Do you agree with the War in Iraq?

Question

We are learning more about the war in my civics class and I just wanted to know some other people's opinions.

Answer 1

Obviously, Brad B & many other pro-war supporters have been drugged with too much mainstream military-political propaganda.

We didn't go to Iraq to depose Mr. Hussein - we went to gain access & control of oil & military bases. The US is still the world's biggest oil-dependent economy with low reserves, and Iraq has the world's 2nd largest oil reserves. We went to Afghanistan first (a resource poor, non-oil country), and we invented the Al-Qaeda - Iraq connection as an excuse to go into Iraq. (Later proved to be no connection.) Regarding bases, the US has over 700 overseas bases in 130 countries worldwide. Let me tell you, the US military is NOT going to abandon those bases in Iraq. They need the bases to protect the oil and assert influence in a pro-US puppet government. An anti-US government will simply not be allowed if possible, as the US has militarily intervened in over 30 countries worldwide in the last 60 years against left-leaning, anti-US governments. (Google for more information on that.)

We had to depose Mr. Hussein in order to do that - he was in the way. So a lot of reasons were invented, like 1) Iraq was developing WMDs, and that 2) Mr. Hussein was a genocidal dictator who killed a million people.

What Brad & other propagandically brainwashed pro-war vets & civilians ignore is that, the US actually sold weapons & biological agents (such as anthrax) to Iraq for biological WMD production throughout the 1980s. (That would be under Mr. Reagan & Mr. Bush Sr's watch. You can wikipedia Iraq & WMDs.) We gave him $40 billion, and all the time we knew that he was using chemical WMDs in the Iraq-Iran war.

And yes, Mr. Hussein was a genocidal dictator. He came into power in 1979, and committed his atrocities of 100,000s of people during the 1980s. And all that time, we kept looking the other way, training his soldiers, selling him weapons, & GIVING HIM MONEY, because we wanted a US-friendly government in the region, and it was fighting our arch-enemy Iran, which was supported by the Soviets.

He committed his crimes against humanity (which we didn't condemn & indirectly aided) in the 1980s. Now all of a sudden 20 years later, the US political leadership had a mysterious change in heart and wants to convict Mr. Hussein. 20 years later after the fact. How very convenient and noble.

This is not to mention that they had the opportunity to do it in the early 1990s in the First Persian Gulf War against Iraq. At the time, the Kurds who were being genocidally annihilated were begging us to go in and help them, but we left them hanging to dry.

The Iraq war is built on lies & propaganda. Both soldiers & civilians should be required to inform themselves about the true historical facts before they support & engage in wars, instead of just believing all these marketing slogans of "freedom," "democracy", and "WMD threats", etc that come out of the mouths of our politicans & generals.

Answer 2

This is a very good question when not used emotionally or politically. Of course, it has to have a political element to be acted upon and funded.

However, I agree(d) with the war to remove an evil murdering dictator. This was done timely and incisicively. Unfortunately it didn't end there as anticipated. The many differing factions in that country will not permit one group of Arabs (tribe) to rule over another, they are not homogenous. We should have been much more alert to this kind of outcome and we were not. Had it been studied and the outcome anticipated we may not have gone in, now we are beset with a terrible problem. In a sense we have opened Pandoras Box on which Sadaam kept the lid on with massive cruelty the likes of which we abhor.

We have allowed ourselves to be put in the position of supporting the Shiaa people who are (Persian) Iranian and want us out of there so that they can move forward and anihilate all the Sunnis, and they will for sure. The bottom line here is, we should have been supporting the Sunni, not Sadaam, the Bathists, but the Sunni people who are moderates and much more willing to be part of the Western International Community, --A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, How? and Why?

Kinda Footnote: Our troops should definately not be in there under these circumstances. They carried out their task admirably, the war was over when they reached Bahgdad. An occupation force is an enterely different mode of operation to a war force. the same force that won the conventional war cannot win what is happening there now -- who can? Only the Iraqis! and it is a foregone conclusion, Iran will win, genocide will be carried out and this is tragic and a big mistake.

To police these Iraqis would require a force of such numbers to be not a viable proposition for any country. They do not want to amalgamate, the solution has to be separation there is no othe way now.

Answer 3

If we had done things right from the beginning, then I would have supported it. I knew in 2003 that the claims of WMDs were BS, and I protested the war mainly because I didn't trust a liar president. Now, I can appreciate the fact that even though he used a theatrical production to get popular support, the objectives (Middle East presence, access to oil, removal of an evil dictator) made sense.

The trouble has been that the Bush Admin. tried to do things on the cheap from the get-go in order to not anger the public and fiscal conservatives in congress witha lot of spending...that has been a huge mistake. If we had spent 100B/year at the beginning of the war, and had 400,000 troops, Iraq would most likely be a sucess now, and then I could (grudgingly) say that I supportthe Iraq war mission.

Unfortunately, the ideologically driven nature of the Bush Administration and chincy cheapness has meant that his whole affiar has becomea fiasco, and is basically beyond repair. It's like cancer, if you don't treat it agressively in the beginning, then no amount of aggressive treatment later on is going to save it.

So now, we should leave, and just guard strategically important targets. We should also be arming the Peshmerga (Kurds) and Shia, because the real enemy is the Baathists and Sunni insurgents (Al Qaeda is a Wahabbist Sunni organization). The reason we don't go after the Sunnis full throttle is because we don't want to offend the dear old Saudi royal family. I say screw the Saudi bastards and let's let the Shia get their revenge for decades of torture. If we do that, we gain some influence/loyalty with them over Iran, and we wipe up Al Qaeda in Iraq.

By the way Bob G, the Iranians were pursuaded to release the hostages because we made a secret deal to sell weapons to them, care of Col. Olliver North and Adm. Poindexter.. You do remember the Iran/Contra scandal, right? Reagan sold them weapons, he didn't scare them into doing anything.

Answer 4

I agree with the war on terror but not the war in Iraq. I totally support our troops though. What is sad is that our government lied to us and told us that Saddam supported the terrorists (Osama Bin Laden). In reality, he didn't. I don't think he was a good person and am glad he is out of power, and dead I guess. If you learn the history of the middle east, you will learn that the group Saddam was part of and the group that Osama is part of are bitter enemies.
Also, I think it is pointless for us to be there because we cannot change them. Their government is run by their religion, not democracy. Although I do not agree with the muslim religion, I don't believe it's our place to make everywhere like the USA. Also, throughout history, no matter who was in power, there was always termoil and violence. And there were many different types of governments in the middle east throughout history.
As a side note, I was on the fence leaning towards justification until I learned the history of Iraq and that Saddams people do not and did not support the terrorists. I am a republican who is pretty conservative so this isn't a liberal rant againt our government. I love being an American and love my country, but do not believe we can do anything to help these people unless they want to help themselves.

Answer 5

The thing most people don't realize is there really is not a war anymore. It is now an occupation. We destroyed the government we where at war with and declared victory. Though most people in America do not understand what an occupation is and people dieing with the war over confused them so they started calling it a war again.

War is a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.

Since in Iraq we no longer have a set enemy and we support the new government we are not at war. Our troops there are basically beefed up cops.

occupation
7. the term of control of a territory by foreign military forces

Since we still have some control over the government and we are using our troops to maintain control it is an occupation.

The war is over we won, but the occupation is not looking good for us. I think we are going to fail at the occupation and rebuilding.

So who cares if you agreed with the war or disagreed with it. The question you should be asking is do you agree with the occupation of Iraq.

Answer 6

As a Veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, yes I do.
I posted this earlier and hope it applies/gives some insight

We are still in Iraq becasue we are needed there. We are providing security and training for the Iraqi Security Force. We must leave Iraq with a certain stability and ability to protect themselves. We are still in Iraq, becasue a stable Iraq is key to a stable Middle East.

President Bush did take 9/11 seriously - that why we were in Afganistan ASAP. That why there hasn;t been another large scale attack in the US. We went in becasue we knew Iraq had the capacity to manufacture WMDS (Saddam had used them on his own people) and becasue Iraq had violated 17 UN mandates and did not heed our warning. We went in and in a matter of weeks defeated Saddam and his army. We did not foresee the influx of foreign terrorists into Iraq and the chaos that those insurgents would bring to the country.
We will not give up, we will see the mission through. We are making progress and are working towards a safer Middle East, which will create a safer world. I am heading back for my 2nd tour this summer. I hope that we can get to a point of stability soon. No one wants to come home more than the troops, but not come home at all cost. We want to leave with a truely completed mission. A free and stable Iraq. Hopefully your daughters father realizes this - being in Iraq definitly fostered and reinforced my views.

Answer 7

I don't like war in general, just as I don't want violence in my personal life. However, I have learned something and will try to share it:

We hand out millions of dollars a day to other countries, many of whom burn our flags and spit on our citizens. One of those countries is Iran. Back when Jimmy Carter was president the Iranians kidnapped and held a group of our citizens hostage for about 400 days. When Ronald Reagan was elected to office the Iranians reconsidered their position and released the hostages immediately.

While Bill Clinton was president Terrorists came to this country and planned an attack that took place some months after George Bush took office. The fact is that they felt comfortable planning an attack on this country's soil while Clinton was in Office. Perhaps it is coincidence but I haven't seen another attack on our soil since Bush demonstrated that we are willing to bring the fight to them. As a matter of fact, the attacks against Americans around the world are almost non-existant except in the one place we have taken the war to them.

You hear about the American deaths in Iraq so let's look at it in perspective.More American citizens died from drunk drivers last year than died in the entire time we have been in Iraq. Statistically, you are more likely to die from gunshot wounds in Washington DC than you are in Iraq. Check the numbers yourself, its astonishing. While all this is going on, how many top leaders in Al Qaida have died or been imprisoned? Without leaders the terrorists are no more than an angry mob and of little consequence.

Remember that for the most part we are not killing the civilians. Rather the terrorists are. The liberal groups here are distorting the numbers to try to make us the villians.

I wish war wasn't necessary but it is. I feel we are fighting it the wrong way though. When I am attacked I use every tool and weapon at my disposal to destroy those who attack me. but I do not ever start a fight. Our relations with other countries should be handled the same way.

Quelisto:
Try again after checking the dates and other relevent facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair#Hostage_taking

Also, please specify exactly where I said he scared or frightened them. I was citing information that coincided.

Answer 8

I'm with "Virginia Gentleman" up there on the subject of the bushy field. But I extensively disagree with the struggle given that: one million). Iraq posed no hazard to the United States two). We don't have got to unfold democracy internationally. Cold-struggle-technology reasoning must no longer nonetheless observe. three). WMD hazard in Iraq was once vulnerable in comparison to different nations (North Korea, Pakistan, and so forth). Iraq didn't presently own WMD and allowed inspectors into the nation..they grew to become up not anything Iraq was once relatively not anything however a distraction. We must have targeted wholly on Afghanistan and the exact Al Qaeda hazard, however as a substitute we have been fed strains approximately democracy, terror, and matters that relatively had not anything to do with Iraq. It obtained to the factor wherein many humans in America wrongly believed that Al Qaeda was once in Iraq, and that we had to by hook or by crook "battle the terrorists" in Iraq to maintain them clear of us right here. And all of that was once simply natural farce.

Answer 9

Without going into a lot of political history, yes. How or why the decision was made no longer matters- we're there and we need to win. If you think 9-11 was bad, wait till our enemies see that the democrats are cowards with no stomach for doing what has to be done, they will be emboldened to attack us again and again and again.
Never forget that theseR.I.F.'s (radical islamic fundamentalists) truly believe that every American deserves death, just for being born here. That means EVERYONE. Your little sister, your mother, your aged aunt deserves to be beheaded, blown up, mutilated- dead. You can't reason with hate like that. All you can do is kill them first.
I realize that people will see this and think I'm full of hatred or a racist, but nothing could be further from the truth. I truly wish we could all live in peace, but it's just not human nature.
Oh, and to all you pollyannas out there who think we can just reason with them- try that the next time someone puts a gun in your face to rob you.

Answer 10

Yeah I support the war; however I don't support the way we are fighting it.
I don't support the media covering it.
I don't support the politicians handcuffing our troops.
I don't support the anti war protestors
I don't support the environmentalists that say we went in for oil
I don't support the Democrats because they don't stand for American values (they flip flop on everything)

We should permit our boys to fight without the eyes of the media questioning their every decision/move. They should be permitted to use all our power (weapons) to destroy our enemy and make them an example.

Go to
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
and listen to Michael Savage on the Am radio.

Sorry to get so upset, but if you want to learn more about the conservative side, listen to the AM radio. Shaun Hannity or Michael Savage. Michael Savage is wonderful but be ware that he'll kick you in the teeth with the extreme brutality and facts no one else will ever give you.

God Bless America!