Iraq

[Styx 0]

Being someone who wants to join the army when I turn 18. I think going to war with Iraq was a great idea, The last thing we needed was a terrorist controlled country. How do we know what he was planning to do? He knew we were going to go into the country, He could of gotton rid of any WMD in a heart beat. If saddam didn't have anything to hide, he wouldn't of hid in a hole.. There's a big givaway for you. We might not have proved to the world that Iraq was as bad as we were informed. But we did "and still" helped out a developing country out a very deep hole, a bad leader dug them into.

 

Take my opinion or leave it..

XD

147847[/snapback]

let's leave it then. first of all, it's pretty obvious he didn't have WMD. why? because the US would not have attacked him if he did. why don't they attack north korea? because they actually have nuclear capability. and they said saddam had that, plus WMD. if he really did have them they would have negotiated a settlement with him. America's economy is going down, and the US only started pressuring Iraq after Saddam insisted on Euro payments instead of Dollars, which would have had the effect of weakening the already shaky dollar, and obviously America couldn't countenance that. But how do you justify taking innocent lives so that you can keep living your selfish lifestyle? America has put the country into a far deeper hole than it ever was. research some more, about how Iraq was before the Gulf war. as i said before, it was one of the most advanced countries in the middle east. And as far as Saddam's hiding proving his guilt, what would you do if attackers were searching for you? You'd hide too, but that wouldn't mean you were guilty. i'm not saying that Saddam wasn't guilty, but he was no more guilty, and i dare say even less so, than the States. that's my 2c.

[Styx 0]

Being someone who wants to join the army when I turn 18. I think going to war with Iraq was a great idea, The last thing we needed was a terrorist controlled country. How do we know what he was planning to do? He knew we were going to go into the country, He could of gotton rid of any WMD in a heart beat. If saddam didn't have anything to hide, he wouldn't of hid in a hole.. There's a big givaway for you. We might not have proved to the world that Iraq was as bad as we were informed. But we did "and still" helped out a developing country out a very deep hole, a bad leader dug them into.

 

Take my opinion or leave it..

XD

147847[/snapback]

let's leave it then. first of all, it's pretty obvious he didn't have WMD. why? because the US would not have attacked him if he did. why don't they attack north korea? because they actually have nuclear capability. and they said saddam had that, plus WMD. if he really did have them they would have negotiated a settlement with him. America's economy is going down, and the US only started pressuring Iraq after Saddam insisted on Euro payments instead of Dollars, which would have had the effect of weakening the already shaky dollar, and obviously America couldn't countenance that. But how do you justify taking innocent lives so that you can keep living your selfish lifestyle? America has put the country into a far deeper hole than it ever was. research some more, about how Iraq was before the Gulf war. as i said before, it was one of the most advanced countries in the middle east. And as far as Saddam's hiding proving his guilt, what would you do if attackers were searching for you? You'd hide too, but that wouldn't mean you were guilty. i'm not saying that Saddam wasn't guilty, but he was no more guilty, and i dare say even less so, than the States. that's my 2c.

[Xboxgamer1200 0]

My toughts:

If you don't know how to get out of something, you should not go in.

144936[/snapback]

That is a very good insight, and my heart follows that concept, but does anyone remember the Vietnam War? After the U.S. pulled out of South Vietnam it was not long before the communist North Vietnam took over the South. Although I really feel that our work there is done, I believe we should somewhat stick around for a while to insure that Iraq's government does not fall to a dictator.

[brainless 0]

yep, that's a good insight ... well, I've been against the war in the first place anyway but I believe that "we told you" is not the right attitude about now - but the US army can't handle the situation on its own. I suppose it's about time the USA apologize to the international community and request some help and, even more important: It's time for the US army to treat the iraqi people decently. Almost all over the world there's one simple rule for occupation armies: Be nice and you'll receive a nice welcome. Does anyone here remember the pics from the first days of the assault? People were standing along the roads and welcomed the US army - that was before they began to mistreat and kill civilians on a large scale.The resistance the US army has to deal with in Iraq does not come from former Baathists (as the propaganda machine said in the first months), islamic fanatics (at least not that much), it's the people who wants to get rid of the occupation. I'm not happy to say this but if this army would be in my country - I'd do my best to keep them busy, too.By the way, the situation in Iraq has to be very bad for the US and "iraqi" army. Did anyone hear about the Operation Lightning? In this operation, about 40,000 US and iraqi forces were said to have captured 900 resistance fighters, killed about the same number and established 194 permanent and 608 mobile control posts in the city of Baghdad. Today I've read a note on the Reuters website, that there were no first hand reports about any changes that certainly would have been noticeable in such a large operation. The Reuters article further said that this was not due to ignoring the reports - neither independent nor critical nor embedded journalists reported about any of these control posts, a heavy military presence (40,000 soldiers - that's pretty much, even for a country at war. There are less than 200,000 soldiers occupying the entire country) or whatever. Does this sound like a real military operation? To me it does not...One more thing before I leave for the night: There's been a message on the german press agency's website on Saturday which has not been spread in any but a swiss newspaper: A US military patrol attacked a car whose driver was standing in front of some traffic lights. Even stranger is the fact that they attacked it from behind, according to eyewitness accounts. Is there anyone around who can tell me why a car which is waiting at the traffic lights is a threat?

[Joannespw 0]

getting sadam out of power was a good idea, however the way it was done was not a good idea. i believe dicators should be overthrouwn and i definitely don;t like terrorists. What frustrates me is that its takes a bad excuse for the western world to invade a country and overthrow a dictator. There are plenty more countries where we should be doing that. And why didn;t we do it in the first place during the kuwait war? there are too many political and economic intersts involved in the iraw war for anyone to say that it was just about kicking out a dictator. because if that was the case then i can name a long list of countries that need invading just for that reason alone. Maybe bush was mad because that 'man treid killing my (his) daddy'!!!Well then I wish that some more dictators treid killing his daddy.ps/ credit to bush for invading though! Iraq is better of.

[imran 0]

The media is constantly portraying Bush as some kind of War Monger.  We have seen Saddam use these weapons against his own people, the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north.  The United States could not risk the chance of Saddam building these types of deadly weapons.  The war in Iraq also marked the liberation of the Iraqi people.  In the elections of Iraq, thousands of people showed up to cast their ballots, despite terrorist threats.  This was a major event in Iraqi history.  The people finally were able to have a voice in their country.  People like us take freedom for granted.

145018[/snapback]

By the way who has given rights to USA to decide WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG???

U must know whole UN was against this war. My friend this war was not for the deadly weapons, its obvious now this was was only for OIL.

No doubt Saddam was a dictator and his own people was not happy with him, But to eliminate a dictator is not US responsibilty, its the responsibility of UN.

And now the country is in worse situation then it was in regime of Saddam.

[Joannespw 0]

By the way who has given rights to USA to decide WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO IS WRONG???

U must know whole UN was against this war. My friend this war was not for the deadly weapons, its obvious now this was was only for OIL.

No doubt Saddam was a dictator and his own people was not happy with him, But to eliminate a dictator is not US responsibilty, its the responsibility of UN.

And now the country is in worse situation then it was in regime of Saddam.

149383[/snapback]

ok so its the responsibility of the un, but did they do anything no? I at least am happy that Bush did something that may bear positive fruit regardless of his motives to do so. I wish the un was more active in enforceing its resolutions. maybe then they would be taken more seriously by everyone. The middle east will be a much easier mess to solve now that a western power is actualy threatening with war and as a matter of fact, to enforce UN resolutions (even if they might have done it for thier own purpose)

[Styx 0]

ok so its the responsibility of the un, but did they do anything no? I at least am happy that Bush did something that may bear positive fruit regardless of his motives to do so. I wish the un was more active in enforceing its resolutions. maybe then they would be taken more seriously by everyone. The middle east will be a much easier mess to solve now that a western power is actualy threatening with war and as a matter of fact, to enforce UN resolutions (even if they might have done it for thier own purpose)

149386[/snapback]

keeping in mind that the US effectively crippled the UN program by instigating a WAR right after the UN declared sanctions on Iraq, i don't think that u can blame the UN. How logical is that? You impose sanctions, and a week later declare they're not working. This is so elementary. Where's the positive fruit you speak of? Why are Americans hated by almost everyone in the Middle East? Why is most of the Iraqi civilian population still without water & electricity? Why is there this increased hostility towards innocent Americans abroad? Because of Bush, and his pride. What kind of resolutions is the US going to enforce? remember that the original UN resolution was NOT to attack militarily in Iraq, but to use economic sanctions. The US blatantly disregarded this resolution. there are countless examples of America's violations of international laws, the geneva convention, etc. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE U.S. TO DO AS IT HAS DONE.

[HoRuS 0]

I know a few Iraqi refugees here, they all were complaining about this. The were all more happy with Saddam, they said he became a dictator after the Desert Storm bs. And Bush is the biggest terrorist himself, he should be overthrown with his grin on his face when he goes to war and his lies about more sensitive things wich I won't mention.

He uses the best way to rule a nation, fear... And the sad thing is that people are buying this %#@*. Remember the Bush administration sponsored AlQaida themselves for billions of dollars and Bin Laden was a CIA tactician a few years ago, rewarded and all.

Sorry if I seem angry but this injustice been on far too long now