Iraq (was Re: Obama-Biden)

[Sherona]

You seem to be overlooking the part about taking responsibility for your actions there.

I agree with this full fledged. We mucked it up. It is not fair to th e civillians of Iraq, who did nothing to the United States, for us to leave without the government of Iraq in FULL control. That means, no more car bombings, no more terrorist cells (because now there IS these) or else Iraq will just be over run by these groups.

[ShrowdedPoet]

*again, nods nods*

If this war was as bad a mistake as you keep saying and the fault of the US we have the responsiblity.  I think we have some responsiblity either way but this is just one arguement. . . 

[RubySlippers]

I still say just leave and three months is plenty of time our military can demonstrate their great training in doing so in an orderly and quick manner obeying the President, and in any case Bush already said we won the war so in fact its over. Lets just go.

[Sherona]

Yeah and we all know how Bush thinks things through. I am sorry bu yes the army could very well pull out in 3 months time. But that would leave Iraq unstable, very unstable and being a major OIL supplier, without internal support then there are plenty of nations that would love to invade to get control over that.

[The Overlord]

You're right we shouldn't have invaded it. We should have carpet bombed it into a crater and walked away. I wouldn't expect America to sit back and take a terrorist attack and not do anything about it.
As for the WMDs. Iraq had the facilities, the materials, and the means to make them. They're just in Syria or some other place. If it looks like a duck, quacks, like a duck.

OK....so.

I have the knowledge to assemble a rocket launcher, one that could do damage and potential bodily harm. I haven't built it yet, all I have is the tube for the body from a model kit and some engine. I could go to my next door neighbor and get some gunpowder for it, does this mean the police should automatically barge into my house and arrest me on what I might be able to do with it?

Saddam may well have been able to toss some together, but he was smart enough not to in the original Gulf War. It was candidly explained to Iraq then (when they did have WMD's to use) that to use any on US forces meant American aircraft would be penetrating into Iraq with 'special' ordnance in tow.

Saddam was blustering and he was reckless to be sure, but he wasn't that stupid.


And bombing Iraq into a crater and walking away just because we think they mean us harm isn't justified. It would make us look as bad or worse as the USSR at its worst, and likely turn even Europe's collective backs to us. And the president that ordered it would be a war criminal.

Besides its not technically a war. A war is described as one sovereign state attacking another by modern standards. This is an extended police action.
But what would have happened if we hadn't done anything after 9/11. I wouldn't want to think about it.

Just like 'ethnic cleansing' technically isn't genocide? A sovereign state did attack another, no matter how it was defined by the White House, which is packed with liars and crooks. Just because Congress didn't officially declare it doesn't mean it's not war. As you said, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

[The Overlord]

How about 'because Bush was going to do it anyway?' The UN were not in favour of invasion, so Bush basically said 'to hell with you' and went and invaded anyway. The US was not ordered, tricked or pressured into invading.

This is the take I got on it early 2003/late 2002, before it even went down. The administration had every intention of going into Iraq, they were selectively filtering whatever the UN had that didn't fit into their little plan. The reason it soured relations with Europe is because they damn well knew the administration was full of BS.

[RubySlippers]

There is a simple solution to this mess SPLIT IRAQ INTO THREE NATIONS. One Kurdistan, one a Sunni nation and one a Shiite nation and maybe leave Baghdad a neutral open city under its own government. As far as I'm concerned if the sides would stop their attacks and control their nuts we should reward them with their own nations. We have the army there and if we recognize these new nations others would follow. Anyway unlike the rest of these people the Kurds were cool to us if we have a permanent presence I'd rather it be among them at least they are civilized and have a safe territory.

But no they are trying to get thress sides that hate each other to play nice its not going to happen and the Kurds don't trust either side outside their territory. And face it they love the US why not reward them with a nation of their own?

[ShrowdedPoet]

I still say just leave and three months is plenty of time our military can demonstrate their great training in doing so in an orderly and quick manner obeying the President, and in any case Bush already said we won the war so in fact its over. Lets just go.

*clears throat*  Are you a soldier?  Are you good friends with a soldier?  War is stressful enough without a massive evacuation to take place in a period of three months.  Why don't you go to Iraq and be there a while and then try to evac in a period of three months in an orderly mannor?  There is a lot involved in war and your side is just one side of it.  You've got it easy over here.  If you were told to evac your apartment within a three month period that wouldn't be so bad.  But if you were in a hostile environment at war already under huge amounts of stress. . .evac in three months is just more to add.  Our soldiers have been through enough!  Why would we ask them to evac in three months in an orderly manner?  *shakes head and sighs*