. Venezuela 5. Nigeria 6. Angola 7. Iraq 8. Algeria 9. United Kingdom 10. Brazil I know Iraq is in there
[QUOTE="FunnyMouth"] Oil is a pretty lame excuse, I'm still paying way too much for it. If it was about oil, America would invade Russia, Saudi Arabia, and (North?) Dakota. the oil is not for your benefit. it's to the benefit of the oil companies(exxon being one) that got contracts there. they wouldn't have if we didn't go in and topple the government.
We are still there to prevent destabbilization of the country so terrorist regimes don't take over.. it's not that complicated to understand.. as soon as we commited to action that country we also commited to making sure it didnt' fall into the wrong hands by leaving it without a stable government. Though, I didn't support the war to begin with.. it's obivous to see why it's necessary to remain there..
We are still there to prevent destabbilization of the country so terrorist regimes don't take over.. it's not that complicated to understand.. as soon as we commited to action that country we also commited to making sure it didnt' fall into the wrong hands by leaving it without a stable government. Though, I didn't support the war to begin with.. it's obivous to see why it's necessary to remain there..
metalpower08
Thank you for making sense. The US excuse doesnt make sense.
Years of battle and it seemed that progress is only minimal, but the US leaving what's little left of Iraq to die would be irresponsible.
why not? I mean, what the US is trying to do is nearly impossible, to somehow change the people of Iraq. Of course, it wont happen over night but the chances of the US actually doing something to make the invasion somehow look positive, are slim to none. But the US is not trying to change the people of Iraq. Just trying to protect them from terrorist groups controlling the country again
Years of battle and it seemed that progress is only minimal, but the US leaving what's little left of Iraq to die would be irresponsible.
why not? I mean, what the US is trying to do is nearly impossible, to somehow change the people of Iraq. Of course, it wont happen over night but the chances of the US actually doing something to make the invasion somehow look positive, are slim to none. But the US is not trying to change the people of Iraq. Just trying to protect them from terrorist groups controlling the country again Ok, I see but its not working and doesnt look to ever work. But then again, what terrorist group was in Iraq before the US invaded?
Let's put it this way. For example: You have a nice house that, unfortunately, the police believe is a haven of drug dealers. The police mistakenly raid your house and more or less destroy it. Now, the police responsible for the mistake could either a) stay there and repair your house to make sure it was in the condition it was before they arrived (and maybe compensate you a little extra) or b) say "my bad" and leave. That's more or less what the US is facing with Iraq. We raided a country mistakenly and now we have to repair it. We can't just up and leave and tell the citizens "oops, our bad".
It's not really that fair to criticize without personal expierience.... Yeah, the troops got a lot done, of course the television will tell you prodominately bad things that happen. Think of it like this, militia's are still shooting, bombing, and targetting people. That's a problem. Better fix it, yes? Yes, you want to stop the people that want to kill you, period. I don't see why you wouldn't want to stop those people. Edit: Oil is a pretty lame excuse, I'm still paying way too much for it. If it was about oil, America would invade Russia, Saudi Arabia, and (North?) Dakota. FunnyMouth
do you really think it would be easier to invade russia than iraq? what excuse do you think the US will use to invade russia, they have WMDs??? Yes they do and they have lots and we dont want to fight them. The reason why they went after Iraq was becuase they thought it would have been a piece of cake and also they had a story that was somewhat convincable. They were able to connect Saddam to the 9/11 terrorist attack and also lied about the so called "WMDS" that Saddam was ready to launch at the US. If I was a dictator(Saddam) I wouldnt want to lose my power by attacking a country thats a million times more powerful than mine. IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE!!!!!
Let's put it this way. For example: You have a nice house that, unfortunately, the police believe is a haven of drug dealers. The police mistakenly raid your house and more or less destroy it. Now, the police responsible for the mistake could either a) stay there and repair your house to make sure it was in the condition it was before they arrived (and maybe compensate you a little extra) or b) say "my bad" and leave. That's more or less what the US is facing with Iraq. We raided a country mistakenly and now we have to repair it. We can't just up and leave and tell the citizens "oops, our bad".Canvas_Of_Flesh
And the way to repair the damage is by doing the same thing that worsened things.
Ok, I see but its not working and doesnt look to ever work. But then again, what terrorist group was in Iraq before the US invaded?Tjeremiah1988
it's working very well actually. The Iraqi military is doing a good job of securing its own country, violence is very low, and the new government is functioning well overall. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was a U.S. objective since the Gulf War. It wasn' t a huge stretch to tie the war in Iraq in with the War on Terror.
[QUOTE="FunnyMouth"] Oil is a pretty lame excuse, I'm still paying way too much for it. If it was about oil, America would invade Russia, Saudi Arabia, and (North?) Dakota. Ontain
the oil is not for your benefit. it's to the benefit of the oil companies(exxon being one) that got contracts there. they wouldn't have if we didn't go in and topple the government.
FBI Interview transcripts
"The documents also confirm previous reports that Saddam falsely allowed the world to believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction— the main U.S. rationale behind the war — because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, the hostile neighbor he considered a bigger threat than the U.S."
If it wasnt for 9/11 the neo cons would have never got their hooks into GWB and maybe today, not only would there be no wars, but a sizable contraction of US overseas bases, like the one in Germany
Well, obviously invading Iraq was a horrendous idea. That doesn't mean you can just pack up and leave once this is realized, and leave the country in a state of civil war.
Cos Saddam and Dubya were hanging out on a Friday, you know, just casually tossing back beers, when Saddam gets a bit outta hand. Y'know, loud, obnoxious, having his boys beat some innocent dudes for some reason, the usual. Then he drops a bomb: "Your old man couldn't catch me, sucka!" So Dubya's like, "Come on, bro, don't pay out my old man..." But Saddam keeps going, so Dubya's like, "Oh hell no" and yells, "Next time you see this face, it's gonna democracy the hell outta you!" Something like that.
Because Obama's peace prize commits him to keeping peace in Iraq. I mean, it would be a mockery accepting the award if he was going to go sending more troops into non-peaceful conflicts.
Years of battle and it seemed that progress is only minimal, but the US leaving what's little left of Iraq to die would be irresponsible.
Tjeremiah1988
why not? I mean, what the US is trying to do is nearly impossible, to somehow change the people of Iraq. Of course, it wont happen over night but the chances of the US actually doing something to make the invasion somehow look positive, are slim to none. America doesn't just pack up, and quit when times are tough. If soldiers lived by that code, they would infact, be dead soldiers. I don't like dead soldiers.
I thought it was to get rid of Saddam? Well they did, so now what? They havent fount any nukes, so :?, why are they there?
Tjeremiah1988
No. We went there to look for nukes. When we didn't find any, we decided to take down Saddam so the world didn't see us as selfish idiots looking to take control of Iraq's oil.
[QUOTE="metalpower08"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"] why not? I mean, what the US is trying to do is nearly impossible, to somehow change the people of Iraq. Of course, it wont happen over night but the chances of the US actually doing something to make the invasion somehow look positive, are slim to none.
Tjeremiah1988
But the US is not trying to change the people of Iraq. Just trying to protect them from terrorist groups controlling the country again Ok, I see but its not working and doesnt look to ever work. But then again, what terrorist group was in Iraq before the US invaded? Okay, no terrorist group but an extremely corrupt and dangerous dictatorship led by Hussein and his supporters.
[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"][QUOTE="metalpower08"] But the US is not trying to change the people of Iraq. Just trying to protect them from terrorist groups controlling the country againmetalpower08
Ok, I see but its not working and doesnt look to ever work. But then again, what terrorist group was in Iraq before the US invaded? Okay, no terrorist group but an extremely corrupt and dangerous dictatorship led by Hussein and his supporters.
That's not why we went in. The government claimed he had nukes. Not that he was corrupt and needed to be removed form power. He was the scapegoat.
They want to start a democratic government in the hopes of spreading democracy through the Middle East. Or, another reason is to have a base of operations in the Middle East, like an American Satellite.
Ok, I see but its not working and doesnt look to ever work. But then again, what terrorist group was in Iraq before the US invaded?Tjeremiah1988
Okay, no terrorist group but an extremely corrupt and dangerous dictatorship led by Hussein and his supporters.
That's not why we went in. The government claimed he had nukes. Not that he was corrupt and needed to be removed form power. He was the scapegoat.
OKAY, I realise that too. Part of me feels the same way as you. Another part of me thinks that we should believe in the soldiers reason for being there. We should not recognize any politicians as being part of a war but the actual soldiers and familys who are fighting for a noble cause they beleive in. But then I guess you have to look at why they are there and what hidden motives are real people dying for. And /contradicting myself repeatedly all over this thread
Well you can always go on the FBI website and read saddam's confession.. apparently he mislead people into thinking he had WMD's to protect himself from Iran.. of course I don't believe a bit of that.. how can you mislead something like that?
Log in to comment