If you don't support the Iraq War, are against the war itself or just the way the government is handling it?

Answer 1

Both

Answer 2

Sentiments like the poster above me, Big Mofo, worry me the most. For when the troops on the ground don't believe, we are surely screwed. It is harder each day to ask our troops to put their lives on the line when the Iraqi society is too caught up in sectarian rivalries. Iraq is starting to look like it would be better off if it were partitioned into three separate states, of Shiite, Sunni & Kurd.

I am not anti-war but pro American interest. When the mission in Iraq no longer serves America's needs, then it's high time to have a second look at how long we should stay there.

Answer 3

The U.S. had no justification for going into Iraq; the reasons it presented have now been documented to be lies or erroneous. Having won the war, the U.S. botched the occupation by not having enough soldiers on the ground to keep order. Having made a huge mess, the U.S. is morally obligated to try and fix it (under the "you bought it, you pay for it" principle). It does not, however, have enough manpower to do this, and its occupation of Iraq has now become a sore point in the Arab world that makes recruitment of terrorists and suicide bombers easier--there are more of them around than there were before the war.

The war in Iraq has been a disaster from the very beginning. My opinion on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq wavers--the U.S. created one big clusterf*ck (to use a military term) and it should try and clean up after itself. On the other hand, there's every reason to doubt that this is not a realistic possibility, regardless of how long the U.S. stays in Iraq.

Answer 4

I am against the war itself. We had no justification for going in there, and the mess we have made of the country was predicted by sane people all along.
(oh, and I think they've done a rotten job of managing it as well, but it could never have been managed into being a good or just war)

Iam: What the hell does 9/11 have to do with the Iraq war?

Answer 5

Both.

First, let's distinguish between the initial invasion to topple Saddam (which is over, Mission Accomplished) and the four years that followed that, which were not part of the original authorization for the use of military force.

Once Saddam was toppled, and we determined there were no WMDs, our mission as approved by Congress was over. After that, we had a fundamentally different role, that of an occupying force in a foreign country. That's not the proper role of our military, and not what the Department of Defense should be doing. Out military is meant to keep out country safe, not to function as a long-term police force for another country.

So, the second (occupation) mission is not something I think is in America's best interests in the first place.

Add to that the fact that the Commander in Sheik refuses to listen to any general that contradicts him, and refuses to take into account political and military changes in the situation when making plans, and you have a recipe for disaster.

So, the occupation itself was a bad idea, which was implemented and managed even worse.

Answer 6

Our service members do the job, they follow orders. I support all in combat 100 percent. I do not support the occupation of Iraq, we did the job, now bring em home. Congress never approved the occupation of Iraq. The people by majority in the last elections have spoken. Our troops deserve better leadership, they will not gain wealth by the no bid contracts let out by Bush and Cheney in Iraq. I also do not support those that are willing to send others off to fight and die while they stay home and vote for more tax cuts for the wealthy. They will not fight for what they support. BTW, Terrorist are cowards, they would never face our Marines in a fair fight, they do the dirty work behind our backs, just like NAM.
Only fools like Bush and Cheney would think a terrorist will stand and fight in Iraq, they will not.

Answer 7

My 1st 2 deployments I was a war hawk but never gave it much though on what it would take to make things right. In 03 it was easy to come in & do bad things to bad people. But build this country up from scratch w/ Iraqi people that are corrupt & doing things 1/2 azz is a waste of time. This 3rd deployment has been a slow burn. I've seen so much pointless death that I've done a complete 180. So to answer your question I'm against both .

Answer 8

I was all for th war in Afghanistan...I was angry about going into Iraq, I was even angrier about how they handled Iraq.

Answer 9

I honestly do not feel it what I think that matters, I have to trust that ALL of those in charge are doing what they feel best for our country.

I don't care how much I read, or listen to, I know I do not know all the details, all the inside info that makes them make these decisions.

So I do not feel I should judge anyone in regards to this. I don't like what happened on 911, I don't like war, I don't like people getting killed.

Sometimes you have to take extreme measures in order to end up having peace, and I do know without a doubt that you cannot make very many of the people happy part of the time - - it is a case of damn if you do, damn if you don't.

I just must have faith that what they are doing is for the best, I know that our soldiers believe that, if they are brave enough to be there fighting for us, I need to be brave enough to be proud to be an American!

Answer 10

The Iraqi government doesn't need us there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070714/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AsjkQXDovbqNhmopj0LvQkqs0NUE