Do you support the war in Iraq?

[JediKnight707]

I'm curious as to whether you like the idea of invading Iraq or not.

[RC-1162]

no, nuff said.

[Samnmax221]

Yes, Saddam was a tyrant who killed his own people, it's not a popular opinion and I don't give a damn.

[Sabretooth]

No, because Bush had asolutely no right to invade a foreign country, seize it's power and establish a broken democracy in the midst of anarchy. The situation in Iraq has become more dangerous and volatile than it was under Saddam's rule.

[Darth Andrew]

No to the reason why we orignally invaded, but yes to getting rid of an evil dictator. As of now, we can't just pull out and let Iraq fall in to furhter disarray, so we need to stay there at least until they can combat the terrorists effectively.

[FiEND_138]

No. I don't support the policy but I do support the troops.

[RC-1162]

@ Andrew: the terrorists are functioning BECAUSE the us is in Iraq. Bush's job was to capture saddam and leave, not send half of them to Guantanamo Bay and mistreat the remaining.

[Canderous_ordo1]

i do support the war 110% well for one thing we need to get rid of terrorests and i also support the soilders over there

[Ztalker]

Although supporting a war, and war itself, is never good, i DO support this one. Saddam Hussein is a dictator, and a torturer. There was NO way to 'free' Iraq without starting a war.

Although i dislike Bush, and the American government in common, i do feel they did the right for the people of Iraq.

[RC-1162]

too bad for you the people of iraq don't feel that way

[Mace MacLeod]

I guess if people forget about Saddam Hussein *not* having any weapons of mass destruction (which was supposed to be the whole point of invading Iraq, remember?)

AND *not* being remotely connected to Islamic terrorism before the US invasion

AND the fact that he was close ally of the US before the first Gulf War

AND the fact that the US has had plenty of nasty, evil dictators who kill their own people for friends over the years

AND the fact the people who really felt threatened by Saddam were the Saudis (VERY good buddies with the US, and curiously not all that democratic)

AND the fact that the Baghdad morgue has processed over 6000 corpses so far this year

AND the fact that reducing Iraq to a terrorist anarchy might not be the safest long-term plan (which is assuming the US had a long-term plan before invading) for anyone involved

then yeah, it's a good little war.

 

But then, if the US and current Iraqi forces kill and torture just as many people as Saddam, is it all really worth it for the Iraqis?

[Rogue15]

I support this one as to getting rid of that genocidal mofo and then staying to help the iraqis establish an army to counter the terrorist insurgency.

[Niner_777]

I won't get into the discussion on this about the "War in Iraq" but I definitely support the troops in Iraq.

[Vaelastraz]

No I don't support it. The people in Iraq never asked for an invasion to get rid of Sadam. Maybe the war would have been justified, if there would have been a proof for the "weapons of mass destruction".

 

As for the fight against terrorism, I agree that needs to be done. However I don't think that invading countries where terrorists might hide is the right way to do it.

 

And above all, I believe that it is not necessary that the usa invades countries, just to get rid of dictators.

[Lantzen]

It's to late to back out now, then Irak would be a disaster, but i don't support the US attack on Irak, they said it was because Saddam had wepons of mass destruction, but they havent found a ****. Think they just wanted the oil

[Samnmax221]

If we wanted oil we could have lowered the embargo

[Niner_777]

I think what the war really boils down to is economy. I think that that is what most wars are really about, boosting economy. However, I really don't know the whole story. I don't think that anybody does. At least the US came up with some good moraled reasons for the war, even if they're not what it is really all about.

[The Source]

I guess if people forget about Saddam Hussein *not* having any weapons of mass destruction (which was supposed to be the whole point of invading Iraq, remember?)

You are partially correct. For the past few days, I have been watching documentaries on Saddam and Dick Chainey. As far as I am conserned, Bush is not all to blame. Dick Chainey and Donald Rumsfeld have been working their way through office since the Nixon Administration. Durring their 30+ years of working in the Whilte House, they developed allies and experience. From what I understand is that Dick Chainey and Donald Rumsfeld manipulated the CIA into releasing information supporting a connection between Iraq and Afganistan. The CIA dirrector, close friend to Bush, disagreed with Rumsfeld and Chainey. Chainey and Rumsfeild felt that there connection was a threat. Unfortunately, the CIA director (Libby), wanted to be in the inner circle so badly that he caved into Chainey's pressure. When he got into trouble, Dick Chainey sat by and said nothing. However, Chainey's pressure on the CIA caused this whole mess. Chainey and Rumsfeld wanted to control the CIA, so they can have their war. They have been planning the war since the very early 90s. Both men felt that the US military was underutilized, and the President's power was dwindling away. After watching politics from the inside for 30+ years, they found weaknesses in how our government worked, and exploited an opportunity. If you happen to notce that Bush has started to restructure his cabinet. Every person that was removed from his Administration was a loyalist to Chainey and Rumsfeld. What you may not know is that they replaced loyalists with loyalists. Otherwords, they are only playing musical chairs. The new head of the CIA is a military general. Why? This will give Rumsfeld and Chainey a stronger hold on the CIA.

 

(This does not clear Suddam. His history is worse.)

[The Doctor]

Bush should have left them alone. But now that he's there, he can't pull out. He ****ed up bad.

[Diego Varen]

We shouldn't have gone to war, because many people die and people's families become upset. The Iraq people and the UK/US armies could have maybe worked together and kill Saddam Hussein.

[Samnmax221]

We shouldn't have gone to war, because many people die and people's families become upset. The Iraq people and the UK/US armies could have maybe worked together and kill Saddam Hussein.

Problem with that is then you get a power vacuum and either end up with a full blown civil war or someone worse then Saddam comes into power.

[RC-1162]

the only person worse than Saddam is Bush.

it seems they attacked Iraq just to get rid of Saddam, his "weapons of mass destruction" and esablish """"democracy"""". my foot.

[Prime]

I see I have a thread to watch. Good work keeping it civil so far...

[Jeff]

While I don't necessarily support the war, we can't pull out now. If we would leave we would risk destabilizing the entire region.

[Raevan]

no i dont what gives right to amricans to conquire someone s country and destroy their town and civilization we all know here that the main reason is OIL and i HATE IT......how many people must die so you all understand that they are not terrorist they are JUST protecting their way of life not everyone want to go in mc donalds and drink cola GEtUSED TO IT and leave the rest of the world alone who is next Iran???? Oil again....you should be asheamed what your president did and how intelligent he is man i ll be banned for this but at least i have balls to say it LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!