Are you in support of the American occupation of Iraq? Why or why not?

Question

My hubby is facing a 3rd deployment to Iraq and I just don't know if I can fully support this military action much longer.

I have been a proud wife of a US soldier for over 8 years now and am morally torn with this one. I believe you can support your troops without having to support their mission.

Answer 1

I certainly support our troops. I just do not see how that support consists of sending them off to fight unprovoked wars without sufficient armor, or denying them decent medical care and benefits when they return home. How often does Faux News broadcast the names and photos of those killed in battle? It seems to me that supporting the troops means a whole lot more than waving a flag and voting for leaders who see war as a profitable way of transferring funds from foreign debtors (the chinese) or future generations of americans to corporate coffers.

Do I support unprovoked war? No. It amazes me how many americans continue to think there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There never was any connection. Saddam (who we unsuccessfully attempted to assassinate) was intensely disliked by Usama Bin Laden (who we allowed to escape from the Torah Borah region of Afghanistan in 2003).

It would be one thing if we had competent leadership executing this unprovoked war. But the competence of the present administration has been solely in war profiteering. $8 billion to SAIC last year. No bid, cost plus contracts to Aegis Defense, Custer Battles, Blackwater, Titan, CACI, KBR, Halliburton... We may not be taking care of our soldiers, but we are taking excellent care of the CEOs of these companies who are rolling in multimillion dollar annual bonuses, and moving their headquarters off shore to protect their ill-gotten gain from US taxes.

Answer 2

I'm against because the politcal map in iraq is against it, the goverment in iraq is weak an dthe only thing that keep it alive is the US forces, there no way that iraq could get a pro Us goverment without US troops. just see the local policy of iraq, the real power is in tribes, the clergy and the militias. The current goverment in iraq won the elections because the Al madhi army of Sadrq supported them. Iran have every day more power there, the 70% of the consume goods in iraq are from Iran. Even in the ocupated iraq the US goods are out of the market (well this is almost in all the planet who wants US cars? all want Toyota and sony stereos). The other problem is that the social tissue of iraq is against the US, all people ear the clergy not the US soldiers. In the other hand the international oposition is big, now we see russia and China arming Iran and Siria to contain the US force in the Middle east and giving weapons to the insurgency to exhaust US. This war is exhausting the US economy, the deficit is the greater in history and the armed forces are begining to get short of force. the lives of a expensive and highly trainer army are being wasted because the political map is against this operation. Even the best soldiers in the world could become useless if the political conditions are against them. The policy rule over the military. but the problem is how to scape, if US stay the si matter of time that the Us economy felt with the hard competence of China , japan, Europe amd India. The US can't spend more resourses in Iraq the numbers are becoming dangerous. In the other hand if US scape who will get the control? that goverment of former exilied people is not able to control nothing. Iran will be the main power of the region and Persia will be a word to take in count. So the best thing that US can do is the same that kissinger did in China to end Vietnam. Recognize Iran or Siria as the new parter of the US. US did the same with China in the 70s. A communist state became the main US investment destiny.

Answer 3

On the fence which is what I've been from the beginning.

One has to consider the war aims:

1) Getting Rid of Saddam.
- Let's be honest: Saddam was a genocidal murderer kind of guy. I believe he got his just deserts.
- Still from the beginning, all the observers asked the obvious question: if Saddam is ousted who will replace him and how will the peace between all the ethnic groups and interests be kept.

2) Weapons of mass destruction
- I won't lie. I agree that the US should do everything in it power to prevent rogue countries from getting nuclear weapons or others that are too threatening. Still they had quite alot of sanctions in place. I don't believe evidence existed to justify the presidents rush to invade.

3) Blaming Iraq for 9/11
- This seems to have been silly. If evidence did arise that saddam was involved, of course, one would expect the US to do something about it; e.g. assasinate him, or even invade..
- All evidence seems to have pointed to Iraq's innocence there even if they had no "regrets" that the US was attacked.
OTHER FACTORS

Unrealistic Expectations of the American Public
- I have no idea why but it was portrayed as being a cake walk. The US has the best millitary intelligence in the world. I don't think they should have sold the war as a short term venture. The US press was very irresponsible in its reporting.

Cost:
- The cost of the war is too high. 400 billion a year?

Answer 4

No I Don't SUPPORT THE WAR AT ALL.
Why ? Does anyone remember the Men
who said : "Treat others,The same way
you wish to be treated "
Does any American allow or happily accept
any foreign troops in our country to remove our president for one reason or another ?
Would you fight to liberate your country ?
would you die to protect your family ?
Supporting the troops to stay in a war zone
just like cheering someone jumping off the Calif,President R.Reagan once said:
" I rather have %80 success than jumping off the cliff with %100 victory "
and that's exactly what we doing in Iraq.
What's victory in Iraq ? can you define it ?
And for the people who support the war
without trying to find out the truth that
you'll never hear or see in the media.
I want our troops to come home ALIVE.
Please,check this out :

www.rense.com/general61/loses.htm

Answer 5

Well first off we are no longer an occupying force.
And yes as a veteran of OIF, I know first hand that the work we are doing for the people of Iraq is a just cause and I know that if the left will let us succeed it will be a giant step in creating a more stable MiddleEast and protecting the U.S.

Thank your husband for his service, and thank you for your support. My wife isn't exactly looking forward to my next deployment later this year, but she knows that we are doing good and gives me and the rest fo the military 100% support. Please look past your personal sacrifices and know that it is for a greater good that will have a positive impact on the world for generations to come.

Also do not let the dive by, tragedy media sway you with their semi-fact and one sided reporting

Answer 6

Well since the Commander in Chief of our country blatantly lied about the reasons he invaded Iraq I don't see how anyone can support the US occupation. But more importantly the fact that many of the top US Generals told Bush & Rumsfeld that they needed at LEAST 300,000 US troops to win the war in Iraq well before Bush invaded shows that the almost criminal negeligence that Bush had when deciding to send US troops into Iraq. Not to mention the civil war it was going to cause once Saddam was taken out of power. Bush's invasion of Iraq is just one mess after the other & they are going to continue for long after Bush is gone.

Answer 7

I was, as long as it lasted. It hasn't been an occupation for a few years now. It is an allied sovereign nation with its own US-trained army that outnumbers US forces in theatre by 3-to-1, and the Iraqi Army is taking the lead in fighting terrorists. In some places, like Iraqi Kurdistan, there is only a token US force because the Iraqi forces have taken full control there.

Best to your husband. Wish I could be there.

Answer 8

I do not support the war in Iraq. This war was based on lies and greed by our leaders. There were no WMD and there was no Al Qaida It is an illegal war with illegal occupation. There is only 2 reasons we are there and that is a ruthless man in the White House named G W Bush who wants the oil for he and his friends and he is paranoid of Islam as we can all see

Answer 9

it is sad that our troops and their families are bearing the whole load of this war on terror ,i as well as many respondents support our troops [i served in past battles and understand the burdens you are now being asked to shoulder,
but i cannot support our children serving in the overseas theaters ,,for little more than to be the big brother between israel and iran ,
clearly this is not about oil alone ,
terror for egsample is not about oil ,
we long have seen how serious oil is in maintaining its cash flow monopoly but this is more ,than just controlling ''oil''
we have the neo con messiancs luni fringe meeting the nazi--
i-rites ,its about having a big brother govt intent on removing all constitutional protections from its own people ,
to favour the elite ,;it being much easier to serve the few ritch than the growing poor
you will recall how many poor in service have died [on all sides]
this began as an attack on the world trade center [ie the moneyed elite]
thus now it becomes clear the ones who chose to die died trying to tell big buisness some thing
big buisness was terrorised [not the common people
but now we have the common people getting killed under the lie of oil
its not about oil its about the power of money ,and the 5 percent that own ninty percent of it all
if you think the sausies who killed them selves and 3000 plus others died because they wanted a bit of the oil money spent on the poor you would get closer to why you and yours [ie one percent bears the whole burden of the elites war on the poor
[terrorised not terroists]

Answer 10

Seems like this is a common sense answer; Of course not.

It is not acceptable for one nation to occupy another sovereign nation against the will of the people. plain and simple.

For those that will surely answer 'yes' or about protecting our country, etc. etc., then those people must accept the same thing in return; i.e. the action must be correct in principle, regardless of "side". It can't be right for one nation to behave a certain way, yet be wrong for another nation to behave the exact same way . Which means if you support the US occupation of Iraq, then in principle, you feel it is right, and would accept another country deciding they will another country, including the USA, against the will of people. And we all know that would not be accepted here.

Of course, you are free to not believe in this principle and simply support anarchy and the absense of any sense of common law, and doing things simply because you can.

Answer 11

I was against it from the time it was first floated, long before we went.

It's both illegal and just plain wrong to attack another country that has not attacked you (unless there are some pretty compelling reasons).

Saddam Hussein was not beind 9/11 -- they lied about that.

He didn't have WMD -- as the UN inspectors were discovering at the time; they lied about that, too.

So we have destroyed a country, murdered hundreds of thousands of people, tortured and rapes tens of thousands more, flattened entire cities, destroyed the infrastructure of the place, and turned their lives into utter misery.

It was wrong when Bush first conceived it (before he was elected), wrong when he first mentioned it, wrong when we did it, and is still wrong now.

On top of being illegal and immoral, everything about the invasion and occupation was wrongly done: Putting control of the country in the hands of thieves, liars, even murderers, that the Iraqi people had no respect for; putting their resources in the hands of known thieves (Halliburton); firing the army (making all the trained soldiers who knew where the weapons and ammo were unemployed and angry); failing to secure said weapons and ammo, thus arming all those angry young men; rounding up innocent people and torturing and raping, then releasing, them; raiding the houses of innocent people in the middle of the night, destroying all their possessions, terrorising their families, humiliating their females, and carting the men away.

Then there's the fact of what we've done to our own: Sending our people in harm's way for no good cause; not sending enough to do the job; sending Guards, who had signed up to defend our soil and help in emergencies here, not invade other countries; failing to equip them with stuff that could save their lives; cutting their pay and benefits; refusing to treat those damaged; treating them as slaves by extending their tours, and sending them back again and again and again.

We who said this was wrong were told we were terrorists who hate America and to shut up.

Everything we said has been proven right -- it's even worse than we thought.

Yet there are still those who say we are terrorists who hate America.

We were the ones who wanted to avoid all this horror, destruction, and mess.

The ones who destroyed one country and have done immeasurable harm to our own are the anti-Americans, not us.