How can you people actually think we are doing good in Iraq right now?

Question

oh i know its because you watch the facist news or its because its what our gov't says.....how can you say we are not targeting civilians? we go in and shoot up a whole f**king town with civilians in it who get shot up, little kids too....have you seem the pictures on the internet of the little kids who were killed or the little toddlers who are missing limbs?? why because they were in the way...because their families can't get them out....

Have we made any progress in Iraq??? no we haven't, we've just brought the insurgents out like crazy and they are pissed

Answer 1

Depends on how you define progress if I was HALLIBURTON I made lots of progress with about 20 billion in revenue for supporting the war

Answer 2

Funny that you talk like you have been there, when in reality you are the one who watches the news and you think you know what's going on. You obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about. I have been there and much progress has been made. Most insurgents are foreign fighters who are nothing more than terrorists. Why don't you catch a plane to Iraq so you can really see what's going on instead of posting ignorant comments behind stupid questions because you saw some pictures in the internet. War, fought for whatever reason is always an ugly thing. Since you like pictures why don't you look at the ones of the planes hitting the towers? I wonder how many kids where in board those flights...

Answer 3

While I respect your opinion, I don't think that you completely have the whole story. I would like to know where you saw that our soldiers "shot up a whole f**king town". Please provide a link.
Funny, my husband (who is US Army) and I have many friends over there, and we hear all kinds of good stuff. Like how the Iraqis are glad we're there. Like how they are happy to have an unstable democracy, rather than a stable dictatorship. Sure, they're scared, they don't know what's going to happen, but they'd rather have that because at least they know that they are MORE free now. This is straight from the mouths of the Iraqis, not from the "fascist news" or from our government.
I don't trust the news media, at least, not just one source. I watch/read as much as I can from as many of the networks as I can find, and discard the news that completely clashes with other reports.
You ask in another question why people attack you. It's the way you presented your question. First of all, you're hostile. Second, you accuse. Third, you're not really even asking a question; you're making a statement. Perhaps it would have been better if you had simply asked "Are we doing anything good in Iraq?"
Hostility begets hostility, Jada. I would suggest you keep that in mind next time you want to ask a question, especially one about such a volatile subject.
I am curious though, how you know what's going on in Iraq, if you don't watch the news, and you don't mention that you know anyone there, or even that you've been there yourself.

Answer 4

Yes--the U.S. had no choice but to go into Iraq; the administration always said the process of changing the middle east would take decades but it was necessary to start it now. Leaving Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq in an age where fanatical Islamists had demonstrated their capability to attack the U.S. successfully was not an option. Why? Because The co-existence of 1) an enemy determined to destroy the U.S. and 2) a regime (Saddam Hussein) capable of producing (and thus supplying) weapons that could annihilate a U.S. city was not acceptable.

Moreover, when you consider whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do, you cannot only consider the casualties in Iraq now. You must also consider the potential casualties that might have resulted from not going into Iraq: first there is no guarantee that more people would not have died in Iraq anyway--it's not as though Saddam Hussein didn't do his share of extermination. He gassed villages. It is arguable that the U.S. had a moral responsibility to do something. Second, if Saddam Hussein did supply an enemy with a biological weapon or a nuclear weapon--say even in 10 to 15 years--and that weapon were detonated in a U.S. city, you would be facing perhaps hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties and life everywhere in the world would be drastically changed; and you could forget about civil liberties altogether. Perhaps you think that the risk of a successful attack against the U.S. would is small. But how can that be? We know that Al Qaeda was able to launch a successful attack on the U.S.; we know that it is easier and easier to get biological/chemical/nuclear weapons if you have regimes like Iran, Saddam and North Korea making them; it is likely only a matter of time before a determined enemy gets such a weapon and uses it against the U.S. It would be foolish to sit back and wait for this to happen; the only option is to go to the enemy and fight the enemy where it is now. There are lots of places one could start, but for many reasons (to discuss later perhaps), Iraq was the most suitable.

Finally, if the U.S. has brought the insurgents out, so much the better. Better to get rid of them now.

Answer 5

You don't understand much do you? We have made progress in Iraq. We are 50% complete on their infrastructure, we are closer than ever on training their own security forces. The terrorist are hiding in amongst the women and children. We are doing the best that we can to fight this war through the eye of a needle. There will be civilians killed in this type of conflict. The insurgents are 90% NON Iraqi, for the simple reason is that they do not want democracy to take hold in the Middle east. Do you understand that a strong democratic Iraq would bring more peace?

Answer 6

I’m sorry you’re so naive. I am in the military and I have seen first hand the good we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you have a problem with Afghanistan as well? Just ask any of the women there that do not have to wear a veil any longer and can now get an education. The US military is not indiscriminately killing civilians regardless of what you read on the net. The Taliban, Sadam’s regime (Baath party) and the Iraqi insurgents have killed thousands of innocent people and you want to complain about us trying to stop that. If you don’t like it, why don’t you move to Iraq and help them.

Answer 7

As much as I hate to say it you might be right we have not made much progress in Iraq. The real problem is not the Iraqi insurgent the problem is the American people and by that I mean what do you think of war what are the thought that come in to your mind about war. We as american expect that in a war there are no casualties that the heroes never get hurt an that inocent people don't die well sweat heart you are wrong. America is fighting a war were we have our soldiers dying for a stupid rule called rules of engament we are the only ones fightin with rules your beloved insurgents dont fallow any type of rules they are the ones that use civilians as human shield but yet you are angry at our soldiers for doing their jobs. Who are the ones that start an engage in a fire fight but run like little bi#%hes to mosques so they wont be killed. Plus where do most of the insurgent come from? Syria, Iran not the Iraquis We must fight like they do hunt them down like animals and dispose of them like such. How do you fight a person that belives that if he dies god will accept him in have? We need to let our General and military do what they do best what they have train to do with out having their hands tied behind their backs sending them to die.

Answer 8

War is often fraught with senseless deaths of innocents. You don't need to focus just on the US and its efforts in Iraq to see that it is true. However, your belief that there is deliberate targeting of civilians is in direct opposition to the Rules of Engagement for Iraq. A violation of those rules is punishable under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, which holds stiffer penalties than most state laws.

One of your other comments notes the number of innocents that are killed by insurgents as being the root cause of so many deaths in Iraq. That comment is based on facts. The insurgency is focusing on the Iraqi police and the newly formed military units and those units are typically attacked individually or in mass in civilian areas. The insurgents however are only part of the problem. Sectarian and tribal violence claims the majority of recent civilian deaths. Whatever news source that you view probably does not differentiate between insurgent and sectarian/tribal violence, but they are indeed unique in their purposes. This type of violence is new, with respect to the time under Saddam, but it is not unique to Iraq. Take a look at Somalia right now and you will still see barbaric acts in a country that the US has not had any troops in for years.

On a good note, the Grand Ayatullah Sistani has called for an end to the Sectarian and Tribal fighting. See link below for the actual message.

Progress in Iraqi can not be measured by the number of deaths. If you look at the violent crimes in the US in 2004, you would think that we were on par with recent violence in Iraq. Progress must be viewed from the eyes of the people of Iraq. I would gladly find you sites/blogs that give voice to their feelings, but you will likely need to read/interpret Arabic.

Feel free to despise the violence, because conflict should always be the last choice. I would recommend that you petition the government to revamp the Department of State so that they can find diplomatic means to help reduce the violence. The last thing that I would add for your consideration is that violence in Iraq was quite rampant prior to the US involvement. Please refer to the links below that cover the charges against Saddam Hussein. The number of people killed by his direction, while not quite Stalinistic, is quite disturbing.

Answer 9

It would help if you give our troops one of the same freedoms that they are defending for you. The right to a fair trial. I beleive I know the story you are reffering to. According to the men that allegedly opened fire on the towns people, they were being mobbed. If that is true then yes some innocent civilians may have perished but what would you do. Where the children injured because their parents couldn't get them out in time, or because their parents used them as shield hoping they could mob those men without repercussion.
We have made progress in Iraq, as stated earlier, they have voted, they have written a constitution.

Answer 10

The US and UK presence in Iraq (The Bush/Blair Axis of Testosterone) appears to have brought about nothing better than the Saddam regime which preceded the illegal and unnecessary invasion. OK, a democratic government has been formed (at last) but the Iraqi people are still killing each other and the "imported" terrorists are adding their own evil to the brew. What is the point of us being there?

Answer 11

You are really clueless. The insurgents are steadily shrinking in numbers and effectiveness. More importantly, maybe you have paid no attention to what life was like under Saddam before we arrived. Even if everything you say is true about Iraq today, which it is not, it will still be an improvement over life there previously.
Most importantly, I do not really care if life is better there or not. I care about life in the US and as long as Saddam was in power, supporting terrorism and threatening our citizens and our allies, we are in harms way. I only care if we are better off and we are!
It's okay because many brainwashed public school pupils and college students learn to rely on facts and not feelings when they grow up. i'm sure you will to someday.