Iraq War Question?

Question

There are many different points of view on the War in Iraq. I, for one, believe we are there for a good cause, others believe we should never have been there in the first place. I do not want to hear from people who just enjoy bashing Bush, when they know nothing at all. My questions are: Do you believe we should still be in Iraq? If we left tomorrow, do you believe we would have lost millions of dollars and manpower without a positive outcome? Would Iraqs society be better or worst if we did leave? Lastly, do you believe, if we left, that we would be stepping all over the graves of the men and women who passed away fighting for something they believe in?

Please reply with answering the questions. Please do not give your opinion if you are just going to bash Bush. Only people living in America, England, Iraq,or other countries directly involved need to answer. I will give 10 points to the best answer,even if its not what i believe. GOD BLESS AMERICAN AND SUPPORT OUR TROOPS

Answer 1

I believe that we should have gone there. Saddam and his children did terrible things to the people of Iraq including mudering thousands of Kurds.

I don't think we should still be there.

If we left there would probably be civil war--there is now. We can't fix all the problems of the world, but we can stop dying for others problems.

I was there for a year. I am not an expert, but that is what I believe.

Answer 2

This is tricky question, when we don't even know the true purpose of the war, if the purpose was to remove Sadam hussein from power then we have won; if the purpose was to find WMD's then we all know the answer to that; now the war as defined by international law was over when we defeated Sadams army, what is left in iraq is an occupation and a very bad civil war, how much worse can the civil war be if US troops leave? Will it end when US troops leave? probably not; but one thing is for sure that is that the troops should leave and let the iraquis decide when and how they want to end their own internal conflict, it is obvious that the US can't stop the violence there, they've had three years to do this and they have failed, if anything the place is more violent than it was after the war. You can support your troops more by asking our president to bring them back; they don't want to be there, walking around with a target on their heads, they don't even know who is shooting at them. GOD BLESS AMERICA BRING THE TROOPS HOME.

Answer 3

If you want to limit the question to just those details... sure.

No, we should not still be in Iraq. It's a pointless waste of money and life that is not achieving any American objectives.

If we left tomorrows, or next year, there still wouldn't be a positive outcome. Because Iraq as a country is not ready to handle democracy as a govt model, and no amount of US forces will change that. I'm not talking about the initial invasion, or toppling Saddam. Those are unrelated and independent of remaining there years after "Mission Accomplished".

Better off? Iraq society would probably be the same if we left or if we stayed. But with 2000+ Iraqi deaths per month over the past couple years, we're certainly not helping the situation.

And killing more people, in an attempt to make it not seem pointless, isn't strategic. It's foolish and wasteful. There are far more effective ways to dealing with the problem. And no soldier who has died a pointless death would ever want one of their fellows to die, just so that they wouldn't have died alone.

What are some alternatives, and why do I think this way? I've answered those questions many times before here. Read the two blog entries for details.

Answer 4

We will remain there until Iran does what western nations demand. We are still in Afghanistan, why? These will be staging areas for the showdown with Iran. Of course this is just speculation but looking at the state of the region, the prose coming from Iran, the actions of Hiz-Hezbollah it seems a logical conclusion.

If we leave now, we leave unfinished business in the region. Unfinished business of dyer consequences. Yes we would not only have lost billions, but all credibility in the region/world.

If we were to leave now, Iraq's society would have to figure it's self out and that would be in the form of a civil war. Eventually things would be better than with Saddam ruling as we would see to it that the side we want to win the civil war would be adequately armed and supported by us.

Yes, it would be the ultimate insult to leave a combat situation with out fulfilling the ultimate goal. An ultimate goal of which Americans DO NOT KNOW....they are for the most part too stupid/arrogant to understand the massive complexities that went into this war. Although they all think they do. You need look no further than the example of a person answering this very question saying we didn't find any "bombs" referring to WMDs. YES, WMD's WERE FOUND!

http://www.humanevents.com/sarticle.php?id=10101&o=DIB004

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm

The only problem is, the libs are "qualifying" it. It's either too old, not enough or we knew it was there....Yet they keep squaking that we didn't find any???? No one say's they make sense. And they seem to forget it was up to Saddam to PROVE he didn't HAVE WMD's, not for us to prove he did. One of many reasons of justification...Shooting at our boys in the no-fly zones, offering rewards to the families of suicide bombers, telling the U.N. to F* off for years while he "restructured". Not to mention the years of comiting numerous U.N. resolution violations giving us the RIGHT to attack if we chose...And the libs say it's an "Illegal War"? As I said, the shear arrogance of Americans in general makes them incapable of rationalizations beyond their emotion driven outbursts, where fact need not apply.

As time goes on, it will become more clear...Look at the surrounding nations for clues. Namely Iran and Syria, their in lies the answer to what our ultimate goal is.

Answer 5

First and foremost, how can you be for TRUE freedom and democracy and say that only a certain type of person can answer your question? But to answer the question, no we should not still be in Iraq. If we left tomorrow , yes it would be an loss of life and millions and so forth. But no we would not be "stepping on the graves" of the ones who lost their lives. Our leaders made a mistake. People are only human. The problem is no one wants to be held accountable for those mistakes.

Answer 6

I have total faith in President Bush, Secretaries Rice and Rumsfeld, as well as Tony Blair and others. Knowing that these people who have the most pertinent information and have access to all the information, are questioned and bashed by the likes of that dough-head Michael Moore and the other ignoramuses is just beyond my comprehension. It's too bad that so many US citizens actually believe these traitors. We do know that such people put their own fame and fortune before America's good.

Answer 7

shoud we still ....no we need to get out as soon as the job is done...not now but we do need to get out.

leaving tommorrow...hmmm well if you built a house only too give it away the next day would you be out money?.... of course

worse.....look what happened when clinton came and put a stop too what bush senior did....weve spent so much time and money redoing what we did eight years ago. imagine now we do it a second time... no country on earth will ever believe the u.s. if we told them that we are there too help. their society would crumble and someone as bad as or worse than hussein would get control of the country.

leaving now is worse than stepping on the graves of others.. it is digging our own graves, call me proud but how do you feel about someone who walks away from a fight after only haven taken a few punches...coward yes? chicken? would you be afraid of them afterwards?

Answer 8

allah is wid muslim in iraq who are giving sacrifices everyday .usa is not succesful in keeping peace nor they able to find bombs .shame on them