-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Why Are We At War With Iraq?
- Thread starter jr602az
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 13,333
- Reaction score
- 1,835
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Huh? Tell that to the people who have family over there fighting or who have loved ones that died in this useless war
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 1,462
- Reaction score
- 260
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There are just so many reasons: We didn't want Saddam to use a WMD or sell it to some of the other freaks in the region, which gave us an excuse to invade and gain control over the oil, which helped us develop a democracy, trading partner, we developed our military strategy and R&D, we are gaining valuable intel in the region. I mean...there are so many clear reasons and value adds that I have to ask why we would we not want to go to war in Iraq? Iran is next hopefully too. We need to fight as that is what we Americans do. We will put a bullet in your arse like Toby Keith said, because it's the American way from the revolutionary war, civil war, spanish american, ww1, and 2, korean and almost ww3 (bay of pigs), Vietnam, persian gulf and probably I missed a few, but war is an art that we do to survive either directly or projecting our strength to arseholes like enemies in the past: Putin and potential future enemies: Hugo MACHO Chavez and akmamamiaakminajihad the leader in Iran. It's a necessary art we choose to do and that is why we are on top. OH SAY CAN YOU SEE, BY THE DAWNS EARLY LIGHT...
jr602az
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 21
- Location
- Phoenix,Az USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Iraq's had a vote in 2006 or 7 about our troops getting out of Iraq. The vote's where 80% for our troops to get out of Iraq but Bush ignored the vote's.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,480
- Reaction score
- 14,676
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Cite please
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,496
- Reaction score
- 1,878
- Location
- DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Slant drilling hardly qualifies as aggression. I'm aware of Iran and Iraq's past tensions. America and Britain have had tensions on numerous occasions. This wouldn't justify a war.
Never said that he would've gotten it. However, with his history, he probably would've created more trouble in the future
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,845
- Reaction score
- 12,625
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Really? Somebody started this thread and didn't invite me early on? I can't believe that there are people out there still clinging to their designed hypocrisies and ignorance. This isn't a Bush thing. Not a Clinton thing. It is an American thing. The choices?
-Oil? Sure.
-9/11? Sure.
-Atomic Bomb? Sure.
I Don't Know? C'mon.
When 9/11 happened, our critics (weak Americans as well), lunged at the opportunity to blame America for its behaviors during the Cold War. They whined and complained about our "supports" and our outright decisions to cater to "our" dictators as we rushed to beat the Soviets to the punch at their own game. But with the game won, none of these hypocritical oil using whiners complained about the twelve year game in the Middle East as we maintained Saddam Hussein for the UN's mindless, corrupt, and cowardly prescription upon an entire region in the name of "stability." Nobody cared about any starving Iraqi for twelve years ("No War For Oil," but starvation and oppression for oil while looking away seemed just fine). Deployed military units in "Kurdistan" to aid in the humanitarian crisis Hussein caused was just as fine as well. Dictating his comings and goings was just fine too. And every time Hussein played his games and sent his troops towards the borders, it didn't matter that we continually and exponentially raised the number of troops in the desert.
But come Osama Bin Laden's misleading and scapegoat making love letter to these critics, and they bit. They gave it legitimacy and pointed at America. They "understood" his anger at how America had behaved over the decades during the Cold War (while delivering careful disclaimers that no one deserves a 9/11 type attack upon them.) They could "understand" where America needs to correct itself. Of course, Bin Laden's declarations that the "starving children of Iraq" and the "presence of American troops" in the Middle East quickly got shoved out of focus when it came time to correct and address just that. Quickly, Hussein's "sovereignty" (as if he really had any for twelve years) became more important than correcting past mistakes. Suddenly our Cold War mistakes they used to preach about became insignificant. The hypocrites were shown for exactly what they were - Leftist preachers without conviction (Of course, a religious preacher seems to never be able to escape a mistake by them.)
Those that have studied this region and understands it's historical importance to the world and the tribal allegiances that cause so much turmoil and slaughter over the decades and centuries, understand that Iraq's current given opportunities represent perhaps the last chance this Arab region has to get it right. There were many reasons for Iraq....
1) WMD was the excuse, but without definitive proof to counter the dictator's lies, who had authorized his military jets to fly over Saudi and Jordanian air space as late as 2002, it was go time.
2) This failed region needed a shock in the right direction and with Iraq's population of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, it was go time. And since this involved a Syrian and Iranian support to encourage violence between the tribes as we became audience to an entire region of fighters traveling for the chance to kill and American or a rival Muslim tribe (gang) member, their failure or success will prove more about their capabilities as a regional people than it does about American might (but be prepared when our critics speak on the weakness of America when it comes to absolving an entire Arab society of their personal responsibilities).
3) Oil? We were getting it just fine beforehand so.....whatever. If this is what the critics cling to as they pump gas, fill their houses with plastics, and electronics then this should shed more light on our ignorant critics than anything else. Unless....their point is that Saudi Arabia's "stability" was a (the?) goal, which seems to be too much for our simpleton critics to portray so I'll do it for them. But...let's move on.
Given that America didn't simply seek the next dictator to take over after the last one proved too troublesome to the region, maybe our critics have been too harsh about the whole affair. Maybe giving these tribal "nomads" an opportunity they would not have gotten otherwise (we owed them this since the Gulf War by the way) proves that we are and have moved on from the UN's idea of what is supposed to bring "stability" to entire regions. (Oh...and in case people want to come to the rescue of the UN.....didn't they just complain to the international court about their call for Bashir's arrest because it may disrupt the "stability" operations going on in Darfur? That’s UN justice. ..so screw your UN defenses.)
But in the end, our critics will scream and complain about the same old boring things. They will continue to refuse responsibilities towards Arabs as they scream that they wouldn't have slaughtered each other if only America continued to deface its values and continued to embrace and maintain the brutal and oppressive dictator. If only America would have continued to carry the burden for the rest of the Western world and blindly obeyed the UN's prescriptions upon entire regions then this oppressive, brittle religiously concreted, and exponentially terrorists embracing Arab civilization between Cairo and Islamabad would have seen the light and delivered itself beyond its black hole existence. And they will deny this region’s historical thirst for slaughter while arguing that religious monsters at every level would deny their God his ultimate tribal weapon. Or that oil really doesn’t matter all that much on a global scale (World Wars can be started over assassinations, border arguments, or national embarrassments but never over a valuable global resource or God, you see).
President Bush wasn’t the great thinker. And he certainly couldn't recognize when his advisors represented the absolute definition of the worst our nation's leaders had to offer. Bush made the correct decision to end our overdue Cold War mission in Iraq. We wound up doing a good thing very badly – thanks to the Rumsfeld coven of misfits and idiots. And it is this badly that most critics focus on. Unable to fathom an understanding of this civilization or what we were doing for the past twelve years, they will remain aghast over what was inevitably going to happen one way or another. It was good for our long term security because this region was quickly embracing the dark side of humanity and Iraq produced an opportunity. It was good for Iraqis because after almost a century of being forced together within unnatural borders and decades under “our” dictator’s bayonets, it was time to let them sort out their tribal hatreds and just maybe become the example for the rest of the Middle East (in which plenty of moderate Arab Muslims have been seeking). But even with our action in 2003, seeking the foreign devil to blame for all their failures may had reached a point irreversible for this civilization without mass civilizational slaughter. Pakistan’s tribes place a huge question mark upon nuclear weapons while living through a cold war with India’s nuclear arms. Iran’s religious monsters are seeking the nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia and Egypt represent the Arab strength in the region and will not sit on the nuclear sidelines with Iran in the race. Nuclear religious toys are on the way. Men like Osama Bin Laden are plenty in this region. Dropping 4 airliners on American soil was quite satisfying for his media goal and his God. I guess his God doesn't rate a good old fashioned mushroom cloud?
Our long term security is dependent upon a truly stable Middle East. Not the UN’s idea of stability but the same kind of stability the rest of the modern and successful world has. One without dictators behind their militaries. One without a nuclear Cold War. And one without the exponentially growing religious fanaticism that oppression and ignorance breeds. Saddam Hussein was as much the answer to this region's problems as Osama Bin Laden.
And Europe? Bordering neighbors of this region? They believe that they can halt the negative flow of this region simply by ignoring the obvious thorns or by stopping a small locally groomed terrorist plot in their nations. But they are wrong. At least we have the Atlantic Ocean. Even England has the English Channel.
-Oil? Sure.
-9/11? Sure.
-Atomic Bomb? Sure.
I Don't Know? C'mon.
When 9/11 happened, our critics (weak Americans as well), lunged at the opportunity to blame America for its behaviors during the Cold War. They whined and complained about our "supports" and our outright decisions to cater to "our" dictators as we rushed to beat the Soviets to the punch at their own game. But with the game won, none of these hypocritical oil using whiners complained about the twelve year game in the Middle East as we maintained Saddam Hussein for the UN's mindless, corrupt, and cowardly prescription upon an entire region in the name of "stability." Nobody cared about any starving Iraqi for twelve years ("No War For Oil," but starvation and oppression for oil while looking away seemed just fine). Deployed military units in "Kurdistan" to aid in the humanitarian crisis Hussein caused was just as fine as well. Dictating his comings and goings was just fine too. And every time Hussein played his games and sent his troops towards the borders, it didn't matter that we continually and exponentially raised the number of troops in the desert.
But come Osama Bin Laden's misleading and scapegoat making love letter to these critics, and they bit. They gave it legitimacy and pointed at America. They "understood" his anger at how America had behaved over the decades during the Cold War (while delivering careful disclaimers that no one deserves a 9/11 type attack upon them.) They could "understand" where America needs to correct itself. Of course, Bin Laden's declarations that the "starving children of Iraq" and the "presence of American troops" in the Middle East quickly got shoved out of focus when it came time to correct and address just that. Quickly, Hussein's "sovereignty" (as if he really had any for twelve years) became more important than correcting past mistakes. Suddenly our Cold War mistakes they used to preach about became insignificant. The hypocrites were shown for exactly what they were - Leftist preachers without conviction (Of course, a religious preacher seems to never be able to escape a mistake by them.)
Those that have studied this region and understands it's historical importance to the world and the tribal allegiances that cause so much turmoil and slaughter over the decades and centuries, understand that Iraq's current given opportunities represent perhaps the last chance this Arab region has to get it right. There were many reasons for Iraq....
1) WMD was the excuse, but without definitive proof to counter the dictator's lies, who had authorized his military jets to fly over Saudi and Jordanian air space as late as 2002, it was go time.
2) This failed region needed a shock in the right direction and with Iraq's population of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, it was go time. And since this involved a Syrian and Iranian support to encourage violence between the tribes as we became audience to an entire region of fighters traveling for the chance to kill and American or a rival Muslim tribe (gang) member, their failure or success will prove more about their capabilities as a regional people than it does about American might (but be prepared when our critics speak on the weakness of America when it comes to absolving an entire Arab society of their personal responsibilities).
3) Oil? We were getting it just fine beforehand so.....whatever. If this is what the critics cling to as they pump gas, fill their houses with plastics, and electronics then this should shed more light on our ignorant critics than anything else. Unless....their point is that Saudi Arabia's "stability" was a (the?) goal, which seems to be too much for our simpleton critics to portray so I'll do it for them. But...let's move on.
Given that America didn't simply seek the next dictator to take over after the last one proved too troublesome to the region, maybe our critics have been too harsh about the whole affair. Maybe giving these tribal "nomads" an opportunity they would not have gotten otherwise (we owed them this since the Gulf War by the way) proves that we are and have moved on from the UN's idea of what is supposed to bring "stability" to entire regions. (Oh...and in case people want to come to the rescue of the UN.....didn't they just complain to the international court about their call for Bashir's arrest because it may disrupt the "stability" operations going on in Darfur? That’s UN justice. ..so screw your UN defenses.)
But in the end, our critics will scream and complain about the same old boring things. They will continue to refuse responsibilities towards Arabs as they scream that they wouldn't have slaughtered each other if only America continued to deface its values and continued to embrace and maintain the brutal and oppressive dictator. If only America would have continued to carry the burden for the rest of the Western world and blindly obeyed the UN's prescriptions upon entire regions then this oppressive, brittle religiously concreted, and exponentially terrorists embracing Arab civilization between Cairo and Islamabad would have seen the light and delivered itself beyond its black hole existence. And they will deny this region’s historical thirst for slaughter while arguing that religious monsters at every level would deny their God his ultimate tribal weapon. Or that oil really doesn’t matter all that much on a global scale (World Wars can be started over assassinations, border arguments, or national embarrassments but never over a valuable global resource or God, you see).
President Bush wasn’t the great thinker. And he certainly couldn't recognize when his advisors represented the absolute definition of the worst our nation's leaders had to offer. Bush made the correct decision to end our overdue Cold War mission in Iraq. We wound up doing a good thing very badly – thanks to the Rumsfeld coven of misfits and idiots. And it is this badly that most critics focus on. Unable to fathom an understanding of this civilization or what we were doing for the past twelve years, they will remain aghast over what was inevitably going to happen one way or another. It was good for our long term security because this region was quickly embracing the dark side of humanity and Iraq produced an opportunity. It was good for Iraqis because after almost a century of being forced together within unnatural borders and decades under “our” dictator’s bayonets, it was time to let them sort out their tribal hatreds and just maybe become the example for the rest of the Middle East (in which plenty of moderate Arab Muslims have been seeking). But even with our action in 2003, seeking the foreign devil to blame for all their failures may had reached a point irreversible for this civilization without mass civilizational slaughter. Pakistan’s tribes place a huge question mark upon nuclear weapons while living through a cold war with India’s nuclear arms. Iran’s religious monsters are seeking the nuclear bomb. Saudi Arabia and Egypt represent the Arab strength in the region and will not sit on the nuclear sidelines with Iran in the race. Nuclear religious toys are on the way. Men like Osama Bin Laden are plenty in this region. Dropping 4 airliners on American soil was quite satisfying for his media goal and his God. I guess his God doesn't rate a good old fashioned mushroom cloud?
Our long term security is dependent upon a truly stable Middle East. Not the UN’s idea of stability but the same kind of stability the rest of the modern and successful world has. One without dictators behind their militaries. One without a nuclear Cold War. And one without the exponentially growing religious fanaticism that oppression and ignorance breeds. Saddam Hussein was as much the answer to this region's problems as Osama Bin Laden.
And Europe? Bordering neighbors of this region? They believe that they can halt the negative flow of this region simply by ignoring the obvious thorns or by stopping a small locally groomed terrorist plot in their nations. But they are wrong. At least we have the Atlantic Ocean. Even England has the English Channel.
Last edited:
LowRevs
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 83
- Location
- Downeast in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Wow, Gunny! That just about says it all!
I said from the beginning that I thought going into Iraq was ingenious. I agree about Rumsfeld; he was into streamlining the military and missed the more pressing issues. Prognosis looks much better now that Gen. Petraeus has developed an intelligent plan. It was always about security at the community level.
Afghanistan seems to be all about drugs.
Your description of the tribal strife leads me to ask your opinion of the latest from the Brits in regard to Libya. I just heard that they have had SAS training Libyan troops in counterinsurgency techniques. This seems outrageous to me. I don't trust them, Libya. Have an opinion?:lol:
I said from the beginning that I thought going into Iraq was ingenious. I agree about Rumsfeld; he was into streamlining the military and missed the more pressing issues. Prognosis looks much better now that Gen. Petraeus has developed an intelligent plan. It was always about security at the community level.
Afghanistan seems to be all about drugs.
Your description of the tribal strife leads me to ask your opinion of the latest from the Brits in regard to Libya. I just heard that they have had SAS training Libyan troops in counterinsurgency techniques. This seems outrageous to me. I don't trust them, Libya. Have an opinion?:lol:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,111
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
We AREN'T at war with Iraq. This is a loaded question.
We are not at war with IRAQ, first of all. Second of all, what is going on right now is not a war. People dying in a country does not mean we are at war with that country nor does that mean there is a war.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yeah, the reason we're in Iraq is oil.
.......and?
Since when is energy not worth waring over?
.......and?
Since when is energy not worth waring over?
JW Frogen
Banned
- Joined
- May 30, 2009
- Messages
- 669
- Reaction score
- 312
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Unless one considers the term Iraq to be Saddam or the Baithist power structure that served him, I do not think we were at war with Iraq.
Certainly the majority of Iraqis who hated Saddam, that would be Shia and Kurds, would not say so.
Certainly the majority of Iraqis who hated Saddam, that would be Shia and Kurds, would not say so.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 7,059
- Reaction score
- 2,412
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Having no declaration of war does not preclude military actions.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,845
- Reaction score
- 12,625
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Funny isn't it? All of Europe can drive the world into global destruction and mayhem over territory disputes and an assassination. Then twenty years later the same players can drive the entire globe into more destruction and slaughter over national embarrassaments. But taking out a single dictator that was constantly causing problems for the globe's most valuable resource, which drives the modern and technological world forward, is supposed to be unthinkable. Our critics have no perspective at all.
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,845
- Reaction score
- 12,625
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I detest Rumsfeld and his team of misfits. Iraq began to turn around the moment he "retired" and Lake, Patreaus, and Nasr grabbed the wheel. Three men that understood the region and understood the value of a military man's guidance during war.
Well, the problem we are having in this region is the same we always have everywhere. Without actually being the "world policemen," which our ignorant critics enjoy accusing us of, we have to trust what we can. This "war on terror" (horrible name, by the way) has to involve local governments doing their part at least in the barest minimum terms. If the Libyan government will crack down a bit on their home grown terrorists or attempt to introduce some modernism in exchange for "favors" then this lightens our load in the long term.
This is where people criticize and point out the Tali-Bans or the Saddam Husseins of the world who embrace our help and aid and then turn on us later. But in the end, none of the people we have ever helped have ever caused us great trouble. They have never been able to use any equipment effectively against us and they have certainly not been able to go toe to toe with us on any training combative level.
The Brits have trained some counter insurgency methods to Libyans, but they have not trained them in the art of effective "Combined Arms" or efffective small leadership training on the battle field. They are as effective at big and small size warfare as the Iraqis or the Tali-Ban were. When militaries go up against each other, one of the most and constant overlooked ingredient in history is culture. The British and the Americans have a military culture as strong as our culture for peace. It's a careful balance that few in history have been able to create. These nation's that have benefitted from our assistance in a military manner will never be a threat to us.
I have another comment when it comes to tribe....
This may offend many, many people but history's longest lasting "peaces" have only come after enough slaughter has gone on. Even one of Europe's longest lasting peaces in history has occured between the years of 1945 to the present. These tribes in the Middle East are no different. But we are working against human nature when it comes to this region. Some (Ralph Peters, Bernard Lewis, etc.) have even commented that we are on the wrong side of history. Since WWII, we have struggled to maintain the "peace" in this region and introduce a sense of "stability" at any cost (even in terms of our own values) and no matter who it hurt. These tribes have been held in check only temporarily. Removing the dictator in Iraq shows us exactly what this region is itching to do. And sooner or later it may come down to us simply backing off and allowing them to sort out their own messes no matter how long the oil stops flowing or how much Muslim blood stains the desert.
And this isn't just a Middle Eastern phenomena. In Bosnia, we are engaged in peacekeeping missions to keep the tribes seperated. This is a temporary delay of tribal violence. It was this region that sparked off World War I. It was this region that held the only nation in Europe not to have its borders redrawn after World War II (Yugoslavia). It was this region that saw America force the UN out and drag NATO in to introduce a measure of control (however temporary) until borders could get established.
I bring up this region outside of the Middle East to demonstrate the world we are currently living in and what will shape our future wars. We are in a very bizarre age. Our technology and our social equalities in the West are in conflict with what we see in the backwards territories where tribe is steering entire regions. Mix that tribe with intense religion and it's the "Crusades-meets-the-21st-century." Imagine the Crusades with nuclear weapons. You think Christians or Muslims would have refrained from using the best weapon available? Doesn't "God" deserve it?
Today's tribes have inherited bad borders imagined and created by Kings, Czars, and Kaisers. They slashed lines across maps out of greed. Mountain ranges and rivers acted as guides. Nobody cared about the tribes. People who hated each other for centuries were forced to live together under threat of outside violence. People who had lived together peacefully for centuries were all of sudden ripped apart and seperated. Today, these borders have introduced a sense of nationalism where tribes are screaming ownership over same territories. If one were to draw a circle around the Kurds, one would see a chunk of eastern Syria, southern Turkey, western Iran, and northern Iraq form into one of the largest nations in the region. Iraq is divided amongst tribes. Pakistan is simply a mess. As is Afghanistan. Pakistan and India feud over territory that shouoldn't belong to either one, but to the tribe that is divided in half by the bad border that divides it. But our western idea of borders is that they don't change and must remain intact no matter what violence it pushes forward.
People have this idea that the Middle East is a mess because of the Shah of Iran or Saudi support. Do they really think any Sunni Arab cares about any Shia or Persian? Or that any Persian cares that we get our oil from the Sauds? Do they even consider the fact that no terrorist organization places any effort in lobbying or protesting their governments publicly, but prefer to blame and war against the "foriegn devil?" The truth is that history is the proof. The Soviets blatanlty prescribed oppression and religious persecution in the Muslim lands for centuries. As late as WWII, they refused to leave Iran and Turkey (starting the Cold War) and it took us to force them out. through diplomacy. In the Caucasus, Muslims (hundreds of millions of Muslims) were persecuted and denied religious freedoms during the Cold War. But America is hated? We are the scapegoat. We are the excuse. Because without us...they have themselves (and God?) to blame.
Today's world is a mess because of bad borders and tribal frustration. Mix God into it and the entire struggle becomes convoluted, confusing, and vastly more deadlier.
And what do our critics state even to this day? The simple crap they heard from their favorite ignorant commentator on TV or their favorite politician who is actually more concerned with elections, personal paychecks, and media attention than understanding his world outside our natural borders.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,111
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
You are missing the point. We are not fighting a war against Iraq. Fighting in Iraq does not mean fighting against Iraq.
jr602az
Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2009
- Messages
- 162
- Reaction score
- 21
- Location
- Phoenix,Az USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Then why hell are there so many Thousands of people dieing in Iraq for no f****** Reason. WHY!!! No one knows or maybe but its sure is stupid to know why.
We Must Stop troops from fighting in Iraq and worried more about Afghanistan so we can capture Osama or if we don't then he will have more power.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,111
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Oh my God you are so clueless. I don't even want to begin explaining things to you. At the start of the war in Iraq we were fighting against the Iraqi government (which we overthrew) but now we are not fighting them. We set up a new government there. We are fighting terrorists there, not Iraq itself. We have actually been working WITH the new Iraqi government.
There have been around 4,500 american deaths since the start of the war. Thousands have DIED, but thousands aren't CURRENTLY dying in Iraq. You have your timeline mixed up I presume.
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,706
- Reaction score
- 1,400
- Location
- Ventura California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
All you have to do is vote and explain why
I would vote but the REAL reasons we are in Iraq was not a poll choice.
But I always enjoy a good laugh at an attempt to pretend there were other reasons. :doh
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 26,845
- Reaction score
- 12,625
- Location
- Highlands Ranch, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
........See what I mean?
OxymoronP
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 2,175
- Reaction score
- 795
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
:lol::lol: What a sheep, thank god for people like you, or goverments wouldnt be able to run properly. Suckers are a nessacary component of any society, so thank you for your contribution. My Jolly good god, cant believe people believe this public spam.
:lol:
LowRevs
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 83
- Location
- Downeast in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I read a headline today (to be investigated by me later) that "most" of the attacks in Iraq most recently have been instigated by Al Qaeda. Whether they were there before would have to be judged in light of our rather faulty intelligence back then. My feeling is yes. Probably looking for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" support.
Anyway, is Al Qaeda is attacking Iraq, our ally, we should be there. As others have stated, there are a lot of other reasons.