Do you think we should Bring our soldiers Home, since we KNOW 911 had nothing to do with IRAQ ?

Question

www.iamthewitness.com
------------------------------------

Answer 1

we can want them home all we want but as long as Bush is in office they'll stay over there

Answer 2

Yes, we need to bring them home. Two problems, first we've created a very unstable, messy situation in Iraq and pulling out entirely may cause an all out civil war and further instability in Iraq and the Arab world. Second, as long as Bush & Cheney are in office the wars will continue regaredless.

9/11 was a convenient event to justify the invasion and occupation of Afgan and Iraq. Wars a "good business" for the Defense industy (Haliburton, etc.) and the instability in the region has caused gas prices to escalate (very good for the oil industry).

The war is stupid. You don't fight terorism with conventional miltary tactics. It was poorly planned and we've created a quagmire. The war is not working. Over 2,500 brave Americam soldiers have returned in wood boxes with thousands more wounded. It's est. that 30 times as many Iraq's have been killed. What's the point?

9/11 has been the pretext for war, torture and wiretapping and more. We are headed towards a police state. Look at the evidence (911truth.org to start) and you'll see that the 9/11 attackes were an "inside job" . Google "PNAC" to learn about the neo-con think tank org. that now controls America through fear and propogana.

Wake up, tell others, get active! The future of America is at stake. God bless.

Answer 3

Do I think that we should bring our troops home because Iraq did not participate in the tragedy of 911. I may not be smart but, I believe that Iraq, did have something to do with what happened with the twin towers.Sadam Hussein I am sure had something to do with that tragedy, do you want them to come back and destroy our nation? I would not want that to happen. Retreating the Armed forces from Iraq, is a big, big, mistake on our part. I know that the killing of our soldiers is a sad situation but, when you enlist as a soldier, you know that you might be risking your own life.

Answer 4

Do you honestly think that we attacked Iraq because the government thought that they were involved with 9/11? That wasn't even listed as our reasons! Not only that, but no one ever said they were DIRECTLY involved with 9/11, though Saddam DID harbor terrorists...which means yes, he was indirectly involved by harboring people with the same mentality as those extremists that hijacked the planes.
Here are the reasons for attacking Iraq:
1) Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
2) Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
3) Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
4) Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
5) Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
6) Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations"
7) Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
Now, a quick conflict would have meant that we did what Clinton did: Fire a few missiles over, and call it good. Why was that an issue? Well, it is rather strange that Hussein refused to allow in UN inspectors, which was one of the terms of the treaty that ended the Gulf War. It's also strange that before we invaded, many trucks were seen departing the country. The borders were very busy those couple of weeks...with orders to let them through from Saddam. Man, he sure was in a hurry to get SOMETHING out of the country, wasn't he?
He was thinking we would attack the way Clinton did, then he could just get back whatever he had shipped out, and go on doing what he had been doing. He didn't expect us to topple the government while we were there. I don't think anyone did, except the President and his cabinet. There's a reason for this. If Saddam had expected it, he would have left the country instead of hiding in a hole. And believe me, if this had gotten out, he would have known about it. Our enemies are watching us too, you know.
Keep in mind that Hussein was doing exactly what Hitler was doing prior to WWII. Hitler amassed his military and weapons, in violation of the Versailles Treaty...and everyone was alarmed but did nothing until he invaded Poland. What if we had stopped him immediately?
So. If we leave now, while the Iraqi government is weak, it will open them up to attack: From Syria, Jordan, Iran and many other countries. Then, Israel, UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia will have to jump in to help. Then...who knows?
If we leave before we're done, we'll be spitting on the memory of 2500+ soldiers who have given their life for this endeavor, and 18,000+ soldiers who have been injured. It will be the same as what we did in Viet Nam. And the LAST thing we need is another Viet Nam.
Our soldiers are doing their job, and they're doing it well. Let them.

Answer 5

We are in Iraq because Saddam started a war of aggression, sending his tanks into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The first US troops captured by Saddam's forces were captured in Khafji, Saudi Arabia. Saddam was another Hitler, engaging in a blitzkrieg of conquest.

Some people think the only reason to go after Saddam was because of 9/11. They have very short memories. The decision to eliminate Saddam's regime by force and replace his government was made by Bill Clinton in 1998, with the Iraq Liberation Act. Clinton failed miserably but that did not remove the need to get the job done. Congress approved it a SECOND time for GW Bush.

Iraq Liberation Act - the full text and supporting arguments
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

Still, for those who think Iraq was not involved in 9/11, a Federal Judge has already ruled that Iraq did.

Congressional Probers Ignored Evidence of Iraq-9/11 Link
On May 7, Manhattan U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled that attorney Beasley and his legal team
had presented enough evidence to convince a "reasonable jury" that Iraq played a material role in
the deadly attacks.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/28/124731

Iraq terrorist training airliner simulator - Salman Pak, training ground for 9/11 attack?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Account Links 9/11 to '93 WTC Attack, Iraq revenge
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/22/110207.shtml

Answer 6

Yes. The government has redefined our reason for going numerous times yet maintained "when they stand up, we will stand down." Iraq now has the originally targeted number of trained military troops, yet none of ours have been allowed to stand down, or return home. As long as there is a war it will be impossible to rebuild Iraq so that should not be our concern. You build a school in a month, they blow it up in one day, then you build it again over the course of another month. At this point there will be war in Iraq if we leave or if we stay and the majority of Iraqi's also want us to leave.

Answer 7

we should have brought our soldiers home yesterday. if the Iraqi so called democracy collapses so be it. just get our troops home. No terrorist attacks have been foiled by the invasion of iraq simply because if you stop and think a moment there was lots of years in between the attacks. nothing bush and his cohorts have done has made me feel that they've protected the usa from further attacks if anything they have ensured that we will be attacked again in the future, and for the record homeland security is a crock of bs.

Answer 8

We should bring our soldiers home as we have no further right to be in their country they us they do not want us their anymore, And G.W.Bush does not care how many of our young men are murdered either. Honestly we did try to help liberate Iraq and now it is time to leave and let them decide their own future. We did our part and more than our share. Bush is out for his own glory and how any mother and fathers have to lose their sons and daughters because of his super-ego?

Answer 9

The war was never about 9/11.9/11 was simply a catalyst. It's about spreading freedom so that Muslim extremist lose all power that they have. A free Iraq is their worst nightmare making there way of life an impossibility. Any country aiding terrorists days are numbered therefore eliminating they're power. It is the only way to defeat them.

Answer 10

Would love to say yes - but realities dictate otherwise.

We shouldn't be in Iraq in the first place, but now that we are there, if we leave, Iran moves in, or Iraq dissolves in a bloody sectarian war.

Best course is to get UN, and multinational forces to ramp up, as we ramp down.

Iraq now should be a UN and world issue, rather than just an US issue.

Answer 11

The whole thing sucks. I've been against the war from the beggining, always having known that Bush simply wanted to do it, and that everything he was saying was a lie.
But despite all of that, it's hard to just split at this point. It's like, we broke it, so now we have to fix it. I would love to get the troops out, but don't want to make things any worse than they already are! Is there any way we could split without making it seem like we started this fire and just left before putting it out?