Is this a good summation about our involvement in Iraq?

Question

1) We invaved iraq. Leading up to the invasion a public campaign was embarked on by the Bush administration and many things were said..including a) it was urgent we must act now or soon there would be mushroom clouds over our cities b) Dick cheney said he believed Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapon capability c) Iraq was accused of having close links and cooperating with alquaeda d) and Iraq was accused of being part of the 9/11 plot. Most normal people now have come to the understanding that all of these claims were false, and even Bush himself has admitted they relied on "faulty" intel.
2) Iraq became a huge mess, and after sadam was taken down, the country was destabilized, Iran became a player to protect its interest, the country fragmented into chaos, mayhem, sectarian violence/civil war.
3) Now we are told that it makes no sense to talk about pulling out of iraq or to not support the war, because we are in fact there and must stay the course....and that our obligation

as patriotic citizens is to support the war, support the troops, support Bush..ask no questions, and stay the course for as long as it takes and no matter how many trillions it winds up costing. And that it matters not how the mess started, or since we started the mess, we must see it through ..and thats that. period end of story.

Answer 1

Yes. Absolutely. Two things. I noticed one guy above said that it is a weak and terrible summation, but he failed to say why. Isn't that typical. I bring this up because there is this element to a certain part of the political spectrum that lives in this realm where they actually deny reality. You cannot debate intelligently with people like that because they lack intellectual honnesty. To me, you stated pure facts and truth, which should be a starting point to any debate. If he approves of the war, that's his option and his choice and his right, but he should put forth intelligent rational reasons for his position vis a vis the basic premises. But people like him, don't bother to do that. They just say that the basic premise is false and that there is nothing to discuss. they are liars, or brain washed followers, one or the other. Secondly, I thought you should have added that Alquaeda came to Iraq to help fight the american agenda, and that now one of the arguments they give for staying in Iraq is because Alquaeda is there now. As to the people who try to talk about how the violence is going down, they are just grasping for anything they can hang their immoral hat on to stay the course, just like it was once a bunch of thugs and dead enders, to it was we have turned the corner over and over and over again, to we have killed the #4 alquaeda, the #2, the #2 the #1 in Iraq so many times, but the mess just kept getting worst. They say the violence is down, but the fact of the matter is why is there violence? Why did it start? Why is it ongoing? When will it stop? Is it possible that this violence is due to the fact that we destabilized the country and turned it into the chactic mess it is now? Is it possible that we are the cause of it, and that the only way there will be peace or peace can have a chance is for us to remove our christian imperialist boots from lands that are not ours?

Answer 2

No, because a) not only did the Bush Administration make the case for war it also gave time for Saddam to allow weapons inspectors to have full access to weapons sites and prevent the war, which Saddam did not do. b) Cheney was saying what he felt and believed to be true from available intelegance. c) Iraq was accused of having links to terror which it did not refute and also admitted to paying the families of suicide bombers money.

2.) Iran did not interfere to protect their interest the interefered with the hope of installing an Islamic Republic such as their own. The country did fragment due to outside influences and new found freedoms of a long surpressed sect of Shia in Iraq.

3.) Should the United States leave all progress made will be lost. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan will move in to cut up the pie so to speak. Our enemies will be emboldened just as they were after our pull out from Vietnam.

Answer 3

You're not even close.

First we promised not to "overthrow" Saddam at the end of Desert Storm because he agreed to stay out of Kuwait and to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to oversee them dismantling his chemical and biological weapons plants and his nuclear weapons program.

13 years and 23 resolutions later, Saddam had not complied with the resolutions and was threatening Kuwait again.

Next, we invaded Afghanistan after 9-11 and pursued Al Qaeda until it became clear that Saddam had Al Qaeda camps and an Al Qaeda arms program IN Iraq.

After consulting with the U.N. and BOTH houses of our congress who ALL agreed on the need to take out Saddam, we invaded Iraq.

The sectarian violence/civil war had been going on for nearly 800 years prior to this. Iran has become a player because Iran perceives that the U.S. is now vulnerable and Iran has wanted to destroy the U.S. for decades.

Pulling out of Iraq now, without finishing what we started just WILL make our sacrifices so far, truly meaningless by allowing the region to fall to the insurgency. The insurgency will then use more violence and atrocity to conscript the entire nation to it's cause. It's cause is the destruction of the United States and then the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Don't worry though, there ARE patriotic Americans who will continue to protect you while you dump your bile on them and those who support them... just like always!

Answer 4

Your summation touches on some main points and leaves others out. Most noticeably the facts that all throughout the 90's the Clinton administration also believed Saddam had WMD's and not only instituted the policy of pressing for regime change in Iraq, but also on more than one occasion bombed installations in Iraq where WMD's were thought to be housed. You've also neglected to mention that the UN was concerned about Saddam's possible WMD's which is why they spent 12 years passing resolution after resolution to try and get Saddam to come clean. Incidentally, before his death, Saddam admitted to attempting to convince the world his nuclear capability was greater than it was which is why he repeatedly threw UN weapons inspectors out of the country.

Iraq became a "huge mess" in some respects but has recently seen a great deal of progress which is why many on the left are ramping up their cries to get out, presumably to avoid having Republicans credited with a success there.

Yes, it is our obligation to stay and pick up the pieces that we left scattered. And we will be successful.

Answer 5

If you're making a speech at the Democratic National Convention that would play well. If you're talking to anyone else you sound like Michael Moore.

It would be nice if you put a point 4 on there about how the violence seems to be on a downhill slide now and the Iraqis security and military forces are coming on line to take over the civil peace-keeping process from the US military.

Of course, since that wouldn't fit into your nice little belief system, you probably won't.

Answer 6

Yes except you forgot Collin Powells quote about braking the bowel and conclusion Bush is trying to glue it together with American blood.

Answer 7

In the ballpark.

The culpability of the neo-fascist Republican leadership for the fabrication of the dishonest casus belli should be more clearly expressed.

Answer 8

yeah thegub violence on a downslide in iraq only after worst year iraq in which the most american soldiers have died sense the war

Answer 9

Yup, that is a fair summary. There is of course, tons more, but this is a good start.

Answer 10

You got it perfect.