Politiks

Ulyanov · Sat May 05, 2007 6:39 pm Iraq War

Should the coalition have gone in, and should foreign troops still be there? To the first, I think no, to the second, I'm undecided. You?

Maximus Vigilus · Sat May 05, 2007 9:30 pm

Yes to the first, and yes to the second.

Redneck · Sat May 05, 2007 9:40 pm

Yes the invasion was nessicary, dispite what is being said now Saddam Hussain was a threat to the entire world, even if he didn't have WMD. And Troops are still required, the US and it's allies need to clean up the mess, leaving now would only create a bigger mess.

Maximus Vigilus · Sat May 05, 2007 9:45 pm

Redneck wrote: Yes the invasion was nessicary, dispite what is being said now Saddam Hussain was a threat to the entire world, even if he didn't have WMD. And Troops are still required, the US and it's allies need to clean up the mess, leaving now would only create a bigger mess.

The only reason there are any problems in Irag and in the Middle East is because the U.S as well as the world are not united on the issue, right now America is divided over the war mainly due to power hungry democrats. The terrorists realize we are not united and it makes their jobs far easier.

Ulyanov · Sat May 05, 2007 10:50 pm

There are lots of nations that are threats to the US, we can't and shouldn't invade them all, and terrorists aren't bound to a country they can just move.

Redneck · Sat May 05, 2007 10:57 pm

Maximus Vigilus wrote:
The only reason there are any problems in Irag and in the Middle East is because the U.S as well as the world are not united on the issue, right now America is divided over the war mainly due to power hungry democrats. The terrorists realize we are not united and it makes there jobs far easier.

As the old cliche goes, it's the middle east. there will always be problems there. one of the big reasons why there is problems going on is tactics used during the invasion. the US used a blitzkreig(sp?) type of an attack, which left pockets of small resistence groups throughout the country. these pockets are whats causing the problems. also, the US is fighting an idiology over there. its nearly impossible to fight an idiology, especially when you have no clue as to what the idiology is. the soldiers, generals, the President, and congress don't understand why Muslims are the way they are, and I don't think anyone can understand what a Muslim is unless you're a Muslim in the middle east. we can take a good guess but it still isn't the same.

Ekaf · Sat May 05, 2007 11:22 pm

Redneck wrote: Maximus Vigilus wrote:
The only reason there are any problems in Irag and in the Middle East is because the U.S as well as the world are not united on the issue, right now America is divided over the war mainly due to power hungry democrats. The terrorists realize we are not united and it makes there jobs far easier.

As the old cliche goes, it's the middle east. there will always be problems there. one of the big reasons why there is problems going on is tactics used during the invasion. the US used a blitzkreig(sp?) type of an attack, which left pockets of small resistence groups throughout the country. these pockets are whats causing the problems. also, the US is fighting an idiology over there. its nearly impossible to fight an idiology, especially when you have no clue as to what the idiology is. the soldiers, generals, the President, and congress don't understand why Muslims are the way they are, and I don't think anyone can understand what a Muslim is unless you're a Muslim in the middle east. we can take a good guess but it still isn't the same.
Thank you! Exactly, this is the problem with the idea of a "war on terror," it makes about as much sense as having a war on icebergs. Yes, it is bad and the world would be a better place without them, but you can't rid the world of terror any more than you can rid the world of icebergs, it just isn't logical.

Roy's Our Boy · Mon May 07, 2007 2:34 am

Ekaf wrote: but you can't rid the world of terror any more than you can rid the world of icebergs, it just isn't logical.

Al Gore Disagrees

Bob Frankenberry · Mon May 07, 2007 3:25 am

I was not in favor of the war. I still am not.

NightSnake · Tue May 08, 2007 2:27 am

Roy's Our Boy wrote: Ekaf wrote: but you can't rid the world of terror any more than you can rid the world of icebergs, it just isn't logical.

Al Gore Disagrees
We could just toss Al Gore on the iceberg and sink it, then at least we could pretend it didn't exist.

Ulyanov · Wed May 09, 2007 1:15 am

NightSnake wrote: Roy's Our Boy wrote: Ekaf wrote: but you can't rid the world of terror any more than you can rid the world of icebergs, it just isn't logical.

Al Gore Disagrees
We could just toss Al Gore on the iceberg and sink it, then at least we could pretend it didn't exist.
He'd just get a few thousand helicopters to come and rescue him.

marketstrat · Wed Jul 18, 2007 4:59 am

you are right.......

Kopoka · Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:45 am

The Iraq War? Where to start...

We had no right to go into Iraq, We hid behind the excusses of Terrorism to invaide! Yes, Saddam was a threat to the world, he was massacuring his people! But since when did it become the US's job to just come in and start a war!? Thats the UN's job! (Not that it does it's job either...)

The terrorist group America was after at the time wasn't even IN Iraq. We went in to Iraq for several resons. To distract the American people from the growing problems in this country, Such as the failing of Capitalism, and the spreading of Fascism. We went in there because Bush felt like he needed to avenge his father failed cause in the Gulf War! We went in there for oil, money, weapons, and whatever else we could get our hands on.

And America does good? I think not.