Honest opinion of the war?

Question

What is your honest opinion of the Iraqi war? Don't let being a republican or democrat sway your answer.

Also, don't talk about the deaths of our military because more people die in car crashes in a month in the US than the total amount of soldiers that have died since the war began.

Answer 1

An inevitable, unfortunate necessity.

Answer 2

I would be able to support and understand the war better if I knew what we were fighting for. Is it the thought that there is still WMD's that is keeping us there...to prevent more terrorism? Is it to protect Iraq from Iran, because when we leave there is sure to be civil war? Or to protect Israel? Is it about the oil, but no one will admit it? What would constitute a 'victory' is what I would like to know. It seems like we are at war indefinitely. It's really hard to stand behind something when I feel this way.

I think that terrorism will still happen with or without the supposed WMD's that are still there. I think a civil war is inevitable, that we are fighting a war that isn't ours. I think we are concerned about the oil...if it wasn't an issue, gas prices wouldn't be rising. I don't see what we are fighting for...and if we are fighting for all of this, maybe we have more on our plates than we can handle.

Answer 3

The world population continues to expand and the demand for world resources continues to soar.
AS we simply understand this, Your beliefs will continue to evolve.
I don't like the war but there is something bigger at stake.
The U.S. military is perhaps demonstrating to the world that if we need something we will go in and get it. Yes, perhaps sad, but true...
We are not that blatant to call it what it is. Instead it is easier to label ruthless dictactors that have WMD's and "go get them".
The bottom line... Most people will not stop and think about the disastrous effects that the exploding world population will have on humanity and nature. People just blindly think they have to have kids and yet, there is so many kids out there without parents. More kids, more demand for things, toys, diapers, food,.... more cars, more CONSUMPTION. And that means more pollution... more possible food shortages. What will the future be like for children of today?

Other concern aobut the war is who is influencing our government and why attack a country that was not involved in 9-11?

Some suggest that the U.S. may be doing Israel's biddding because of the strong zionist lobby in D.C.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whoiscongresslisteningto.html

But the U.S. also gains greatly in strategic control of mass oil reserves.
So when politician's say it is for the nation's defense, I use to say they were full of crap.....
but as you look deeper they may believe what they are saying, in that, they feel they are defending the "American Way of Life" .. And as you may already feel if gas goes to $6, $8 or $10 a gallon, it would definitely change the "American Way of Life" .
This again, there have been great paradigm shifts throughout history... And as we have learned from history, No empire lasts forever.

Below is the link for a well made documentary.
GREAT COMMENTS BY CURRENT AND RETIRED MILITARY PERSONNEL.
This is important especially for those of us who have served or who are serving and also those of you with children as someday we may see a draft reinstated and we should all be clear on what we are fighting for.

Democrats and Repubs should lay down party politics and get serious about doing the right thing so that the country’s citizens and the country’s soldiers are not put in harms way unnecessarily. Very well made documentary and a little hard to want to face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YlcpXBFOXA

this link shows one of a 10 part documentary.

Answer 4

Honestly, the president, the commander-in-chief, has not clearly stated what his definition of WIN in Iraq. Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses and now does not want to leave Iraq until peace is achieved, but peace will not be achieve because of the civil/sectarian war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. The U.S. troops there are only playing the role of Iraqi peoples protector, but still cannot stop the daily bombings.

Answer 5

If I learned anything from living in Beirut, it's that predicting the outcome of sectarian divisions in the Middle East is a fool's game. The shifting alliances, the internal pressures, the regional influences, make it next to impossible to say whether or not the removal of American forces would further destabilize Iraq.

It's also grimly amusing that we're expected to believe the prognostications of the very people who told us we'd be greeted as liberators.

For every foreign policy expert who says that Iraq will be worse off without U.S. troops, there's another who will tell you the exact opposite is true. In the absence of any sound predictive capabilities, the endgame should be based on the opening: i.e. the sooner you end something that started out wrong and has had terrible consequences, the better.
For those who counter with the Pottery Barn rule (we broke it we should fix it), the question is: What's the statute of limitations on that rule? What if we can't fix what's broken in Iraq? Is there a point at which we acknowledge we can't fix it and stop trying? Is our attempt to 'fix' Iraq breaking it even further? Also, are there other things we've broken that we're obliged to fix before we try to fix Iraq? Is there a reason our limited resources should go to fixing Iraq and not saving poor, sick, and hungry children in America?

Any talk of withdrawal, redeployment or a change in course is characterized as "cutting and running." This word-play is so disingenuous that it hardly merits a rebuttal, but the best response to the notion that a war hero like John Kerry or John Murtha wants to "cut and run" is Murtha's response to Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

A phased withdrawal is just that, a phased withdrawal. And a timetable is just that, a timetable. Using politically-charged buzzwords won't change the fact that the present course of action is untenable. It is the height of folly to continue on a tragic and deadly path just to save face.

For those who think continuing with the current policy in Iraq is a mark of courage and changing direction the mark of cowardice, they should bear in mind that courage tempered by wisdom is noble, courage in defiance of wisdom is foolhardy.

They'll follow us home? No matter how many times reality intrudes on this fantasy, it's still one of the favored arguments by the war's supporters. And it was repeated more than once in the House debate.

This is yet another straw man: we all agree that it's better to fight our enemies somewhere other than on the streets of America. The problem with the "fight them there" approach is that:

a) Iraq wasn't "there" until AFTER the invasion. (In spite of the mental contortions of Bush apologists who insist there was a substantive Saddam-Qaeda connection.)

b) Our policy in Iraq is creating more of "them."

c) "There" is where "them" (Bin Laden and his cohorts) are. And it ain't Iraq.

A corollary to this argument is that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror" and we can't defeat the terrorists if we don't fight them there. That's like walking into someone's house, breaking an expensive vase, and claiming you have to move in because your job is to clean up broken vases and as long as vases are being broken, you have to be there to clean up the mess. Arguments don't get more circular than this...

And if remaining in Iraq is really about Bush's resolve to defend America against our enemies by keeping them away from the mainland, let's not forget what Katrina's aftermath tells us about how well this administration is preparing for domestic threats. Imagine the holes in domestic security that could be plugged with the toil and treasure being spent in Iraq.

Answer 6

1st car crashes and the death of the soldiers are not comparable. As for the war. It was a misconceived idea from the beginning. Poorly planned. No research of the region and it's people. On and on and on.

Answer 7

If you read between the lines Baghdad is in a state of anarchy -

Iraq is in a civil war

The US troops are no more than one faction in a civil war where they support one side (the current government)


I can't help but think that is a stupid idea .


Let Iraq have it's civil war - seal the borders so no one invades them while they do this and then deal with the winner


How would you feel if Canada or the UK interfered with your civil war in the US ?

Yep that's how they feel about you to

Answer 8

It's not going as badly as the MSM is leading us to believe. it's ugly, but far from lost.
Thing like the Anbar Salvation Council, Sunnis who are actively fighting and killing al Qaeda.
The fact it's been 2 days since a major attack in Baghdad (not Iraq Baghdad)

For more check out the links below, they will show the good, bad and the ugly of what is going on in Iraq.

Answer 9

conflict is by no potential the respond on your issues! My opinion on the conflict in Iraq is in basic terms a waste of money! i'm an American and usa and different international places have become broke customary via conflict. I only desire President Obama ought to the yank troops of the middle East!

Answer 10

my honest opinion i am against the war i think that this war was uncalled for i thing president bush just wanted to be known for sending people to the war he really doesnt care for the soldiers if he did they would have been home like normal civilians

Answer 11

I think bush had the right idea going into Iraq, but once he found out there was no weapons of mass destruction he should have left. Innocent people die over there every day and all we are doing is training there army to kill ours, its kind of stupid.