The war on terror...(In Iraq)

[Earlz]

I'm curious to see if anyone actually agrees with George Bush...(please be honest...)

edit:
I mean, should we pull our troops out of Iraq

[Mister_Penguin]

Out of Iraq, or out the war on terror? I am lost.

I'm not sure how we can pull out of (or start, for that matter.) a war on an absract concept.

[KicktheCAN]

Well the poll so far accurately represents America: Nobody agrees with Bush.

[d3adf001]

it's too late. we fucked ourselves over and reached the point of no return.

[Phenriz]

Thread should probably be in SB.

but, it has nothing to do with agreeing/disagreeing with GWB reasons or lack thereof for being there at this point.

Get rid of some of the red tape that's currently mummifying our soldiers and we'd be home much sooner than if we initiated a retreat order.

[une see]

I'm not informed enough about the situation in Iraq, so I really don't know what we should do. On one hand...there's a civil war going on right now between the Sunnis and the Shiites (right?), and our troops are certainly not helping by getting in their way. But on the other hand...what's going to happen if we do pull out? Is the sectarian violence just going to increase, and the civil war turn into something a lot worse? So I don't know.

The war in Iraq is extremely complicated, so any decision we make has to be a smart one. Although I hear we have a great diplomat in Iraq currently, along with a great military commander. So maybe there's still hope.

[TigerX]

I am a pacifist, so I suppose my personal answer to the question is simple enough.

However, with respect to the political situation on the ground in Iraq, I seriously doubt that removing our troops is the best move for ongoing stability in the region.

Ultimately, I think that we need to decide on the goal for the region and make the best decision based on that goal.

[Swordfish]

The war in Iraq is extremely complicated, so any decision we make has to be a smart one. Although I hear we have a great diplomat in Iraq currently, along with a great military commander. So maybe there's still hope.

Unfortunately, Bush has shown that he doesn't listen to his military commanders.

As for pulling out of Iraq, I can't really answer one way or the other. Personally I think we never should have gone in there in the first place. As for leaving now? We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[Solt]

The war in Iraq costs $10 Billion per month, approximately.

Imagine we gave $5 Billion per month to the CIA to radically expand its influence in third world Islamic countries to infiltrate and destroy radical terror cells. This would more than double CIA's operating budget.

Imagine if we used another $5 Billion per month to extend our influence over governments and individuals that are critical to the war against terrorism, giving them aid and weapons to encourage alliances and cooperation.

We would be a lot safer today.

[Earlz]

guess I'm weird...but I don't really think we should even be doing anything in Iraq, and as far as the civil war, it doesn't really matter to me..(well, maybe if communism was involved or something...)

I dunno...I conflict with my own mind so much...not even going to give more opinion..

[pollywog]

On one hand...there's a civil war going on right now between the Sunnis and the Shiites (right?), and our troops are certainly not helping by getting in their way.

What?! Your troops are probably the only thing preventing all out civil war, even if it's only because they're providing an alternative target. I, for one, believe that they are doing a good job, and what you did (removing a dictator) was a noble thing to do. However, although your intentions were good, your methods may have been lacking. (When I say you and your here, I mean the American Govt.) Definitely need to stay, possibly with more or better armour, troops, etc. Plus when this is finished, all the soldiers and generals will have lots of experience at toppling dictators, so you can move on to some of the others!

[Aglet]

The war in Iraq costs $10 Billion per month, approximately.

Imagine we gave $5 Billion per month to the CIA to radically expand its influence in third world Islamic countries to infiltrate and destroy radical terror cells. This would more than double CIA's operating budget.

Imagine if we used another $5 Billion per month to extend our influence over governments and individuals that are critical to the war against terrorism, giving them aid and weapons to encourage alliances and cooperation.

We would be a lot safer today.

Better yet, spend $10 billion on humanitarian aid in the regions. Far too many acts of terrorism, I suspect, are born of desperation. I'm starving, half of my family is dead, maybe it's those Jews' fault.

[Fail]

The war in Iraq costs $10 Billion per month, approximately.

Imagine we gave $5 Billion per month to the CIA to radically expand its influence in third world Islamic countries to infiltrate and destroy radical terror cells. This would more than double CIA's operating budget.

Imagine if we used another $5 Billion per month to extend our influence over governments and individuals that are critical to the war against terrorism, giving them aid and weapons to encourage alliances and cooperation.

We would be a lot safer today.

This post is quoted for emphasis. Bolded parts I really like.

1-20-09-- The End of an Error.

[fjafjan]

The war in Iraq costs $10 Billion per month, approximately.

Imagine we gave $5 Billion per month to the CIA to radically expand its influence in third world Islamic countries to infiltrate and destroy radical terror cells. This would more than double CIA's operating budget.

Imagine if we used another $5 Billion per month to extend our influence over governments and individuals that are critical to the war against terrorism, giving them aid and weapons to encourage alliances and cooperation.

We would be a lot safer today.

You being americans yes, the rest of the world? Oh not so much.
Regarding that last paragraph, who do you think that would have been five years ago? Oh I know, Saddam Hussein! He hated Al Queida and they hated him. And he's hardly the only brutal dictator America kept arming (even as he was gassing kurds).
And yes, CIA has such a good record on these things, maybe they will manage to destroy whatever democracy there is in the middle east.

As for Iraq I am unsure, but one very important step is to make sure the oil and that money goes to the people and not the goverment. The money will make its way to the goverment but enpower the people.

[darry]

guess I'm weird...but I don't really think we should even be doing anything in Iraq, and as far as the civil war, it doesn't really matter to me..(well, maybe if communism was involved or something...)

i'm hoping that this is sarcasm...

every time i hear the phrase 'war on terror' it makes me laugh - it's one of the most ingenious pieces of political spin ever - it means so little, yet appears to justify so much. the u.s. government are damn clever, i'll give them that! and as for this "expanding" and "extending" it's 'influence"... isn't that pretty much what got them into this mess in the beginning?

[SecondTalon]

Before we have a war on an emotion, we should win one of the other wars we're involved in versus tangible items, like the War on Drugs.

[Thematic-Device]

This war has been operated in complete contravention of established rules of Guerrilla Warfare. Shock and Awe? What a complete and utter disaster. We blew up the buildings we could have otherwise taken intact and then had to rebuild them. Then instead of immediately creating a strong authority we allowed people to horde weapons and high explosives, because according to Rummy it constituted freedom.

We ignored the requirements for large numbers of infantry troops, and Bremer ignored the troops requirements for translators. And while Paul Bremer micromanaged and shut down local agreements and regional attempts at democracy, Bush continued to ignore the generals.

Then some higher up got it into their mind that torturing people would help in contravention to the laws and customs of land warfare. Whats more instead of employing the Iraqis to work on rebuilding their country we sent in overpaid American contractors.

So we had a bunch of bored young iraqis, with too much firepower, graphic pictures of Abu Ghraib on Al Jazeera, with no recourse to voice their concern and we got an uprising. Is anyone really surprised with this course of events? After all this, the war has already been lost. It was probably lost in those three days after Saddams fall when we did absolutely nothing. It might have been lost after Paul Bremer spent all his time writing up Traffic Codes, or it might have been after Abu Ghraib. But regardless of the precise point of when we lost, we lost.

Our stated goals:

Find WMDs
Create Democracy
Create an Ally and Shining Model in the Middle East

Have all failed, we should pull out and focus on Afghanistan, at least there we may still do some good.

What?! Your troops are probably the only thing preventing all out civil war, even if it's only because they're providing an alternative target. I, for one, believe that they are doing a good job, and what you did (removing a dictator) was a noble thing to do. However, although your intentions were good, your methods may have been lacking. (When I say you and your here, I mean the American Govt.) Definitely need to stay, possibly with more or better armour, troops, etc. Plus when this is finished, all the soldiers and generals will have lots of experience at toppling dictators, so you can move on to some of the others!

When its over our troops will move to the private sector and never look back. Once active and inactive duties are used up they are out.

Imagine we gave $5 Billion per month to the CIA to radically expand its influence in third world Islamic countries to infiltrate and destroy radical terror cells. This would more than double CIA's operating budget.

Hmmm considering their history, I'm not sure if that would be a good idea. CIA operations in part are why the M.E. hates us.

As for leaving now? We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Exactly, so we may as well minimize casualties. Its a negative sum game now, the only choice is whether we're directly involved in it.