Quoting:
We need to leave Iraq.
End Quote

WE CAN'T.

Quoting:
We have done what we went to Iraq to do, our job is done. End Quote

We have NOT accomplished what we set out to do, unless you think what we intended to do was kill people, blow shit up and leave the country in ruins.  Yeah, that's a good way to fight terrorism.  Leaving now is not an option.

Quoting:Why do we think it is our job to establish their new government?End Quote

Because we destroyed the old one.  World War II began because Germany was given a crappy government after World War I.  What do you think is going to happen if we leave Iraq with NO government?


/edit Or we could let the UN handle it, I guess.  My point is that we can't just abandon Iraq right at this moement.

Quoting:
As I said before, leaving and calling it quits is not an option.


Remember Gulf War I?  What did we do?  We left before the job was done and as a reslut, Saddam and his boys went on a slaughtering-spree on the citizens.  We told them we would stay and finish the job, but we left waaaay to early.

We (the coalition) have an obligation to follow through and finish what we started.  You think its bad there now?  Just image if we left now, and told the Iraqis "well its been real, but gotta go.  Have fun".

Not an option.



Also, after WWII, our occupation of Japan took over 6 years.  And now over 50 years later, we still have troops there, not to mention in Germany and other locations in Europe.  Also, over 50 years after the Korean war ended, we still have 1000's of troops there patroling the border.  

Reconstruction of a country demaged by war takes time.  WWII reconstruction took over 6.5 years, just in Japan.


End Quote

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I have one thing to add...if we were to pull our troops out now, how long do you think it would be before Saddam found his way back to Baghdad and took over again?  

Quoting:
The situation in Iraq is a total mess-to say the least. The U.S. shouldn't have been there in the first place and now it is total chaotic. Personally, I think the U.S. should leave Iraq and hand it over to the U.N. With the U.N.'s help, the Iraqis can build their own government. Part of the reason why a new government hasn't been formed yet is because the U.S. is hindering the process. They don't want the Iraqis to govern themselves, they want Iraq to be a colony of the U.S. so Dubya and co. can benefit from the oil that is there.



Cat
End Quote

The war isnt about oil, Bush isn't benefiting personally from oil, what, does he sell oil himself and keep the profit?  come on!

To add, reconstruction and colinization are two entirely seporate things.  Nobody's taking advantage of the plausible threat posted by Iraq by making it part of the US, thats abserd(sp?).  Another thing, why would we colinize something all the way on the other side of the planet?  And what of Britin with their trops in there also?  Are we gonna share this colony?  Mr Blair was in it just as much as Mr Bush, do you seriously think that theyre in it together just to get land with oil?  Oil had nothing to do with our invasion, and neither did the will to expand the country.

And about the UN, where have they ever helped to make a new goverment in a nation, let me rephrase that, where have they ever helped?  Ive said it once, Ill say it again, we do not need the UN, or their output on everything we do.  And also, if Bush went above what the UN said about not sending in trops, then why would the UN want to handle the quote un quote "chaotic mess" that the country supositly made?

Quoting:
it seems my colleges have handled most of this for me...lol...but otherwise, to add to whatever about his war, like Ive said before, this place was a threat to us, but then you hear things like "well so is Afghanistan and North Korea," but its like this, have you ever played that classic atari game "Kaboom?"  Where you have a tank of water, and that guy is throwing down the bombs, and you must catch the bombs in the tank of water before they hit the ground.  And if a bomb hits the ground, it explodes, and you lose a life.  So the strategy to the game is to catch the bombs that are closest to the ground first, and take it one at a time.  So, if Iraq posted the biggest threat, why the hell wouldn't we go there first?  If you went for the countries that post the seccond and third biggest threat first, what happons? The biggest threat posting country slips out of reach and BOOM, everything youre trying to prevent is now gone.  So, logically, Iraq deserved the first invasion, and who really cares about the lack of a link to 9/11, all I know is that I wouldn't want another 9/11, so lets take out the most probable country of causing another, Iraq.  
End Quote

If your government wants to go after countries that were involved in the events of 9-11, why didn't they go after Saudi Arabia?

And I think that it has already been proven that Iraq was not in any way a major threat to the U.S. That is why the administration is now trying to say that they had to invade to liberate the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator.

Honestly, do you think that the majority of the population would have been behind this war if from the begining they were told that it was to liberate the Iraqis? That's a lot of money to spend on a country when there are people starving in your own. That is why the coalition ::) is now asking the U.N for financial help. I find it hard to believe that with such financial heavy hitters like Micronesia, and Estonia in the coalition, that there would be any difficulty at all.

Quoting:I have one thing to add...if we were to pull our troops out now, how long do you think it would be before Saddam found his way back to Baghdad and took over again?  
End Quote

My guess would be within a few weeks.  And then, we would be in the same situation we were in after Gulf War I.  

Quoting:
That is why the coalition ::) is now asking the U.N for financial help. I find it hard to believe that with such financial heavy hitters like Micronesia, and Estonia in the coalition, that there would be any difficulty at all.
End Quote

ah yes, the discrediting of the Coalition, that tactic was tried before the war even began.

Discredit them if you wish, but remember in addition to the 2 you so sarcastically mentioned, theres also such countries as: UK, Spain, Italy, South Korea, Japan, Australia...just to name a few, that are also in the Coalition.  I wouldn't call them lightweights.

Quoting:


If your government wants to go after countries that were involved in the events of 9-11, why didn't they go after Saudi Arabia?
End Quote

well thats what some liberals seem to think the Iraq invasion was for...

Quoting:
And I think that it has already been proven that Iraq was not in any way a major threat to the U.S. That is why the administration is now trying to say that they had to invade to liberate the Iraqi people from a ruthless dictator.
End Quote

No, it hasn't been proven, it has been a rumor spread by the Liberals to make the conservative war-goers look bad.  And even so, when it was proven wrong, it didnt leave the news, or for that matter, become made a known fact that the accusation was incorrect.

Quoting:
My opinion is that the U.S. can't pull out and abandon Iraq. The reasons are many, ranging from the obligation to rebuild what was destroyed during the U.S. attacks to something as simple as not leaving those poor citizens in Iraq who helped the U.S. unprotected as Bush senior did after the Gulf War. Sadam had a torture and murder fest with them. It was truly very sad.

It is also my opinion that if the U.S. doesn't finish this and finish it right, all of the U.S. soldiers and citizens (reporters, embassy workers and such) would have all died in vain. :-/
End Quote

good to see you on our side, HS  :)

Quoting:and i say life is not a video game... in video games if you kill all your enemies you win in real life if you kill all your enemies you run the risk of major legal problems and you get more enemies who didn't care much about you before but now consder you to be a threat because of your violent actions.
End Quote

...and I say...Life isn't about looking the other way when there's a problem just so others won't dislike you, or ignoring a problem just to appease others who might not like you when you take care of something that needs to be done.  

Quoting:
, Mike Florio said: " but its like this, have you ever played that classic atari game "Kaboom?"

and i say life is not a video game... in video games if you kill all your enemies you win in real life if you kill all your enemies you run the risk of major legal problems and you get more enemies who didn't care much about you before but now consder you to be a threat because of your violent actions.
End Quote

no, life isn't a videogame, but is a videogame not part of life?

Quoting:


...and I say...Life isn't about looking the other way when there's a problem just so others won't dislike you, or ignoring a problem just to appease others who might not like you when you take care of something that needs to be done.
End Quote

I agree with you 100%. But there is a right way to do things, and a wrong way. Unfortunately the U.S government decided that it was going to have this war regardless of what the world thought. And if you disagreed with them, well than you were either one of the enemy or irrelevent.

There are a lot of people who would say that something needs to be done about the situation in Palestine. But the U.S government is strangely quiet when it comes to condeming Israel for it's repeated resolution violations.

And wouldn't it make sense to let the U.N help rebuild Iraq? Wouldn't the rebuilding process tkae a lot less time if the U.S government just allowed the U.N to help out? And I don't just mean financially.Seriously, give me one good reason that the U.S should be the only ones making decisions?

Quoting:


no, life isn't a videogame, but is a videogame not part of life?
End Quote

You are a wise man, Mr. Florio.

Quoting:

What bugs me most is the inconsistency...I mean, this is the same intelligence and evidence that the government and the world has had for years...the only difference is that, with the same evidence, Bush acted, and his predecessors didn't.  
End Quote

This honestly confuses the hell out of me.  Reports said during the first Bush administration that Saddam was building nukes.  Reports said during the Clinton administration TWICE that Saddam was building nukes.  And we get to the current, and the UN is reporting that there's no evidence of any nukes!  And we go in and invade and there's no nukes!  What the hell?  

Quoting:

There are a lot of people who would say that something needs to be done about the situation in Palestine. But the U.S government is strangely quiet when it comes to condeming Israel for it's repeated resolution violations.End Quote

I'm not making excuses for Israel (or any other country) but it's kind of hard to not retaliate when you have suicide bombings on a regular basis.  Not to mention being surrounded by a bunch of Jew-hating countries who wouldn't mind stomping you out of existence.  Tough call.

Quoting:
And wouldn't it make sense to let the U.N help rebuild Iraq? Wouldn't the rebuilding process tkae a lot less time if the U.S government just allowed the U.N to help out? And I don't just mean financially.Seriously, give me one good reason that the U.S should be the only ones making decisions?

End Quote

Ah, but see, the UN didn't want to step in in the first place.  And then they said, "Hey, the US of A took care of the grunt work for us, let's go in and take some of the pie."  

To which, quite deservedly, the US and the Iraqi provisional government said, "Screw you, France and Germany."  That actually amused me greatly.

Quoting:
This honestly confuses the hell out of me.  Reports said during the first Bush administration that Saddam was building nukes.  Reports said during the Clinton administration TWICE that Saddam was building nukes.  And we get to the current, and the UN is reporting that there's no evidence of any nukes!  And we go in and invade and there's no nukes!  What the hell?  
End Quote

3 possibilities:

1)  There were no nukes.

2)  They destroyed the nukes.

3)  They hid the nukes.

To tell the truth, I think after 9/11 Bush telegraphed and drew out his actions too long and gave the Iraqis waaaaaay too much time to hide whatever they were doing.  The pre-invasion behavior of the Saddam government were a bit suspicious, but that's just me.

Quoting:The pre-invasion behavior of the Saddam government were a bit suspicious, but that's just me.
End Quote

No its not just you, its common knowledge that Saddam was obviously hiding something.

Whether you are a simple common person like you or me and are pulled over by cops, or in this case, a psychotic dictator of a deprived country, if you have nothing to hide, then why not let the officials in and do their job and be done with it.

But Saddam refused.  And yes the UN "inspectors" went in and did their thing.  But when you are led around by Saddam's own officials to sites they know are empty, whats the point?

Saddam repeatedly refused total access by UN "inspectors" for over 10 years, and while ole' Billy Bob ignored it, Bush is finally dealing with it.  




I guess for some, like those adamately opposed to the war, its easier to ignore a problem than deal with it.  But you can only ignore the big elephant in the room for so long when you know its there.  Enough is enough.  

I am glad we finally have a President with guts to deal with something the former "president" ignored for 8 years.  Perhaps the formoer "president" missed the call when he was busy with an intern.  Who knows.

Quoting:
Perhaps the formoer "president" missed the call when he was busy with an intern.  Who knows.
End Quote

Maybe. Or he could have read this:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome."
-- George Bush Sr.

Quoting:


Maybe. Or he could have read this:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...End Quote

yea, I got that mass email too, along with millions of other people last summer. ::)


But what does this have to do with the present situation?  Bush Sr. failed in removing Saddam, Clinton spent his term in office with his pants down completely ignoring Saddam. So now that Bush Jr. finally steps up and deals with it, its a problem?

Who knows what will come of this.  I certainly don't.  But I do know that simply ignoring Saddam for another 10 years would prove far worse than not.  

Quoting:
We aren't even in Iraq. It's the men and women assigned as members of the US Armed Forces that are in Iraq. Why is it that someone who isn't even fighting the war are the first to say that "we" should pull out? Only the President has that authority and hee has repeated said that American soldiers are there to stay. I personally would love for Saddam to be captured or be blown off immediately at this moment. We as Americans cannot foot an $87 milion but ourselves. That's the only reason to pull out.
End Quote

Quoting:
But what does this have to do with the present situation?
End Quote

I'd say it's proven remarkably accurate, especially the bits about not being able to find Saddam, having no valid exit strategy and being an occupying power in what is becoming an increasingly hostile land.

Quoting:
Who knows what will come of this.  I certainly don't.  But I do know that simply ignoring Saddam for another 10 years would prove far worse than not.  
End Quote

In ten years, he'd probably be dead of old age... who's to know whether things will be better for the people of Iraq whichever way.

Phil

Quoting:

I'd say it's proven remarkably accurate, especially the bits about not being able to find Saddam, having no valid exit strategy and being an occupying power in what is becoming an increasingly hostile land.

In ten years, he'd probably be dead of old age... who's to know whether things will be better for the people of Iraq whichever way.

Phil
End Quote

I agree wholeheartedly with you Phil.

Why John Howard got Australian troops involved in this, I'll never know :( >:(

Quoting:
For one, I think we need to put some things in perspective.  Here are a few statistics:

Since January 2003, there have been 653 murders in Los Angeles alone.

New York has had 580 murders in the same time period.

In 2001, 234 Police Officers were killed in the line of duty in the US.

In 2000, there were 435 deaths in the Military, mostly from accidents off duty.

Since the start of hostilities, there have been 379 US deaths during the Iraq war.

If Iraq is so dangerous, I say we also invade LA and NY.  Far more people die in those cities then we have lost in Iraq.  In fact, LA has killed almost twice as many as Iraq has.

But the difference is that in Iraq, everybody that went there was a volunteer.  In LA, they are killing children and grandmothers.  But I think I would feel safer walking the streets of Baghdad then I would walking the streets of LA.

Don't fall into hearing the reports of deaths in Iraq, and blow things out of proportions.  In fact, the death rate is not a lot higher then the rate of death of Police Officers in the United States!

Here is another fact:  The death rate in Iraq is the SECOND LOWEST of any US military action, EVER.  The only war that has a lower death rate is the 1991 Iraq war.  And among our servicemen morale is still VERY high.  And the Shi'ite is glad to have us there, since a lot of the attacks have been against them and their holy sites.

Just thought I would throw some perspective into this.  ANd as for "Exit Strategy", WTF is that?  We are *STILL* in Germany and Japan even after 50 YEARS!.  But when was the last incident of attack against US forces over there other then a random terrorism attack?
End Quote

Quoting:
For one, I think we need to put some things in perspective.  Here are a few statistics:

Since January 2003, there have been 653 murders in Los Angeles alone.

New York has had 580 murders in the same time period.

In 2001, 234 Police Officers were killed in the line of duty in the US.

In 2000, there were 435 deaths in the Military, mostly from accidents off duty.

Since the start of hostilities, there have been 379 US deaths during the Iraq war.

If Iraq is so dangerous, I say we also invade LA and NY.  Far more people die in those cities then we have lost in Iraq.  In fact, LA has killed almost twice as many as Iraq has.


Here is another fact:  The death rate in Iraq is the SECOND LOWEST of any US military action, EVER.  The only war that has a lower death rate is the 1991 Iraq war.  And among our servicemen morale is still VERY high.  And the Shi'ite is glad to have us there, since a lot of the attacks have been against them and their holy sites.
End Quote

All very interesting.  I think its safe to say we get a lot of the fear and dismal perspective from the pathetic media we have.

Something else I would add to that list of stats is that when one of our soldiers gets killed over there by a sniper or car bomb or whatever the case may be, the media portrays it as if it was an Iraqi citizen that did it, when in fact that isn't true.

There are small groups of Saddams army scattered around not to mention terrorist groups scattered around taking every shot at our soldiers that they can because they think if they keep pushing and pushing, we will surrender and leave.  Which as said before, would be an automatic death sentence to the Iraqi people.

Quoting:Just thought I would throw some perspective into this.  ANd as for "Exit Strategy", WTF is that?  We are *STILL* in Germany and Japan even after 50 YEARS!.  But when was the last incident of attack against US forces over there other then a random terrorism attack?
End Quote

Exactly.

Remember less than 2 weeks after the war began, and some people were already saying it was taking to long? ::)  Nobody said this would be a quick "in-and-out" deal.  In fact Bush made it very clear it would be he exact opposite of that several times, but again, the media jumped on the bandwagon that we should be out in less than a week, and when it didn't turn out that way, suddenly its too long. ::)

Quoting:
Thats a first "a country invading itself" ::).So if you are so "safe"in  Baghdad by all means go and take a vacation there.Be sure to put suntan lotion on your bulletproof vest. ::)
End Quote

:)

Well, my point is to show that the number is not really as high as a lot of people seem to think.  When you compare the death rates to other comperable jobs (Police) or living in other high-risk areas, Iraq is not as dangerous as it seems.

If you listen to the news, each and every death is paraded in front of you each day, often for 1-3 days afterwards.  This makes the number seem much larger.

Add to that the fact that it is about the only time you hear of something like this unless you live in a big city like LA or NY.  I know when I lived in Boise, a murder was a big event.  When I lived in LA, a day without death would be a big event.

I think I was just trying to put it into perspective.  That the death rate is not as bad as people think.  To me, as long as the people on the scene (the soldiers and Marines) are comfortable with the death rate, that is OK with me.  After all, they are the experts, and I will not "Monday Night Quarterback" their decisions.

Quoting:


You are a wise man, Mr. Florio.

End Quote

lol...thanks...

Quoting:


:)

Well, my point is to show that the number is not really as high as a lot of people seem to think.  When you compare the death rates to other comperable jobs (Police) or living in other high-risk areas, Iraq is not as dangerous as it seems.

If you listen to the news, each and every death is paraded in front of you each day, often for 1-3 days afterwards.  This makes the number seem much larger.

Add to that the fact that it is about the only time you hear of something like this unless you live in a big city like LA or NY.  I know when I lived in Boise, a murder was a big event.  When I lived in LA, a day without death would be a big event.

I think I was just trying to put it into perspective.  That the death rate is not as bad as people think.  To me, as long as the people on the scene (the soldiers and Marines) are comfortable with the death rate, that is OK with me.  After all, they are the experts, and I will not "Monday Night Quarterback" their decisions.
End Quote