Whats everyones opinions on the war in iraq

[Roadbuster Prime]

Just wondering, i havent been around here in a while, if this topic has been a heated one in the past i understand if you'll wanna delete it. Just wondering what everyones opinions were.

[Hot Shot]

The war was started with unfounded incorrect intellegence which was manipulated by Bush to give an excuse to raise oil prices, which was an act of repaying his buddies who helped him gain presidency. Aside from this deception, there is no excuse to be in Iraq as there is no true way to "eliminate terrorism", as there will always be copycats in the place of the fallen. I believe withdrawl should be effective immediately to save our troops and begin repaying the trillions of dollars in national debt.

Too...many...run-on sentences.*gasp!*

[Dayton3]

I'm for the war. WMDs or not.

And President Bush doesn't have a thing to do with oil prices.

Either that or I guess that President Clinton was forcing them up his last year in office as well.

[<3Starscream]

I think the war has become pointless. Yay, we defeated Sadam, so now we're going to keep our troops there trying to enforce a government that seemingly a lot of the people don't really want. Wasn't the war on terror started because we were trying to find Bin Ladin? What ever happened to that?

I used to be for the war. I was for ending terrorism and having our country be safe like it used to be. But now I think it's just a waste of time, money and lives, both on our side and the other side. How much progress have we made in the past couple months? All I've been hearing about are the amount of deaths a month. I remember hearing about some progress, was it..last year I think? But since then..nothing. Why bother if nothing's happening. It's just another Vietnam.

I heard some speech from Obama a couple days ago. When I heard it, I interpretted it this way:
He wants to end the war in Iraq and pull our troops out. After this is done, he wants us to re-focus on finding the REAL reason why all this mess was started and go to Pakistan...to start another war.
That may have nothing to do with this topic, but I found it rather interesting.

[Hot Shot]

I'm for the war. WMDs or not.

Do tell why you are.

And President Bush doesn't have a thing to do with oil prices.

Oil prices have skyrocketed from somewhere around $1.75 up to $3.00 over Bush's two terms, with the war as an excuse. He won't let america withdraw because he isn't through milking the profit. Bush is an oil tycoon, with profit first and people second. You can't tell me he isn't enjoying the high prices.

[Dayton3]

I'm for the war. WMDs or not.

Do tell why you are.

And President Bush doesn't have a thing to do with oil prices.

Oil prices have skyrocketed from somewhere around $1.75 up to $3.00 over Bush's two terms, with the war as an excuse. He won't let america withdraw because he isn't through milking the profit. Bush is an oil tycoon, with profit first and people second. You can't tell me he isn't enjoying the high prices.

Do you have any proof whatsoever that President Bush has any financial interests at all in oil prices?

And for what its worth, it is a matter of record,(just review the financial reports that oil companies and all corporations are required to file with the federal govt. ) that oil companies such as Exxon are earning about the same percentage of profit they always did. About 8%. Much less than a number of other large corporations.

Finally, you have presented no information whatsoever as to how the U.S. invasion of Iraq has affected oil prices AT AL!!

[Dayton3]

I'm for the war. WMDs or not.

Do tell why you are.

[.

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States who had continually violated the cease fire agreement to end the 1991 War.

Furthermore, he hideously abused his own people and supported terrorist acts against the U.S. and its allies.

Including giving money to the famlies of Palestinian terrorists who had murdered Americans in Israel and providing safe haven for known terrorists who had murdered Americans in the past such as Abu Nidal .

[Shanti418]

I'm for the war. WMDs or not.

Do tell why you are.

[.

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States who had continually violated the cease fire agreement to end the 1991 War. Furthermore, he hideously abused his own people and supported terrorist acts against the U.S. and its allies.

Yet most of the world advocated continued diplomacy. Whether or not he had violated the cease fire agreement, the Iraqi military was in no position to harm anyone. Any connections to terrorism or evidence of WMD have been nonexistant. There are other countries that violated agreements, UN sanctions and the like, often for far nastier things like "genocide" and we don't go in guns blazing there. Look at North Korea, which was defused (for the time being) by diplomacy. I'm not saying he wasn't a brutal dictator, just that he was one brutal dictator among many, only this one was sitting on oil, used to be in our back pocket, and wouldn't do what we told him to anymore.

Including giving money to the famlies of Palestinian terrorists who had murdered Americans in Israel and providing safe haven for known terrorists who had murdered Americans in the past such as Abu Nidal .

I believe you, but did President Bush go up there and say, "We're going to war in Iraq because he violated a cease fire agreement and because he let this guy who once killed Americans sleep in a spare palace?"

No, he said, "This guy has violated UN sanctions and we are in IMMINENT WMD WMD WMD WMD WMD danger that requires EXPEDIENT action and he knows Al Quaeda and did I mention 9/11? 9/11."

Keeping in mind of course, that the above reasons, nor the reasons you posited, nor the reasons Hot Rod posited are in acutality the reasons claimed right now. Right now, it's "We're bringing freedom and democracy to a strange land. Come, assimilate our Western ways and your centuries of democratic practice and socialization in a couple months!"

The problem is that if you let democracy actually WORK in Iraq, you have a Shiite government highly sympathetic to (or perhaps flat out in the back pocket of) Iran, which the US could ill affod politically or strategically.

[Roadbuster Prime]

alright guys, i guess its time to let the cat out of the bag. back in high school i used to post here as something else i think it had roadbuster in the name seeing as how that was my first G1 tf i ever had. thing is, im infantry, in the army, and i spent all of 06 in afghanistan and it was ridiculous. but, im headed to iraq in november. i just wanted to let you all know, that honestly i dont have a single opinion about this. like i honestly can only do what im told to, which sucks, becuase id rather be back here buying TF's and relaxing. so i want you all to know that the average fightin joe is just doin what hes told and agrees with all of you 100% and just made a crazy career mulligan. id like to say ive grown up alot since then, but only a little. anyways, ill be posting till the beginning of november, then itll be july or june of 08 when i talk to you next, good luck and godspeed to all of you

[sprunkner]

Good luck man. This is not what you might expect around here, but I'll keep you in my prayers.

I'm for the war. WMDs or not.

Do tell why you are.

[.

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States who had continually violated the cease fire agreement to end the 1991 War.

Furthermore, he hideously abused his own people and supported terrorist acts against the U.S. and its allies.

Including giving money to the famlies of Palestinian terrorists who had murdered Americans in Israel and providing safe haven for known terrorists who had murdered Americans in the past such as Abu Nidal .

Charles Taylor did things that rate with the worst of Saddam's atrocities. Why did the US never declare war on Liberia? For that matter, the presidency of Sudan is denying the genocide in Darfur--and threatening to withhold the exportation of gum arabic for Coke if the UN sanctions crack down. Why no war?

(That one actually does confuse me. If there's one thing that has to rate up high in the US economy, almost as high as oil, it's Coke.)

[spiderfrommars]

i used to post here as something else i think it had roadbuster in the name seeing as how that was my first G1 tf i ever had.

Welcome back.

good luck and godspeed to all of you

And to you.

[Hot Shot]

i used to post here as something else i think it had roadbuster in the name seeing as how that was my first G1 tf i ever had.

Welcome back.

good luck and godspeed to all of you

And to you.

Same here. Keep safe!

[Impactor returns 2.0]

the war is great, it gives me cheap oil, removes Islamic nutters and moves the war from my door step to some **** hole religous backwater

[Guest]

i used to post here as something else i think it had roadbuster in the name seeing as how that was my first G1 tf i ever had.

I name thee Roadbuster and General Roadbuster.

[Dayton3]

Good luck man. This is not what you might expect around here, but I'll keep you in my prayers.

Do tell why you are.

[.

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States who had continually violated the cease fire agreement to end the 1991 War.

Furthermore, he hideously abused his own people and supported terrorist acts against the U.S. and its allies.

Including giving money to the famlies of Palestinian terrorists who had murdered Americans in Israel and providing safe haven for known terrorists who had murdered Americans in the past such as Abu Nidal .

Charles Taylor did things that rate with the worst of Saddam's atrocities. Why did the US never declare war on Liberia? For that matter, the presidency of Sudan is denying the genocide in Darfur--and threatening to withhold the exportation of gum arabic for Coke if the UN sanctions crack down. Why no war?

(That one actually does confuse me. If there's one thing that has to rate up high in the US economy, almost as high as oil, it's Coke.)

The United States has no moral or ethical obligation to invade nations just because we invaded Iraq.

Thanks to U.S. bases and infrastructure in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Iraq was a doable invasion.

North Korea can't be attacked without the full cooperation of South Korea and they feel they have too much to lose in a war.

[sprunkner]

Yes, but as Shants pointed out, the idea that someone was a horrible dictator who actively campaigned against the US was not the premise for war. So why hold it up now?

You're holding up Saddam's crimes as a justification for the war. If the US has an ethical responsibility to take down horrible dictators who break cease-fires (from Gulf War 1, where our involvement was almost as dodgy as it is in this one) then, whether it's convenient or not, we need to intervene in African politics.

But we don't have an ethical responsibility to free the Iraqi people or the Liberians, ftm. We had a responsibility to defend our country from a supposed nuclear threat that DIDN'T EXIST, at least not on the level Bush and co made it apparent.

Who thinks the troops should get out ASAP, who thinks they should stay until it's stabilized, and who thinks something in between?

[Dayton3]

I think U.S. troops should remain in Iraq indefinitely. Things are improving there now. Another four years or so and Iraq might well be in decent shape.

Saddam Hussein had 25 years to wreck Iraq. It will take us awhile to fix it.

Wars have many reasons. Reasons that are often unstated to the public at the beginning but that doesn't make them any less real and justifiable.

World War I & II, Spanish/American War, the Civil War, The Mexican War.

All had underlying reasons that differed greatly from the "simple case for war presented to the American people".

But they were still quite valid.

[wideload]

Good luck man. This is not what you might expect around here, but I'll keep you in my prayers.

Do tell why you are.

[.

Saddam Hussein was an enemy of the United States who had continually violated the cease fire agreement to end the 1991 War.

Furthermore, he hideously abused his own people and supported terrorist acts against the U.S. and its allies.

Including giving money to the famlies of Palestinian terrorists who had murdered Americans in Israel and providing safe haven for known terrorists who had murdered Americans in the past such as Abu Nidal .

Charles Taylor did things that rate with the worst of Saddam's atrocities. Why did the US never declare war on Liberia? For that matter, the presidency of Sudan is denying the genocide in Darfur--and threatening to withhold the exportation of gum arabic for Coke if the UN sanctions crack down. Why no war?

(That one actually does confuse me. If there's one thing that has to rate up high in the US economy, almost as high as oil, it's Coke.)

Sudan is a bad example. There is a ton of oil there too.

I think the Republicans have always had it in for Saddam and his assassination attempt on George Bush Sr. definitely didn't help anything. I don't think the main issue is really oil. The simple truth is that the US has a vision of how the middle east should be. Iraq as the largest hostile military power was not part of that vision. The US saw a chance to deal with an enemy that had been a thorn in their sides for quite a while and they took the opportunity.

The US is a nation that imports energy so increased oil prices are not good for the US on the whole. Also the the increase in oil prices are primarily caused by increased demand from developing Asian economies. Iraq's decrease in production has easily been covered by massive increases in Canada and Saudi Arabia. Whether you are for or against the war this whole blood for oil argument is a little tired.

[Professor Smooth]

I think the war is pointless, illegal, immoral, that it has made things worse for the US and Iraq and that everyone who has died in this war have done so for nothing.

[Dayton3]

I think the war is pointless, illegal, immoral, that it has made things worse for the US and Iraq and that everyone who has died in this war have done so for nothing.

Well it is not illegal given that the U.S. Congress voted to authorize it.

[Kaylee]

I think the war is pointless, illegal, immoral, that it has made things worse for the US and Iraq and that everyone who has died in this war have done so for nothing.

Well it is not illegal given that the U.S. Congress voted to authorize it.

Randomly invading foreign countries without a specific UN sanction is on the dodgy side of legitimate, last time I looked, regardless of how Congress view it. The UN were not in agreement on how to handle the breach of sanctions by Iraq, the USA and Britain decided to act unilaterally on their interpretation of them (oh, with their interpretation backed by smaller nations which all owed them a favour... funny that).

IMO the case for going to war as it was made to the people was a complete stack of boloney, and those in question (who as the evidence, or lack thereof, now shows) willfully manipulated the facts to swing their own way (the 'dodgy dosier' for example). Heads should have rolled for that, also imo, but did not- despite several toothless inquiries in the UK which were almost as shameful as the barefaced lies we were told.

Excepting that and that those responsible sadly appear to have got away with it, I'm torn between feeling an obligation to Iraqis to help them rebuild their country which we very considerately obliterated for them and have brought to civil war in all but name (not much of an improvement over the previous regime, imo) and feeling an obligation to the soldiers we send to fight over there not to put them in harm's way unnecessarily.

Soldiers they are and they knew the risks of conflict when they signed up, but that doesn't mean we can just send them into worthless conflicts to get killed. Human life as a sacrifice must be a last resort imo.

I fear my final opinion may lie with just doing the best we can and then leaving them to it. Purely because as a power for 'nation building' we seem completely incapable and are merely causing more hassle as time goes on. Sadly that is irresponsible considering the damage we caused to the many many innocent lives out there, and probably just sacrificing the nation to Iran, but with our current track record we don't seem able to do much beyond perpetuate a state of limbo- the fledgling parliament we built against the fundamentalist nutjobs spewing into the nation from all sides and the poor bastards who live there caught in the middle.

So yar, in short a complete mess and however we cut it I sense this is a decision which will come back to bite us whichever way it goes.

[Legion]

I think the war is pointless, illegal, immoral, that it has made things worse for the US and Iraq and that everyone who has died in this war have done so for nothing.

Well it is not illegal given that the U.S. Congress voted to authorize it.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

On the same note, Hitlers invasion of Poland, Europe and Russia was 'legal' because the Nazi party backed it!

[Shanti418]

Excepting that and that those responsible sadly appear to have got away with it, I'm torn between feeling an obligation to Iraqis to help them rebuild their country which we very considerately obliterated for them and have brought to civil war in all but name (not much of an improvement over the previous regime, imo) and feeling an obligation to the soldiers we send to fight over there not to put them in harm's way unnecessarily.

And that's basically it in a nutshell, at this point.

I think U.S. troops should remain in Iraq indefinitely. Things are improving there now. Another four years or so and Iraq might well be in decent shape.

Things are improving in some ways, but it's not going to go beyond the "children playing nice while their parent is in the room" stage, ie IF we actually plan to get out at some point, things will disentigrate rapidly.
Another four years of pouring our GDP down a sucking money black hole of war, and PERHAPS Iraq will be in decent shape, but what shape will America be in? Are you saying that the Iraq War is the BEST way for us to spend our money and our lives? Are we fighting out of altruism, to "liberate the oppressed", for greed, or for a "violation of a cease fire agreement?"

Saddam Hussein had 25 years to wreck Iraq. It will take us awhile to fix it.

I know, right? And we only FUNDED HIM wrecking Iraq for half of that, because "at least he wasn't Iran."

Wars have many reasons. Reasons that are often unstated to the public at the beginning but that doesn't make them any less real and justifiable.

World War I & II, Spanish/American War, the Civil War, The Mexican War.

All had underlying reasons that differed greatly from the "simple case for war presented to the American people".

Well, the S/A War and the Mexican War were basically US land grabs, and this "underlying reason" was NOT presented to the public. What was INSTEAD shown to the public was raging nationalism, patriotism and the continuing myth that God has especially blessed the US (Mexican War), or the origin of the term "yellow journalism," where American government and media unfairly blamed Spain for 9/11, oops, I mean the sinking of the USS Maine, and then stoked feelings of revenge and anger to a crescendo pitch to help make their case for a "just war" popular. (Spanish American War).


World War I and II aren't really good comparisons considering they were already going when the US got in, although the sinking of the RMS Lusitania was much more of an "American people" reason than the Zimmerman telegram, and Pearl Harbor was the "American people" reason rather than the idea that Hitler's fascism needed to be stopped period.


The point is, although the "public" reason isn't always the correct one, that doesn't mean the "private" reason is the correct one by default and is right and justifiable, save WWII. History has shown the idea of an altruistic international war is a extremely rare one, if not an impossibility. [/b]

[Impactor returns 2.0]

we ****** it up, se we cant pull out out troops, just yet... - no one has given a decent enough argument for that yet.

[Brendocon]

i used to post here as something else i think it had roadbuster in the name seeing as how that was my first G1 tf i ever had.

I name thee Roadbuster and General Roadbuster.

Bizarrely, the moment I saw this topic I looked at the screen name and thought "hey, he's back." Without even bothering to check if I was sane or not.

I'm obviously more intuitive than I thought.

Welcome back!

[KingMob]

I'm reading a rather good book at the moment by a journalist who was in Bagdahd during the US led invasion, stayed on and has had access to everyone from Bremer downwards in the time since. It's Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone by Rajiv Chandrasekaran and I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the how the reconstruction of Iraq was approached, planned, and executed. It's fascinating.

Rajiv Chandrasekaran's book on the Green Zone shows how those ideological and political battles that were fought in Washington played out in Baghdad. And it reads sort of as a farce because what one sees is utterly unqualified people -- people either too young, inexperienced or chosen simply because they were cronies or ideological soul mates of someone in the administration -- were put in jobs, for example, to oversee the health system of Iraq and made decisions based more on what they know of the health system of Michigan. So there you see... the confusion and disconnection of Washington having very real and long-term consequences on the ground after the fall of Baghdad.

from npr.

excerpt: http://www.rajivc.com/excerpt.htm

[Legion]

Without even bothering to check if I was sane or not

I wouldn't bother with checking Brend... i never do...

[Yaya]

You know, I would add my two cents, but I feel if you can't see things for what they are now, you never will.

[Dayton3]

I would like to challenge people here.

Without looking it up or consulting any source (the honor system we'll use).....how many American soldiers do you think have died in the war in Iraq?