The war in Iraq, right or wrong?
Okay so today marks the seventh anniversary of the war in Iraq(although i dont know who's celebrating)and i was wondering your opinions on the war. I know there are a few people on here in the armed forces and im sure ill hear from them, but i was also wanting to hear from people in other countries and how it affects them.
So why do you or do you not support it? Do tell why.
Oh and if you are going to argue be ready with facts.
So why do you or do you not support it? Do tell why.
Oh and if you are going to argue be ready with facts.
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 1,852
RATE
15
Posted: 2010-03-20 18:47:09
Psst.
Responses (74) / Sorted by points
I think everyone can agree that Saddam Hussein was a duechebag. However, blaming the 911 attacks on him was probably a little shady. I'm glad he's gone, don't get me wrong, but I doubt the government we put back in place is much better. Oh, and the "withdrawl of combat troops" by Obama is bullshit. I'm headed there this September, and yes, I'm a combat troop.
9/11 was never blamed on saddam... and why is the debate always iraq, nobody really ever says afghanistan...
real debate people do its actually i major novice case area
Too right. George Bush in Harold and Kumar: escape from guantanamo bay :P
This was nothing more than a dirty little end run to manipulate Iraq's oil reservers. Yes, Sadam Hussein was not a good leader but what gave anyone the right to topple another government... We'd all shit bricks if someone came in and changed our way of governing or doing business. Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9 11 yet look at the waste of manpower and resorces we've spent "taming" this governemnt and it's people into submission. It's bloody shameful and we'll get no respect for our efforts with this.
"not a very good leader"
Bit of an understatement there.
Bit of an understatement there.
young one this is a very famous quote that i learned about the time you were just learning to walk. non the less here is your chance to prove me wrong. how did i miss use the quote? do you even know who said it?(without google i truly doubt it)
Posted: 2010-11-08 10:17:57 Report
What a shame. Shakespeare would be truly upset if he knew how you had just inappropriately used his line and then attempted to defend your assertion of it. Thank you so much though for offering me the chance to 'prove you wrong' , I obviously strive only to please and impress you.
but you admitted you don't know what you are talking about;
RE: The war in Iraq, right or wrong?
+1
Mattty21
Mattty21
Rank: #294
No I'm fine actually. Perhaps you could explain it to me, i'm not sure i understand. =(
i am sorry not that you don't know. thats not the best way to put it. you just don't understand what you are talking about.
RE: The war in Iraq, right or wrong?
+1
Mattty21
Mattty21
Rank: #294
No I'm fine actually. Perhaps you could explain it to me, i'm not sure i understand. =(
i am sorry not that you don't know. thats not the best way to put it. you just don't understand what you are talking about.
Posted: 2010-11-09 11:22:28 Report
"All the soldiers will have died in vain unless we finish what we started."
This is a natural but risky way of thinking. It can make decision makers believe they're trapped in continuing and escalates conflict. For example the First World War - Generals send in further waves of infantry after previous waves had failed because to do otherwise would admit the first waves died for nothing, or the nuclear arms race, where each side felt that if they slowed down and allow a missile gap to open, it would make the millions they had already spent worthless, so they have no choice but to keep spending.
Good poker players exploit this effect in bad players, who will throw good money after bad into a pot they have almost no chance of winning because they feel they have put too much in already to simply fold, and so they end up loosing more.
This is a natural but risky way of thinking. It can make decision makers believe they're trapped in continuing and escalates conflict. For example the First World War - Generals send in further waves of infantry after previous waves had failed because to do otherwise would admit the first waves died for nothing, or the nuclear arms race, where each side felt that if they slowed down and allow a missile gap to open, it would make the millions they had already spent worthless, so they have no choice but to keep spending.
Good poker players exploit this effect in bad players, who will throw good money after bad into a pot they have almost no chance of winning because they feel they have put too much in already to simply fold, and so they end up loosing more.
I see what you're saying and it is a valid point. But if 58,000 men die and we just pull out isn't that kind of saying, "Fuck you, sorry but we just don't have the balls to finish this. Sorry bout you not living past 18."
All I'm saying is if we, as in the USA, or any other country decides to put troops somewhere they better have the balls to finish it.
All I'm saying is if we, as in the USA, or any other country decides to put troops somewhere they better have the balls to finish it.
You feel that was the case with Vietnam? (Asking because of the number you chose).
In the British army (you can tell me if the Marines teach the same after December 13th :P) officers used to get taught 'never reinforce failure'. Like Johnecash said theres other ways. We were told at the start our aim was to end terrorism, or at least find WMD's. Now we know there aren't any but have got bogged down with trying to stabilize Iraq. Why send more troops to be police for Iraq when from the point of view of our initial aim (threat to our own territories/populations) we HAVE won.
In the British army (you can tell me if the Marines teach the same after December 13th :P) officers used to get taught 'never reinforce failure'. Like Johnecash said theres other ways. We were told at the start our aim was to end terrorism, or at least find WMD's. Now we know there aren't any but have got bogged down with trying to stabilize Iraq. Why send more troops to be police for Iraq when from the point of view of our initial aim (threat to our own territories/populations) we HAVE won.
US Soldiers stormed into a warehouse in Mosul, Iraq, on August 8, 2005. They were surprised to find 1,500 gallons of chemical agents.
Source: Ellen Knickmeyer, "Iraqi chemical stash uncovered," Washington Post, August 14, 2005.
In December 1998, when U.N. weapons inspector Dr. Richard Spertzel became exasperated by Iraqi evasions and misrepresentations, he confronted Dr. Rihab Taha, the woman the Iraqis identified as the head of their biological weapons program and asked her directly, "You know that we know you are lying. So why do you do it?" She straightened herself up and replied, "Dr. Spertzel, it's not a lie when you are ordered to lie."
Source: italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=/file2003_01/
alia/A3012110.htm
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.
"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.
The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.
It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.
The United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - and Iraqi officials were informed ahead of the operation, which happened ahead of the 28 June handover of sovereignty.
Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
Also here is evidence that some WMD's were transported to Syria.
(I don't want to paste the entire article but I will source it.)
The #2 man in Saddam's Air Force said, "Weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria."
Source: www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/
26514/
Now, I don't think we will truly ever know if he had actual weapons but there is evidence to suggest that he did or was on his way to getting them. So to suggest that there is no possible way for Saddam to have any WMD's is incorrect.
Also sorry about the links. just try to copy and paste them. And I'll know if they teach that on December 6th now. I got moved up some.
Source: Ellen Knickmeyer, "Iraqi chemical stash uncovered," Washington Post, August 14, 2005.
In December 1998, when U.N. weapons inspector Dr. Richard Spertzel became exasperated by Iraqi evasions and misrepresentations, he confronted Dr. Rihab Taha, the woman the Iraqis identified as the head of their biological weapons program and asked her directly, "You know that we know you are lying. So why do you do it?" She straightened herself up and replied, "Dr. Spertzel, it's not a lie when you are ordered to lie."
Source: italy.usembassy.gov/viewer/article.asp?article=/file2003_01/
alia/A3012110.htm
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.
"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.
The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.
It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.
The United Nations nuclear watchdog - the International Atomic Energy Agency - and Iraqi officials were informed ahead of the operation, which happened ahead of the 28 June handover of sovereignty.
Source: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3872201.stm
Also here is evidence that some WMD's were transported to Syria.
(I don't want to paste the entire article but I will source it.)
The #2 man in Saddam's Air Force said, "Weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria."
Source: www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/
26514/
Now, I don't think we will truly ever know if he had actual weapons but there is evidence to suggest that he did or was on his way to getting them. So to suggest that there is no possible way for Saddam to have any WMD's is incorrect.
Also sorry about the links. just try to copy and paste them. And I'll know if they teach that on December 6th now. I got moved up some.
There is no question that the war in Iraq must be finished, leaving would create a power vacume that would be all to easy for terrorist groups to fill. Whether or not we should have gone to war is at this point irrelevant.
The real debate ought to be about HOW to go about winning the war. Unfortunatly, not nearly as much thought has been put into winning as it has into whether or not we should be there.
The real debate ought to be about HOW to go about winning the war. Unfortunatly, not nearly as much thought has been put into winning as it has into whether or not we should be there.
Don't get be wrong, I believe it is very important for a nation/society to have very definite ideas about when to go to war and what to go to war for.
The problem with a war like Iraq is that it is to complex for people to easily sort into "good" or "bad". There are so many shades of grey that anyone who tries will be wrong no matter what side they take. Therefore, the only usefull course of action is to focus on winning the war as soon as possible.
The problem with a war like Iraq is that it is to complex for people to easily sort into "good" or "bad". There are so many shades of grey that anyone who tries will be wrong no matter what side they take. Therefore, the only usefull course of action is to focus on winning the war as soon as possible.
I think that Sadam was a duechebag, but he was a duechebag that, everyone including him, was thought to have nuclear weapons. Also he said he was hiding Bin Laden, but he wasn't. Also Americans called for revenge, and Bush gave the countries a chance to release Bin Laden. But no one did, so we attacked the middle east country that posed the biggest threat. So we got there and kicked their asses, thanks for the help every country that supported us, and the oil thing is a bull shit. And if we help fix the government in Iraq, then we would have built another democracy.
I just want to put this out there to all Americans, British, and any other nationalities that have men and women serving in a conflict zone. You may not agree with the war itself, but its NOT your country's soldiers who started the war, they are just the ones fighting it. Support your troops, no matter what branch, nation, or any other meaningless difference, because someday they might just be protecting your ass for real. That is all.
good luck man, was there 08-09... afghanistan next for me in july
i think that it is a good idea in some ways and bad in others. the good is that we brought "freedom" to a place that has never really seen it, we have removed some threats such as WMD's. the bad is that we are focusing on the freedom part instead of destroying the taliban and alqaeda which will bring a more stable form of freedom and peace to the area.
why do you think i put freedom in quotes and as far as the taliban goes im saying they have to do with it because its obvious that my last and current presidents are complete jackasses
well technically speaking its not a war more of a conflict cause if we were in a fully mobilized war as in ww1 and ww2 this "war" wouldve been over in about 3-6 months im against ti bec ause this is hurting out economy even more considering that this "war" has costed over 1 billion dollars and considering that the us is over 15 trillion in debt...well idk wat 2 say
lolz i think we are most in debt with china right?
as long as we act as the world police force we are destined to bankruptcy.
Well they did have weapons of mass destruction. In fact I have an entire post dedicated to this.
www.sharenator.com/The_Truth_About_Iraq/
www.sharenator.com/The_Truth_About_Iraq/
Is it good or bad? I say it is good. If you look back to the year 2000 on September 11 (hope you recal that) we were struck by two planes in two towers (The Twin Towers).They are fighting over there to protect all of you from that happening again.
It isn't a war. A war has to be passed by Congress, and Congress veto's the war on Iraq. This law was put into place after Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam in 1971 without Congress' approval.
Because of this, it was titled Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was the Presidents way around a law put into place to protect America and the world from a power hungry president.
Because of this, it was titled Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was the Presidents way around a law put into place to protect America and the world from a power hungry president.
vietnam was never a war it was a police action the war in korea could be considered the same thing as we reside there only to protect south korea which harms them because we are hindering its ability to defend itself as it does not feel inclined to build its military even though it has the capability and funding to buy the high tech weapons that are available to it.
Post a response
Related posts
