Your view on the war?

[domainer50]

The Iraq war is obviously the most controversial topic of the modern day. Some people feel its necessary and others feel we should pack up our troops and leave. What do you feel about this issue?

[Locke]

I believe that at this moment, it is impossible to withdraw abruptly, as many people wish to do, without forming an actual rebuilding plan. I do, however, believe that they never should have been there in the first place.

My main point of view on the invasion is that it was part of a plan to gentrify the Middle East so as to gain access to oil reserves in Iraq. The amount of corporate involvement also distresses me.

[Labrocca]

My view..hmm...we're F_ck_d. Damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario.

I do, however, believe that they never should have been there in the first place.

It's thinking like this from liberals that prevent our government to move forward properly. Who cares about what we should have done.

[Locke]

It's thinking like that that will prevent us from committing further blunders.
Like the current Iran invasion being proposed.
Anyways, I don't want this to turn into a right/left debate.

[jpd1975]

What is the purpose of the invasion? To displace Saddam and sew the seeds of democracy - well I've got friends who've been there 1 and 2 times... I read - I follow the news... and I've studied history - Republics and Democracies historically have not been imposed upon a culture - generally speaking - these forms of governments grow from within the society they will govern... You can't export your ideology, by force, and expect the people to immediately accept it.

The Iraqi culture and most of the middle east typically are ruled by tribal groups on a regional basis or by brutal dictators. With a theology that asserts itself as a form of government (As Islam has for the majority of its history) you are going to have direct conflict with any other form of government that does not rely on direct force to impose its rules and regulations upon the people.

The culture is accustomed to being ruled by their Mullahs or their Dictators and to assume that we can fly in there and knock out the "bad guy" and plant a democracy there is really a silly notion. When a foreign nation imposes itself via military force and does not leave it then becomes an occupying force...

When you have an occupying force you will have a resistance force to counter act it. This is a time proven fact. The occupation of Iraq is clearly designed to maintain control of a section of the worlds oil reserves and the people of Iraq resent that - and the longer we stay, the more customs and religious institutions that we desecrate and the more civilians that we harm, the more people will condone a resistance to the occupation -

Our venture is destined to end in disaster - there is no happy ending in Baghdad... Even the "Green Zone" is not safe. Its time to figure out an exit strategy and bring our soldiers home and end this illegal, unjust and poorly planned and executed debacle.

[Locke]

What is the purpose of the invasion? To displace Saddam and sew the seeds of democracy - well I've got friends who've been there 1 and 2 times... I read - I follow the news... and I've studied history - Republics and Democracies historically have not been imposed upon a culture - generally speaking - these forms of governments grow from within the society they will govern... You can't export your ideology, by force, and expect the people to immediately accept it.

The Iraqi culture and most of the middle east typically are ruled by tribal groups on a regional basis or by brutal dictators. With a theology that asserts itself as a form of government (As Islam has for the majority of its history) you are going to have direct conflict with any other form of government that does not rely on direct force to impose its rules and regulations upon the people.

The culture is accustomed to being ruled by their Mullahs or their Dictators and to assume that we can fly in there and knock out the "bad guy" and plant a democracy there is really a silly notion. When a foreign nation imposes itself via military force and does not leave it then becomes an occupying force...

When you have an occupying force you will have a resistance force to counter act it. This is a time proven fact. The occupation of Iraq is clearly designed to maintain control of a section of the worlds oil reserves and the people of Iraq resent that - and the longer we stay, the more customs and religious institutions that we desecrate and the more civilians that we harm, the more people will condone a resistance to the occupation -

Our venture is destined to end in disaster - there is no happy ending in Baghdad... Even the "Green Zone" is not safe. Its time to figure out an exit strategy and bring our soldiers home and end this illegal, unjust and poorly planned and executed debacle.

There is also the fact that the sowing of "democracy" was simply weak propaganda, and their intention since the beginning has been to increase their hold on oil reserves in the middle east (a plan which will be furthered when, I say when, not if, they "liberate" Iran). This, in the administration's eyes, will lead to economic renewal and strengthen their grip on power.

[CMartucci]

My view on the war? There's a group of people who, if they had the power, could and would kill every American on the face of this earth. Not to mention they sit on one of our most valuable resources, which gives them power we do not want them to have. Not to mention the mass genocide which occurs there. We've removed the dictator, but not the hate and intollerance. My position is that we are winning this war, and we aren't going to make any progress by cowering out. If we remain on the offensive we might see a stable middle-east. Or we can leave them alone, let them kill whomever they please, let them eventually build up their nuclear arms and destroy western society as we know it. Or if you want to speed things up, we can all just convert to Islam.

[Locke]

The problem is such that our very presence there breeds contempt and hate towards us. The answer is to pull out any definitive military presence (excluding perhaps a security force of some kind) and institute international aid.

[Cattraknoff]

The problem is such that our very presence there breeds contempt and hate towards us. The answer is to pull out any definitive military presence (excluding perhaps a security force of some kind) and institute international aid.

To leave ensures that the same extremist forces will arrive again. The problem isn't our actions (war), but the motive behind them. We went for the wrong reasons, and remain for the wrong reasons. We aren't there to help, to improve their lives, at least not beyond the extent that it is profitable to us to do so.

Our problem lay in the selfishness of our societies as a whole. Western, Middle Eastern, Asian. All of us are inherently flawed, the symptoms just show themselves in different ways; those of others being more obvious than our own. We must strive to solve the problems with our own societies and way of life (and there are many), before we can even think of helping to solve those of anyone else.

[Locke]

To leave ensures that the same extremist forces will arrive again. The problem isn't our actions (war), but the motive behind them. We went for the wrong reasons, and remain for the wrong reasons. We aren't there to help, to improve their lives, at least not beyond the extent that it is profitable to us to do so.

Our problem lay in the selfishness of our societies as a whole. Western, Middle Eastern, Asian. All of us are inherently flawed, the symptoms just show themselves in different ways; those of others being more obvious than our own. We must strive to solve the problems with our own societies and way of life (and there are many), before we can even think of helping to solve those of anyone else.

An interesting take. Speculating in the long term, that is the paradigm that our world will have to take to remain sustainable, but we are arguing about a "quick fix", if you will, not an upheaval of society. However, the implementation of one does not exclude, and rather encourages, the possibility of the other.

[Cattraknoff]

An interesting take. Speculating in the long term, that is the paradigm that our world will have to take to remain sustainable, but we are arguing about a "quick fix", if you will, not an upheaval of society. However, the implementation of one does not exclude, and rather encourages, the possibility of the other.

Our societies are far too addicted to this "quick fix". We're all about instant-gratification; and this will not work. We need an entirely new method of going about things, or we will end up with the same problems, often worse than they were originally. Fixing one broken system by replacing it with another broken system is not going to get us very far. Our system appears less broken to us because we're so accustomed to it, and we've been taught that it is far better than anything else (and so that means we should quit trying to find a new solution because that would actually require effort, right?). Quite simply, we change, sooner rather than later, or we will suffer the consequences of our arrogance and self-imposed blindness.

Whether you heed the warning or not is up to you, but it will become apparent soon enough. The problem is that by the time it does, it will be too late to fix anything.

[Locke]

Our societies are far too addicted to this "quick fix". We're all about instant-gratification; and this will not work. We need an entirely new method of going about things, or we will end up with the same problems, often worse than they were originally. Fixing one broken system by replacing it with another broken system is not going to get us very far. Our system appears less broken to us because we're so accustomed to it, and we've been taught that it is far better than anything else (and so that means we should quit trying to find a new solution because that would actually require effort, right?). Quite simply, we change, sooner rather than later, or we will suffer the consequences of our arrogance and self-imposed blindness.

Whether you heed the warning or not is up to you, but it will become apparent soon enough. The problem is that by the time it does, it will be too late to fix anything.

That is true; but only because they believe the quick fix is a substitution for a long-term plan, and not an accompaniment. Having military presence remain in Iraq until this so-called "system change" would be impractical and further drain the American economy, not to mention it would prolong the suffering of many people.
Fixing one broken system by replacing it with another broken system is not going to get us very far.
A further argument against the actions of the American administration; the have installed a "free market", yet completely ineffective government when concerned with their own civilians' security. This, replacing a dictatorship. This only allows exploitation by multinationals of the Iraqi oil fields in the future, which was, by all means, the extremely corrupt intention all along. What is needed is the establishment of a strong government capable of protecting their sovereignty and their people.

[jpd1975]

My view on the war? There's a group of people who, if they had the power, could and would kill every American on the face of this earth. Not to mention they sit on one of our most valuable resources, which gives them power we do not want them to have. Not to mention the mass genocide which occurs there. We've removed the dictator, but not the hate and intollerance. My position is that we are winning this war, and we aren't going to make any progress by cowering out. If we remain on the offensive we might see a stable middle-east. Or we can leave them alone, let them kill whomever they please, let them eventually build up their nuclear arms and destroy western society as we know it. Or if you want to speed things up, we can all just convert to Islam.

The only reason these countries sit on anything more valuable than sand and a black liquid poison is because we're to frickin lazy to use good old American ingenuity to develop technologies that will make oil worth NOTHING. How do you win this game? Take their only valuable asset away from them and will they have the $$$ to buy the components and pay the brains to build them a bomb? Let alone a delivery system (that works.) No, they will not have the $, hence no bombs. Without the need to "secure oil reserves" we have no reason to further exploit their political systems for our gain, defile their holy sites or needlessly put our soldiers, brave men and women, at risk.

Really, why do you think they hate us so much? Could it be that we have continued a colonial mindset handed down from the British in the 1940's, picked up by us and maintained via an incestuous relationship with Israel whereby we prop up and take down regime after regime in order to ensure that we can get oil out and fatten the pockets of already outrageously wealthy corporations.

What would YOU think if foreign governments had bases on our land, killed our citizens and called it collateral damage...? Would you rise up? Would you hate them? There are two sides to every story. We are not only losing battles, but we're losing the war. With every young child we kill we create an angry family, in turn creating more insurgents.

You can take your body counts, your surge, your rah-rah and all that and flush it because it means nothing. Our military men and women are being exploited in an undeclared "War" in illegal "war" and a downright silly strategic vision.

As I said earlier we must use our ingenuity to develop new technologies, once we don't need oil we can worry about spending our tax dollars here where they should be spent, ensuring we have the most advanced military in the world, ensuring our schools are what they should be oh and... taxing our people less.

[Locke]

...ensuring we have the most advanced military in the world ...

I don't believe that that is a desirable goal. You call for an end to hypocrisy, an end to economic colonialism, an end to imperialism, yet you call for an increase in the power of the tool used to accomplish these ends.

[Syngenetic]

First of all, why do we have this war? There is no reason. No weapons of mass destructions were found. Saddam is killed and we need to leave.

[Locke]

First of all, why do we have this war? There is no reason. No weapons of mass destructions were found. Saddam is killed and we need to leave.

The real reason is never that given overtly.

[Ed Jones]

Strange that i haven't given my highly sought after opinion on this topic yet...

As much as i do not agree with the intentions in which the war was started, i'm beginning to see why continuing with it is not such a bad idea. The west finds itself in a catch 22 situation. If troops continue to occupy territory in the Middle East the current administrations will continue to come under fire from various groups. If they withdraw it looks like a defeat at the hands of terrorists which simply cannot happen.

What the west needs is a strong leader with the balls (sorry Hillary) to withdraw and amend the mistakes of the past, but still keep the various terror groups fearful of the west.

And i'm sure we can all agree that it is fear, and not mindless negotiation that will establish peace.

[Locke]

Strange that i haven't given my highly sought after opinion on this topic yet...

As much as i do not agree with the intentions in which the war was started, i'm beginning to see why continuing with it is not such a bad idea. The west finds itself in a catch 22 situation. If troops continue to occupy territory in the Middle East the current administrations will continue to come under fire from various groups. If they withdraw it looks like a defeat at the hands of terrorists which simply cannot happen.

What the west needs is a strong leader with the balls (sorry Hillary) to withdraw and amend the mistakes of the past, but still keep the various terror groups fearful of the west.

And i'm sure we can all agree that it is fear, and not mindless negotiation that will establish peace.

Defeat at the hands of terrorists? A load of rubbish. They defeated thenselves the moment they initiated the "war on terror", as it has only increased worldwide terror manifold. Their mission was never to eradicate terror in any way. It was purely a strategical, politically and economically, goal.

[Ed Jones]

Defeat at the hands of terrorists? A load of rubbish. They defeated thenselves the moment they initiated the "war on terror", as it has only increased worldwide terror manifold. Their mission was never to eradicate terror in any way. It was purely a strategical, politically and economically, goal.

You seem to have missed the point. Regardless of your personal opinions on why the war begun, my point was that withdrawing at this point could be seen as admitting defeat terrorist organisations.

And that simply cannot happen to a western administration.

[Locke]

You seem to have missed the point. Regardless of your personal opinions on why the war begun, my point was that withdrawing at this point could be seen as admitting defeat terrorist organisations.

And that simply cannot happen to a western administration.

Only from the point of view of the administration itself, as they've propagated the belief that there are actually hordes of terrorists waiting at the gates (not to say that there are none. But it has been expounded upon us far too often and on a scale not befitting the actual threat.)
I understand your point, but would it not be a beneficial thing for everyone if it happened? I'm sure the Iraqis could do a better job if the process was left in their own hands, and it would benefit the western political system greatly.

[jpd1975]

I don't believe that that is a desirable goal. You call for an end to hypocrisy, an end to economic colonialism, an end to imperialism, yet you call for an increase in the power of the tool used to accomplish these ends.

What is desirable about having a technologically advanced military force is so that more can be accomplished with less human intervention, should it be necessary. I agree, the end to hypocrisy, colonialism/imperialism, unwarranted intervention in the affairs of other nations is a must; However, having cutting edge technology should also be considered as part of a good defense. We should maintain a strong military, just not use it illegally!

[Cattraknoff]

What is desirable about having a technologically advanced military force is so that more can be accomplished with less human intervention, should it be necessary. I agree, the end to hypocrisy, colonialism/imperialism, unwarranted intervention in the affairs of other nations is a must; However, having cutting edge technology should also be considered as part of a good defense. We should maintain a strong military, just not use it illegally!

Laws go out the window quite quickly as soon as they're against the ruling party's interests.

[ShadyPolitics]

Obviously, the United States invaded Iraq priorly for Iraqi Oil Reserve, and we are staying there to continue to pump oil out of the land of Iraq. Lets remove the idea out of our brain, that the United States invaded to liberate the Iraqi people or give them democratic freedoms. We bombed more people in Iraq then we gave freedom. They still don't have freedoms. They can not express themselves freely or have open demonstrations without being labeled a terrorist and shot dead by our troops. They cant express their hostilities towards US Government using peaceful methods. They are actually living in a military state, sugarcoated with an powerless democratic government.

Now, lets realize that the US Government does not wish to leave Iraq. But, supposing they did, I feel that the best way to get out would be turning the population against each other and creating instability. Put in place three democratic government consisting up Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds and you'll have more conflict then Israel and Palestine. If necessary, give them weapons to fight each other. Make sure that Iraq does not unite and simply leave them at war, realizing that peace in the middle east is impossible as long as religious extremist are in existence.

[roflwaffle]

Although I think there are some issues with the war, I do think that we do have to look at the big picture. Since we entered the war in Iraq, there has been no terrorist attacks on US soil. Now, you can say what you think which is "Who says that has to do anything with the war in Iraq". Well personally, I think the terrorists might be a little freaked out. We bombed the crap out Iraq when they did wrong. Who says we won't do that the terrorist family?

But, when Hillary gets in office or Obama and we pull out of Iraq, here my prediction now: "We will have a terrorist attach within 90 days of the start of the presidency" Quote that everyone ;)

[Cattraknoff]

Although I think there are some issues with the war, I do think that we do have to look at the big picture. Since we entered the war in Iraq, there has been no terrorist attacks on US soil. Now, you can say what you think which is "Who says that has to do anything with the war in Iraq". Well personally, I think the terrorists might be a little freaked out. We bombed the crap out Iraq when they did wrong. Who says we won't do that the terrorist family?

But, when Hillary gets in office or Obama and we pull out of Iraq, here my prediction now: "We will have a terrorist attach within 90 days of the start of the presidency" Quote that everyone ;)

Maybe we will, maybe we won't. But you can guarantee that if it does happen, the patriot act will have been nothing compared to what is to come. Iraq, the "war on terror" is a war on your rights. Make no mistake, Iraq is not helping you. The evil terrorists would have little chance of striking you regardless, and they wouldn't bother to do so if Americans didn't go out of their way to piss them off.

[Mitch]

What Cattraknoff said, plus...
"Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals (fear in latin)." Sorry have to post that again, I think that's the thing that's most on my clipboard this week :p
Anyways, why would the terrorists attack again when there is a new president in office?
There is reason to believe (an even more evidence) that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
Remember this quote "The CIA will organize a terrorist attack 90 days of the start of presidency"

[Locke]

Although I think there are some issues with the war, I do think that we do have to look at the big picture. Since we entered the war in Iraq, there has been no terrorist attacks on US soil. Now, you can say what you think which is "Who says that has to do anything with the war in Iraq". Well personally, I think the terrorists might be a little freaked out. We bombed the crap out Iraq when they did wrong. Who says we won't do that the terrorist family?


"The big picture", as far as we know, is mostly illusion. While the threat of post-911 terrorist attacks are latent and patently possible, the news of possible terrorist attacks has been vastly overwrought since, to simplify the actual operation of the invasion itself (by gaining the public's support).

[PaitChow]

We got to get them out of there, support the troops by not sending them to die ma

[Mitch]

Yes, they should come out of there, but it has to be done gradually and carefully, as removing them quickly and fast would be disastrous.

[Locke]

It's such a convoluted situation that I can't offer any input for potential future plans.
The best I can do is "We should not have been there in the first place".

[bizwiz]

I think that it was a big mistake in the first place. But since we are there already, a careful strategy must be planned to leave there with security in place, otherwise as soon as we pull our troops out there will be instant instability.

[brookes]

The Iraq war is obviously the most controversial topic of the modern day. Some people feel its necessary and others feel we should pack up our troops and leave. What do you feel about this issue?

I agree to the fact that Iraq war should have been avoided and we should not have started the war. But i dont support to the idea of packing our troops and calling them back. Then iraq will become another afganisthan. We made a mistake and we have to correct it. If we dont help in establishing a stable government in iraq we will face terrorism breeded in iraq.

--brookes