How do you feel about Iraq?

[SuperJerk 0]

I hated to start another Iraq thread, but I wanted to get a feel for where people around here stood on this issue, since its not the simple choice of "I support the war" or "I oppose the war" the media makes it out to be.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Not a place I'd like to move.

[Gary Floyd 0]

I'm not voting in TSM polls that don't have "La Parka" as an option.

[Slayer 0]

Not a place I'd like to move.

Moving a whole country is a tall task for anyone

[naiwf 0]

We never should have gone there, and should have left months ago. Only in America do we make sure that even our failures are spectacular by not admitting we made a mistake to begin with.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I was debating the grammar of that sentence, and when I was finally done analyzing it, I realized that leaving the modifier dangling was less awkward than say "Not a place to which I'd like to move" or "Not a place I'd like to move to". But, thanks for your vigilance, Czech!

[Slayer 0]

thanks for your vigilance, Czech!

No problem, Eric

[2GOLD 0]

I thought we were right to go, but that we botched it royally. We are just kinda sitting there until it's time to go, which I honestly think a date has already been set in private between us and the Iraqi government. I just don't think we nor they want us to be stupid enough to announce when we are leaving.

[NoCalMike 0]

We were wrong to invade, and need the administration to show some actual leadership and set an objective, STICK TO IT, accomplish it, and get the fuck out. I swear the objective keeps changing everytime something else in Iraq goes wrong.

[EricMM 0]

If this becomes another Korea, where we keep people there forever (50 years)

 

Will it be seen as a failure.

[NoCalMike 0]

If this becomes another Korea, where we keep people there forever (50 years)

 

Will it be seen as a failure.

 

 

Well the fact that we are building military bases over there should be a hint that we aren't REALLY leaving anytime soon.

[Art Sandusky 0]

We're not building bases because of any difficulties, we're building bases in order to influence the area for as long as possible. Come on, isn't it obvious?

 

We never should have gone, and we need to leave as soon as we can. Iraq is like a rodeo bull and we're the rope around his nuts. Remove it and let the bull relax and live its life like any other bull. They'll have a much easier time sorting out their true differences and coming to REAL compromises that will be far more durable in the long run once we're gone. Think about this like the average Iraqi, and think about all of the things you have to consider in your daily life.

 

First, you've got these foreign soldiers walking around, and they've been walking around now for over three years. They said their mission was accomplished right around this time three years ago, but are still here. Now, thanks to nutjobs who really hate that country that's occupying you, you have to consider that today may be the last day you step out your front door. Your bus might get blown away or something. Sure, you can say this is a worry here too, but you'd have to have balls of steel to compare the dangers posed daily in Baghdad to, say, Chicago or New York. Baghdad is comparable size to Chicago, but that's all. Oh yeah, hopefully you'll still have power and water when you get home, and this whole thing is predicated on you having a job where the unemployment is still incredibly high. "Hey, at least Sadaam made the trains run on time."

 

I kid, I'm glad he's gone, even though it was pre-emptive on our part. But now, in June of 2006, we need to get the fuck outta there as soon as possible. Like John Murtha said, we've done all we can do and need to just leave. I can't think of more positives than negatives for continuing to stay there, so what, or who, is driving this stay-the-course, base-building official philosophy that we have on Iraq?

[Dobbs 3K 0]

They can't leave until the Iraqi government is on solid footing. Otherwise would be like going into someone's house, wrecking the place, admitting you made a mistake, and then leaving without helping them repair their house.

[Guest SavageRulz]

IMHO, we were right to invade, and it would be disgraceful if we didn't stay until the job was done.

 

Problem is, there seems to be disagreement on the meaning of the word "done".

[Guest SavageRulz]

We're not building bases because of any difficulties, we're building bases in order to influence the area for as long as possible. Come on, isn't it obvious?

 

We never should have gone, and we need to leave as soon as we can. Iraq is like a rodeo bull and we're the rope around his nuts. Remove it and let the bull relax and live its life like any other bull. They'll have a much easier time sorting out their true differences and coming to REAL compromises that will be far more durable in the long run once we're gone. Think about this like the average Iraqi, and think about all of the things you have to consider in your daily life.

 

First, you've got these foreign soldiers walking around, and they've been walking around now for over three years. They said their mission was accomplished right around this time three years ago, but are still here. Now, thanks to nutjobs who really hate that country that's occupying you, you have to consider that today may be the last day you step out your front door. Your bus might get blown away or something. Sure, you can say this is a worry here too, but you'd have to have balls of steel to compare the dangers posed daily in Baghdad to, say, Chicago or New York. Baghdad is comparable size to Chicago, but that's all. Oh yeah, hopefully you'll still have power and water when you get home, and this whole thing is predicated on you having a job where the unemployment is still incredibly high. "Hey, at least Sadaam made the trains run on time."

 

I kid, I'm glad he's gone, even though it was pre-emptive on our part. But now, in June of 2006, we need to get the fuck outta there as soon as possible. Like John Murtha said, we've done all we can do and need to just leave. I can't think of more positives than negatives for continuing to stay there, so what, or who, is driving this stay-the-course, base-building official philosophy that we have on Iraq?

 

If the new Iraqi government tells us it's time to leave, then I have no problem with leaving. They haven't, so we haven't. They obviously feel we are still a big help to them and that they need us to continue on. When they are ready to fly, they can kick us out of the nest. I don't think they want us to stay there any longer than is necessary.

 

I have no problem with Iraq controlling it's own destiny. If after we leave, they want to become a religious state, then so be it. It's not my choice, and I would hope that they would embrace "freedom", but we cannot dictate that they do it "our way". We can plant the seed, but we cannot sit there and watch over it, watering it, pruning it, and spraying it for disease as it flourishes. It's the Iraqi government's and the Iraqi people's job to tend the seed and watch it flourish or wither.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I just started working for a contractor that does lots of work in Iraq, primarily in counterinsurgency-themed opinion polling and media analysis. A friend of mine is working for the same company, but he's actually over in Baghdad. To quote a recent e-mail he sent me:

 

"If, on a scale of 1-100, an ideal, functioning egalitarian democracy is 100, and Adam Smith's state of nature is 1, the US is about an 85, 87. Iraq is a 9."

 

Iraq is a mess. It's overloaded with graft and corruption to an extent we can't even really conceive of here. The shit I read about at work everyday, the kind of stuff we're trying to fix, is absurd. It was a mess before we got there, but it's a different kind of mess now. The US isn't going to be able to make a serious impact over there without an even more massive amount of soldiers and something akin to martial law. I don't think that's going to happen. Leaving will ensure the country collapsing, but staying might accomplish the same thing, only with Americans getting killed.

 

I, of course, voted that the US needs to stay, because I don't want to lose my job. Suckas.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I ultimately chose option 3, but, as the first post eluded to, it's not a very cut and dry issue. I thought somewhere between options 2 and 3, being a thorny issue on either side.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I think we should be worried the more and more we hear that Q-word in relation to Iraq.

[Guest Hemme]

We were wrong, simple as.

 

Now first off before we invaded, yes invaded, not liberated, I raq wasnt a happy place full of rainbows & pink bunnies, it was often very hostile towards the west, however it wasnt a country we needed to invade, the WMDs excuse was wafer thin & has been proved so.

Saddam was a nast peice of work no question & a lot of people have died because of him, thing is the same could be said of Bush & Blair those two have caused the death of hundreds of soldiers & thousands of Iraqis, with their evidence to go to war being disproved should they face a war crimes court too?

 

Bottom line is we took a relitivly stable country & plunged it into civil war, was it really worth it?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If the new Iraqi government tells us it's time to leave, then I have no problem with leaving. They haven't, so we haven't. They obviously feel we are still a big help to them and that they need us to continue on. When they are ready to fly, they can kick us out of the nest. I don't think they want us to stay there any longer than is necessary.

 

Newsweek--A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations. Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Well thanks to the lack of foresight by Bush and his crew we CAN'T leave ever! Iran is just waiting in the wings and will take the opportunity to invade while the new Iraq is still trying to define itself. If we leave it will be a theocracy before we know it. What a fucking disaster. This was and still is a no win situation.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

You mean the Iraqis weren't all just waiting to turn into Coca-Cola drinking, tan skinned Americans???

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You mean the Iraqis weren't all just waiting to turn into Coca-Cola drinking, tan skinned Americans???

 

 

The real question is: When will the Iraqis finally get WWE 24/7 on their local cable provider? Oh wait, that's just me.

[SuperJerk 0]

No new evidence WMDs were stockpiled

Intelligence officials say the records on prewar Iraq come in a partly declassified report.

 

A new, partly declassified intelligence report provides no new evidence that Saddam Hussein stockpiled weapons of mass destruction just before the U.S.-led invasion, U.S. intelligence officials said Thursday.

 

The report says that about 500 munitions containing degraded chemical weapons have been found in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion.

 

But the officials said the munitions dated from before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and were for the most part badly deteriorated.

 

“They are not in a condition where they could be used as designed,” one official said.

 

The officials from three agencies briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.

 

The chief U.S. weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, predicted in a March 2005 report that such vintage weapons would continue to be found.

 

The report was written by the Army National Ground Intelligence Center.

 

Its key points were declassified at the request of the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican. He and Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican, released it this week.

 

Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, contended Thursday that Republicans’ release of the report was a last-ditch effort to justify the war. “Rolling out some old fairly toxic stuff sounds to me like a desperate claim by those who wish that we could find some new way to rationalize the ongoing devastation in Iraq,” she said.

 

Santorum and Hoekstra did not return calls requesting comment Thursday in response to the officials.

 

“This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding,” Santorum told a news conference Wednesday. “It is important for the American public to understand that these weapons did in fact exist, were present in the country, and were in fact and continue to be a threat to us.”

 

The officials said the munitions had been found in groups of one and two, indicating that they had been discarded.

 

One of the declassified key points says that the munitions could be sold on the black market.

 

But one official said there was “no evidence that any element of the insurgency was in possession of these kinds of munitions.”

 

Duelfer’s report said that although the munitions might be effective as terrorist weapons, they did not pose a “militarily significant threat” and could not cause mass casualties.

 

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...on/14881024.htm

 

I thought this was worth mentioning.

[cbacon 0]

There were also weapons (provided by the U.S. and Britain) in Iraq which had previously been secured by UN inspectors, but were later disregarded by the U.S. after the invasion. They were eventually looted

[The Amazing Rando 0]

Well thanks to the lack of foresight by Bush and his crew we CAN'T leave ever! Iran is just waiting in the wings and will take the opportunity to invade while the new Iraq is still trying to define itself. If we leave it will be a theocracy before we know it. What a fucking disaster. This was and still is a no win situation.

 

Ding ding ding. Mainly for the "no win situation" thing.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Definitely right to invade.

Hussein violated UN sanctions, the UN did nothing about it, so the US (along with British help) eradicated the problem.

 

Ask the rest of the world how much safer they'd feel if Saddam was controlling Iraq, with that Iranian nut sitting right next to him.

 

In hindsight, I'm very happy the coalition did what they did. The Middle East needs to be brought into the modern world, and Iraq is an example (free elections), that will pay dividends for years to come. Having a strong allie in that part of the world is very important globally.

 

Democracy takes time. Sheesh, it took the US like 12 years before they finally won the Revolutionary War and had any semblance of a free country.

 

Iraq hasnt had democracy in how long? Forever. Its going to take awhile, but I'm happy for the Iraqi people. No one should live under conditions where the Dictator uses chemical weapons on their own people.

 

Now some might say "Its not our problem", but when Hussein threatens global economics (and he does since he sits on the World's primary energy source), steps need to be taken to fix the problem.

 

I support the US Troops, the President, and the decisions made.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This is going to cause some shock, but I think we had the right to invade just because, well, we have the right to start an invasion with whoever we want to. But, I think that right should only be flexed with good reason and intelligent planning, and neither of those were applied here. We rushed in sooner than we should have because some powerful people couldn't hold their shit together long enough to even plan strategies before we went in there. It isn't the most lethal war ever, but it could have been if the enemy was any kind of real organized force instead of some rag-tag militia.

 

There's little excuse to be there now, though. Iraq has a government, there's no more transitionary elections coming up, it's time to back out. The last guy probably won't leave until after we're dead, much like other former warzones where we still have some presence in the region. However, either these people must put aside their race feuds and decide to have some organization in their lives, or the whole thing crumbles and it becomes a mess with no clear rule.

 

If the latter happens, though, it would be time to consider if perhaps Iraq really would rather live in this kind of anarchy since they certainly had the choice to cooperate with themselves.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

I think we had the right to invade just because, well, we have the right to start an invasion with whoever we want to.

 

This is why the rest of the world hates you.

 

Not that you care or anything.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think we had the right to invade just because, well, we have the right to start an invasion with whoever we want to.

 

This is why the rest of the world hates you.

 

Not that you care or anything.

It's certainly nothing exclusive to us. Just about any other sovereign nation can use or not use it's military as it sees fit.