What is your opinion on the Iraq war? Should we be or not be in Iraq? Please Respond.?

Question

I am in need of answers!! Please respond as soon as possible!!

Answer 1

Some people argue that we never should have gone over to Iraq in the first place. But let's get past the first place.

We went over there. Can't change that now. We deposed Saddam. Few argue that was a bad thing. We toppled the old government. Done. The question is, what are we still doing there years after "Mission Accomplished".

The loudest (but weakest) argument is that "we're fighting terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them over here." First, there isn't a lot of proof (either way) that what we're doing has any significant impact on what terrorists outside Iraq are doing. Or for that matter, on what terrorists inside Iraq are doing.

It's sheer speculation (might be true, might not) that the insurgents fighting against US forces in Iraq would suddenly start attacking US cities if the US left. More likely, they'd continue their own civil war without interference from us. And those terrorists who are planning on hitting the US or Europe probably aren't spending their days planting IEDs along Iraqi highways. They're already overseas planning their attacks.

So, it's highly debatable whether our presence in Iraq is having any effect toward stopping other terrorist attacks outside Iraq.

The other arguments all center around nation-building, helping Iraq establish a new government, bring democracy to the region etc. But even if those might be valid goals (and that too is debatable), the methods we're using are hideously inefficient, and apparently ineffective.

Let's look at it from a cost-benefit perspective. How much money (tens of millions) and how many lives (dozens) did it cost for the US to invade Iraq and topple Saddam's government . How much money (tens of billions) and how many lives (thousands) has it cost for the US to remain in Iraq and try to force them to set up a new government. Which, by the way, is nowhere close to being ready to take over their country.

What we should have done is pull out after "Mission Accomplished" and allow Iraq to set up whatever government it wanted. If we didn't like the results, we go in, topple it, and tell them to try again. We could have done that 10 times and still spent only 1% of the money and lost 1% of the lives that we have so far under the current plan.

So, regardless of the goals, the means we're using to accomplish them are highly wasteful of both resources and American lives. And from any perspective, stupid means are not a good way to achieve any goals.

-----

Regardless of why we went to Iraq, the only measurable reason we're there is to help Iraq form a government. I believe the catch phrase of the day is: "We'll stand down when they stand up."

And how long will that take? Months? Years? Decades? And how long do they need to remain standing before we leave? A month? A year? A decade? And if they can't sustain their new govt, which all indication is that they won't be able to do, do we go back? And how often?

The occupation of Iraq is a never-ending mission. And why that one country, and not the dozens of others who are just as much in need of liberation and support? And do we spend hundreds of billions of dollars and decades for each of them?

We can't even secure our own borders, or solve the problems of our own country. But yet we waste so much money and effort, and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, doing what nobody -- not even the Iraqis -- want us to do.

Answer 2

Being in Iraq is dead wrong, we should have never been there in the first place. We were sent under false pretense. The president lied, straight out. Now that we are there and have taken Saddam out we still shouldn't be there, the Iraqi are in the middle of a civil war. The Shites and the Sunni. We caused this by trying to change Iraq into our image. These people will never accept a puppet government set up by Bush. Their way of life would be compromised and I agree with them. They should have the right to set up what ever kind of government they want. It is their country. Should we get out of Iraq, you bet. Before any more Americans die for a lost cause.

Answer 3

As an Australian I believe that our participation at the behest of the US was the correct decision. All free loving people have to stick together.

While we were not directly involved in the September 11 atrocity it is as much our concern as was the bombing of our citizens in Bali. So it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. The geographic location next to Iran is.

Sooner or later we, the Allies, will need to take out the nuclear capabilities of Iran. The sooner the better. The united nations is and always has been a lame duck when it comes to policing it own rules.

The Iranian government is crazy. If they could they would change our way of life. We would be forced to adopt a fanatical religious culture which values women as chattels and human life as expendable.

That they excuse their actions as being in support of god makes them a demonic power. Any religion which advocates their children commit suicide is bad enough but when this is advocated to kill innocent bystanders surely anyone of any religious faith or morality must brand such people and their religion as satanic and a threat to god faring people.

WE must remain in Iraq as a bastion of strenght against fundementalist Islam. The unrest in that country provides a good excuse for us to stay until we are ready to strike and destroy Iran and Syria. Even then the conflict may not be over. From Afganistan it may be necessary to destroy parts of Pakistan which holds more demons intent on destroying our way of life.

Answer 4

Iraq was always a stepping stone to Iran. Iran is the key to all of this. It is an important war and whether anyone likes it or not, we can not solve this issue by just bringing the troops home. We are in the beginning stages of World War III, so as a country we need to start acting like it. Lets not pull another Vietnam on our troops and understand what we are doing over there. The world will be defined by the outcome of what happens in the middle east. People who want to die trying to kill all non-believers are not going to be talked out of it by peace talks. This is your warning for all who think everything is hunky dory.

Answer 5

We should not be in Iraq. We should have never gone to Iraq.

Besides flushing billions of dollars right down the toilet, we've literally created a monster there.

Saddam Hussein was contained and posed no threat to the U.S. On the contrary, he did a lot of our dirty work for us. He ruthlessly slaughtered anyone who he perceived as an enemy of his secular socialist regime, and that included Islamic fundamentalists. SADDAM HUSSEIN KILLED TERRORISTS but W. the idiot discarded this useful tool.

I believe that we should cut our losses and abandon Iraq. There's nothing we can do there except waste more money, and our puppet government there is going to collapse when we leave, whether it is ten years down the road or tomorrow morning.

Answer 6

When Saddam invaded Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, we were obligated to go to war to stop him. Once we had driven his forces out of those two countries, we gave him a temporary cease-fire in which he had to hand over all his WMD and its manufacturing equipment. He spent the next decade violating the cease-fire and shooting at our aircraft.

The war Saddam started never ended. But at a cost of $20 billion per year and 6,000 children dead per month (according to UNICEF), we could not prolong it indefinitely. So, both Al Gore and GW Bush promised to finish the job. Bush has fulfilled his campaign promise.

To this day, we are still finding prohibited weapons in Iraq that Saddam was supposed to hand over for destruction. The weapons are not the reason Bush sent in the final invasion force - they are merely proof that Saddam successfully deceived the UN inspectors for the past decade and had no intention of obeying the disarmament mandates. The reason for finishing the war in our favor is that Saddam had proven his intentions with his refusal to rejoin the peaceful cooperative nations of the world.

In 1998, Bill Clinton and Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act making it official US policy to remove Saddam by force and install a democratic form of government in Iraq. Clinton tried but failed. He left it to his successor, who has succeeded.

Saddam chose his path. He chose poorly.

Yes, we should have done what has been done - to deny Saddam the final victory in the decade-long war.

We are obligated by Geneva Convention to keep our forces there until Iraq's new government has sufficient strength to handle its own security and defense matters. When they ask us to leave, our troops are coming home. Just for perspective, our troops are still in Kosovo too...

Answer 7

First of all, Iraq had zippo to do with 9/11. Iraq did not have a terrorist problem before we got there. Iraq was not a threat to us. The reasons specified for invading and occupying that soverign nation turned out to be 100% premediated fabrications. Iraq NOW has a terror problem, since we attracted al Queda there to use our guys as target practice and it is also on the brink of sectarian civil war. Those not al Queda are insurgents who just want the western powers out of their country.
(reposted from my answer to another message this evening.)

Answer 8

This war, like many others is supported and funded by the weapons industry. What do think all those billions and billions of dollars are being spent for? This war was a mistake and continues to be a sore spot for the American people. Wake up America, get rid of Bush and his cohorts who profit from this senseless war.........

Answer 9

it would be nice if we were never in Iraq. I think we as a nation made a grave mistake and screwed up BIG TIME going into that country and as a result so many have lost there lives! I think that it would have been better to stay focused in afghanistan and maybe it would have been possible to find Osama BIn Laden by now!

Answer 10

Being in Iraq under the pretense that they had WMD's is wrong. However, if we went in there on the basis, and only on the basis that Saddem Hessuien was a threat to his own people then I would support the war.

If you like politics/current events please visit our message board. We're looking for more people.

http://phpbbstar.com/wwwhistorykamik.html