Iraq

[Dexter Morgan]

Huge topic here, aimed at all people.

• Do you think USA and UK should have sent troops into Iraq?
• Do you believe that world leaders actually though there were nukes there?
• Do you think the USA and UK acted upon self interest to secure oil reserves?
• Do you think now the USA and UK should remove their troops and see what happens?

Thank you for contributing in advance.

 

[The Executive]

1. Saddam Hussein led the world to believe he had WMDs and was willing to use them. Regardless of whether he had them or not, he was purposefully establishing himself as a threat to security in the Middle East. We were justified in removing him from power for more reasons than one.

2. I am assuming they thought it was better to err on the side of caution. In early 2003, emotions from 9/11 were still running high.

3. I believe it was done in spite of oil reserves. There are far less costly ways to get oil than this, if that was the primary objective things would have been done differently.

4. Sure, let's pull out the stabilizing force in Iraq. We'll leave a gaping power vacuum in the most volatile region on the planet, but that's unimportant. The returning masses of soldiers will likely deenlist and look for jobs that aren't available; many will stay unemployed and draw money off the federal government, which will only exasperate our current economic issues. Great move.

 

[Crimson King]

I completely disagree. We have done more to flex our muscle than Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il. Why has no one removed us from any form of power? The United States has been forcing it's will upon other countries, and most of them are sick of it, but we would be strongly opposed to anyone coming in and saying "We are doing this for your own good." Granted, our situation isn't nearly as stark as Iraq was, but we are just asking for our freedoms to be removed constantly with stuff like the Patriot Act. We have less freedoms now than before our war of "Iraqi Freedom."

As for number four, staying in Iraq is costing us trillions of dollars annually as well as the lives of those enlisted. Your argument for not letting them return home is that there aren't enough jobs? As for leaving when volatile, the region will never be stabilized, ever. And the longer we stay, the greater their dependence on us is. Japan has no legitimate army, though by now they can have one, they simply choose to let the US continue defending them. They have a HUGE budget because they don't have to worry about a defense budget, and they take a large portion of our money through consumer electronics. This is one of the many examples of how our places troops everywhere is bad. We are not the world police.

 

[The Executive]

I completely disagree. We have done more to flex our muscle than Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il. Why has no one removed us from any form of power?

Presumably because we are viewed by most people as a stabilizing force. Not saying we're perfect at all, but we have done more good than harm when meddling in world affairs. Isolationist policies will do you little good in today's society anyway.

The United States has been forcing it's will upon other countries, and most of them are sick of it, but we would be strongly opposed to anyone coming in and saying "We are doing this for your own good." Granted, our situation isn't nearly as stark as Iraq was, but we are just asking for our freedoms to be removed constantly with stuff like the Patriot Act. We have less freedoms now than before our war of "Iraqi Freedom."

I'll leave this one alone since I'm undecided on the Patriot Act.

As for number four, staying in Iraq is costing us trillions of dollars annually as well as the lives of those enlisted. Your argument for not letting them return home is that there aren't enough jobs? As for leaving when volatile, the region will never be stabilized, ever. And the longer we stay, the greater their dependence on us is.

I never said the Middle East would be stabilized (it won't). I'm saying that if we can build some semblance of a functional government in Iraq we can leave and not have to come back again, whereas if we left now infrastructure would crumble and in ten years it'd be worse over there than it was under Saddam and blame would be placed on us.

Japan has no legitimate army, though by now they can have one, they simply choose to let the US continue defending them. They have a HUGE budget because they don't have to worry about a defense budget, and they take a large portion of our money through consumer electronics. This is one of the many examples of how our places troops everywhere is bad. We are not the world police.

My support for bases in foreign lands is not military-related (I just like the ease/inexpensiveness of travel/exposure to foreign culture), so no argument here.

 

[SkylerOcon]

I completely disagree. We have done more to flex our muscle than Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il. Why has no one removed us from any form of power? The United States has been forcing it's will upon other countries, and most of them are sick of it, but we would be strongly opposed to anyone coming in and saying "We are doing this for your own good." Granted, our situation isn't nearly as stark as Iraq was, but we are just asking for our freedoms to be removed constantly with stuff like the Patriot Act. We have less freedoms now than before our war of "Iraqi Freedom."

As for number four, staying in Iraq is costing us trillions of dollars annually as well as the lives of those enlisted. Your argument for not letting them return home is that there aren't enough jobs? As for leaving when volatile, the region will never be stabilized, ever. And the longer we stay, the greater their dependence on us is. Japan has no legitimate army, though by now they can have one, they simply choose to let the US continue defending them. They have a HUGE budget because they don't have to worry about a defense budget, and they take a large portion of our money through consumer electronics. This is one of the many examples of how our places troops everywhere is bad. We are not the world police.

You said what I wanted to say.

And did America not listen? George Washington himself warned us to stay out of foreign affairs.

 

[The Executive]

George Washington himself warned us to stay out of foreign affairs.

Isolationist policies are detrimental in a globalized society. That may have worked 200 years ago when the world was still a few dozen countries that could keep to themselves, but that's not how it works anymore.

Edit: my views may be influenced by the fact that I'm an ex-pat at heart; I prefer to enjoy all the citizenship benefits without having to deal with the domestic issues.

 

[Crimson King]

It's not isolationism, it's non-interventionalism. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both were against any type of vehement foreign policies.

But, being the police to the world, all we are doing is spreading ourselves super thin and harming more countries than helping. Take Germany, it's been over 50 years since World War 2, and they are still banned from having an army, but chances are they don't even want it because we serve as their army. It's simple mathematics. We spend about 75% of our budget on foreign affairs when we are already in the hole by trillions of dollars. We make up this deficit by borrowing from people who we diplomatically oppose such as China and Mexico (with various things). Japan on the other hand has an EVEN smaller military budget because they had no reason to worry about it, and they actually make money off our bases there.

As for Iraq, no matter how stable the government gets and uprisings will destroy it. Fact of the matter is the country is not ours to make decisions on, so we shouldn't try.

 

[The Executive]

Agree w/ most of this, esp. the part about Japan making money off our bases...you have NO idea how integral U.S. presence is to the economy of Okinawa. They make money hand over fist off of our troops.

 

[Ørion]

But, being the police to the world, all we are doing is spreading ourselves super thin and harming more countries than helping. Take Germany, it's been over 50 years since World War 2, and they are still banned from having an army, but chances are they don't even want it because we serve as their army. It's simple mathematics. We spend about 75% of our budget on foreign affairs when we are already in the hole by trillions of dollars. We make up this deficit by borrowing from people who we diplomatically oppose such as China and Mexico (with various things). Japan on the other hand has an EVEN smaller military budget because they had no reason to worry about it, and they actually make money off our bases there.

I agree that we should pull some of our troops out of some places such as Germany and think some of that money could be better spent elsewhere, but just because we spread ourselves thin in one place does not mean that we should decide to abandon places that IMO really need help. Whether or not you think we should have gone in in the first place, I feel it is our responsibility to stay until there is a stable government established.

 

[Kur]

Yes, no, no, and no.

The US and UK did what was needed. We have liberated 50 million people. How is that not a good thing?

Nobody thought Saddam had nukes. WMDs doen not mean nukes, it means weapons of mass destruction, such as Nukes, chemical weapons, other large bombs, large incendiary explosives, and other forms off mass destruction, or either life, or property. For about a year Saddam refused to let UN weapons inspectors in and continually brushed off questions concerning whether or not he had WMDs. Given that he has had and used them in the past, and his behavior concerning questions of whether or not he was amassing more, what else was one to believe than he had WMDs or was developing them? It was the best evidence at the time. And remember, hindsight is always 20/20.

Oil is always a huge concern when dealing with the middle east. But since gas prices have only gone up since then, I doubt anything good has come from the war concerning oil supply. the reason for going into Iraq was simply to remove Saddam from power and establish a democratic government for the purposes of national security and liberation of the Iraqi people.

Pulling the troops out now would be the biggest mistake in the long history of mistakes. it would leave an entire country up fro grabs to whatever terrorist organization happened to be closest to Baghdad at the time. That would leave us with the most powerful terrorist group ever in charge of a country, and a lot of the worlds oil. Leave the troops there to do their job. Once the Iraqi government is stabilized we can pull out.


Please keep in mind that the US and UK do not have a draft. Military service is voluntary and those soldiers knew full well they would likely be sent to Iraq. It is their job. You don't see a bunch of people saying we should keep the police at home because sending them to crime scenes is too dangerous, or that the dangerous people they are arresting might be innocent. Being a soldier is a job, let them do it.


p.s. please excuse my poor spelling, it is way past my bed time.

 

[Crimson King]

First off, we liberated people that may or may not wanted our help. What will you do if some country says, "George W. Bush is evil (which like with Saddam a lot of people know and accept) and must be taken down and we are occupying your country while doing it." Some will be extremely happy, but the people who are in the center of the fighting, will hate it.

The US still has the Selective Services act which means all 18 year old men must register for the draft in the event we decide to re-enable it.

 

[Ørion]

^I find it very unlikely that there will be a draft for the Iraq War, it is just too unpopular. Just because you have to register for a draft does not mean it is going to happen, and if a draft was reinstated for Iraq, it would be like the Vietnam draft all over again i.e. people burning draft cards, moving to Canada etc. The government would want to avoid that kind of large-scale revolt against the war and will not initiate a draft unless the situation becomes truly desperate, which is very unlikely.

 

[Kur]

First off, we liberated people that may or may not wanted our help. What will you do if some country says, "George W. Bush is evil (which like with Saddam a lot of people know and accept) and must be taken down and we are occupying your country while doing it." Some will be extremely happy, but the people who are in the center of the fighting, will hate it.

The US still has the Selective Services act which means all 18 year old men must register for the draft in the event we decide to re-enable it.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens are glad to be liberated and continually thank the US and UK soldiers they come into contact with.

Of course the liberal media who hates the war, only report on the few extremists who want the US and UK to pull out. Or they make a big deal of the US death toll reaching 4,000 as if that was a high number of casualties for a 7 year war.

And if some country does decide to try to remove our president from power by invading the country, then we will fight back. Seems pretty obvious to me really.

And yes, you must register for the draft. But we aren't using the draft so it is a moot point. Currently military service is not required. It is an entirely volunteer military. Anybody who is still in a branch of service after being drafted, is there of their own accord.

I myself joined the army in 1998. Unfortunately I was injured and had to leave the service but I knew full well I would be sent over seas into some kind of conflict because I had a job that was particularly likely to be used in conflict. And if I had been sent over seas and had to listen to the media and all the other liberals tell me that the war was 'lost' or that we had no business being there, or that we should just pull out, when in actuality everything was going great and I was doing the job I was paid to do, I would be severely pissed off.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Huge topic here, aimed at all people.

• Do you think USA and UK should have sent troops into Iraq?
• Do you believe that world leaders actually though there were nukes there?
• Do you think the USA and UK acted upon self interest to secure oil reserves?
• Do you think now the USA and UK should remove their troops and see what happens?

Thank you for contributing in advance.

Yes, however I'm neutral for the UK's reason. Bush had so much leading to him sending troops to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

Nah, just an excuse ofr some, the rest just jumped on the bandwagon.

No, you watch too much tv.

Now you're just getting annoying.

 

[Crimson King]

^I find it very unlikely that there will be a draft for the Iraq War, it is just too unpopular. Just because you have to register for a draft does not mean it is going to happen, and if a draft was reinstated for Iraq, it would be like the Vietnam draft all over again i.e. people burning draft cards, moving to Canada etc. The government would want to avoid that kind of large-scale revolt against the war and will not initiate a draft unless the situation becomes truly desperate, which is very unlikely.

Popularity has nothing to do with a war. I was referring to the probably Iranian War with the way McCain speaks.

The overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens are glad to be liberated and continually thank the US and UK soldiers they come into contact with.

Of course the liberal media who hates the war, only report on the few extremists who want the US and UK to pull out. Or they make a big deal of the US death toll reaching 4,000 as if that was a high number of casualties for a 7 year war.

And if some country does decide to try to remove our president from power by invading the country, then we will fight back. Seems pretty obvious to me really.

And yes, you must register for the draft. But we aren't using the draft so it is a moot point. Currently military service is not required. It is an entirely volunteer military. Anybody who is still in a branch of service after being drafted, is there of their own accord.

I myself joined the army in 1998. Unfortunately I was injured and had to leave the service but I knew full well I would be sent over seas into some kind of conflict because I had a job that was particularly likely to be used in conflict. And if I had been sent over seas and had to listen to the media and all the other liberals tell me that the war was 'lost' or that we had no business being there, or that we should just pull out, when in actuality everything was going great and I was doing the job I was paid to do, I would be severely pissed off.

4,000 human lives that died needlessly IS a high number. The fact of the matter is the people never asked for us to go there and help them. We decided to do so because we want to be the World Police. We are not the World Police, and we cannot afford to keep spending money on a war that we shouldn't be in. If a country somehow attacked us, we would be in a horrible way because of all our troops everywhere else in the world.

 

[McCloud]

I came in this kind of late for the whole minding our own business argument, which is a shame... I really wanted to do it. Regardless here are some arguments to back it up.

1) The U.S. is currently an extraregional hegemon and many students of U.S. grand strategy agree on this point. The U.S. currently has troops stationed in many areas around the world in order to preserve the peace in the region. That's all fine and dandy for peace, but it does nothing but weaken the U.S. This isn't a time for the U.S. to continue to be the big bad policeman. Why? Because there's nobody for the U.S. to protect against. There is no great power that "threatens" the world. There is no Us vs Them. It's just the U.S. now.

2) The U.S. should pursue a policy of offshore balancing. Christopher Layne states "Offshore balancing" is a term that implies the "stopping power of water" as a deterrent to extraregional hegemony. In short, it's what the U.S. should be doing by retreating back into it's comfort zone and cutting needless entanglements in the Eurasian theatre.

As for your "should we pull out", the answer is an emphatic yes, but we have to withdraw gradually and with tact. International and political backlash will be present no matter what method we use for withdrawal, but gradual withdrawal will at least stifle some backlash.

Paraphrases and quotes taken from:


Layne, Christopher. The Peace of Illusions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006.

 

[Kur]

Popularity has nothing to do with a war. I was referring to the probably Iranian War with the way McCain speaks.

You watch too much news. Keep in mind that basically everything you see or hear in the media has a strong liberal bias. McCain has no intention of going to war with Iran unless they do something to warrant it. As a matter of fact, Hilary is the one who outright threatened to destroy Iran.

4,000 human lives that died needlessly IS a high number. The fact of the matter is the people never asked for us to go there and help them. We decided to do so because we want to be the World Police. We are not the World Police, and we cannot afford to keep spending money on a war that we shouldn't be in. If a country somehow attacked us, we would be in a horrible way because of all our troops everywhere else in the world.

Well now you are just whining. 4,000 lives in exchange for the liberation of 50 million, the removal of a sadistic, genocidal, and insane dictator, greatly reduced threat from terrorists, and securing yet another democracy on the planet. Not exactly needless if you look at it.

And they never ask for our help because they don't know that they can, or they have no way of doing so. Most of the time, these evil dictator types use the media in their country to make the people believe America is a huge evil empire and that the soldiers will come in and eat their babies and **** the women. Even in Japan in WW2 some of the poor villagers would commit suicide, or sons would beat their mothers to death with rocks and farm tools because they were told the American troops would torture and **** them. One news station in Iran was told by the Iranian government to create a kids show with a guy in a costume that sort of looked like Mickey Mouse. The show ran for a while and the Iranian kids loved it. The station set up a live performance and sold tickets to thousands of people and then canceled the show at the last minute because "The Americans killed 'Mickey Mouse."

And sorry, but we kind of are the world police. As the most powerful country on earth, we have a responsibility to protect those who can not protect themselves, and we have a responsibility to protect ourselves even if it means stopping a threat before it attacks us.

If you don't agree with that, you can make a big cardboard sign and sit outside of the white house, or you can move your whinny *** to Canada. You have the right to do either one.

And if you really think the US couldn't defend itself from attack right now, you are just naive. There are over 1.5 million soldiers in the different branches of the military and another 1 million in reserves. Currently 200,000 US troops are overseas in over 100 countries and another 150,000 are in Iraq alone. So 86% of our military is still at home. That is more than enough to defend this country from direct attack from any other country on the planet. Besides, it doesn't take 50,000 soldiers to fly a single F-22 and take out 20 enemy fighters. It doesn't take 2,000 troops to fire a few missiles and sink a bunch of enemy ships. The US does not fight a war with troops, it fights with technology. Why do you think the US has had so few casualties compared to the enemy in Iraq?

And what country is going to attack the US anyway? That is just begging for an *** kicking.

Seriously, stop listening to the media hype.

 

[Crimson King]

Just remember, all empires fail, and our number is coming. We are on a sinking ship with the greatest national debt EVER. We owe more money to our enemies than some countries owe to their own allies, and we are just propagating that debt by sending troops needlessly to war. I like how you automatically assume anyone against an unnecessary war must be listening to media hype and liberal biased. I'm Libertarian which means your pseudo-conservative views can barely touch my conservative views. I believe we have no reason to be anywhere but here because non-interventionalism is much stronger, safer, and all around better than getting into the affairs of everyone. To me, you are nothing but another brain-washed puppet that willing accepts whatever the government tells.

Just a guess, but I bet you think the Patriot Act, or the revocation of civil liberties to find "terrorists" is a great idea.

As for those 4,000 deaths you love to trivialize, they signed up to defend our country, not to defend some country overseas that even with our help will collapse into rubble.

 

[McCloud]

Byahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I'm sorry, but since when were we God's gift to the world?

The U.S. since 1945 has pursued an imperialistic "Open Door" policy. Namely, killing and manipulating the people of the world in order to promote "Democracy" i.e. a world that caters to the U.S. It's done this under the guise of anti-communism for half a century and it's attempting to do it again under the guise of anti-terrorism. The only problem is the U.S. can't fight terrorism.

The War on Terror - Someone mind telling me how exactly you fight an emotion? The War on Terrorism - Someone mind telling me how you fight an idea?

Well now you are just whining. 4,000 lives in exchange for the liberation of 50 million, the removal of a sadistic, genocidal, and insane dictator, greatly reduced threat from terrorists, and securing yet another democracy on the planet. Not exactly needless if you look at it.

"Liberation" of Iraq was bull. Saddam sucked, but he was never a threat. We don't have any responsibility to be world police. We're trained to think that but it's just not true. We are not God's gift to the world. We're a bunch of overeager democracy pushing hotheads. "Greatly reduced threat from terrorists" my ***, they were never operating out of Iraq. "Securing yet another democracy on the planet" is also imperialist propaganda. We're not doing it for the people of Iraq, we're doing it for ourselves.

All nations act when it is in their interest to act. We're not stupid. Read your history.

Come back when you can tell me about the Guatemala Solution, cause that's basically what we did. However, instead of covertly assassinating the ruler we outright invaded his **** country.

1 more note before I go -

Most of the time, these evil dictator types use the media in their country to make the people believe America is a huge evil empire and that the soldiers will come in and eat their babies and **** the women.

Currently 200,000 US troops are overseas in over 100 countries

Please, stop listening to FoxNews.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?ex=1309924800&en=3e5168a75ce74cf8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

[Dodongo]

The overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens are glad to be liberated and continually thank the US and UK soldiers they come into contact with.

Of course the liberal media who hates the war, only report on the few extremists who want the US and UK to pull out. Or they make a big deal of the US death toll reaching 4,000 as if that was a high number of casualties for a 7 year war.

Both the liberal and neo conservative news corporations are vastly in the favor of war and actively suppress the fact that most Americans do not want conflict.

It is unacceptable to tolerate even one death in the name of an ambiguous and unconstitutional war that should never have happened. Do you honestly think sacrificing billions of tax dollars, untold numbers of personal freedoms, and the lives of people who have nothing to do with the real reasons war is being fought is worth it? It is foolish to believe that occupying other sovereign nations is a good way to keep American citizens safe. The Iraq war has brought nothing but death, poverty, and unprecedented executive corruption.

I don't blame you for thinking the way that you do, because that is the attitude that best serves the otherwise unacceptable status quo, but you are absolutely wrong.

 

[Crimson King]

You watch too much news. Keep in mind that basically everything you see or hear in the media has a strong liberal bias. McCain has no intention of going to war with Iran unless they do something to warrant it. As a matter of fact, Hilary is the one who outright threatened to destroy Iran.

OH, my mistake, McCain wants nothing to do with destroying Iran - http://youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

 

[Dodongo]

Sarcasm

It's funny to joke about dropping bombs on civilians who have nothing to do with why war happens, especially when you plan to do it in the near future, should your nation be ******** enough to elect you.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens are glad to be liberated and continually thank the US and UK soldiers they come into contact with.

And you have evidence to this effect where?

Of course the liberal media who hates the war, only report on the few extremists who want the US and UK to pull out. Or they make a big deal of the US death toll reaching 4,000 as if that was a high number of casualties for a 7 year war.

For a WAR, yes. But this SHOULDN'T be a war. This should just be peacetime reconstruction, and 4000 dead means... that it actually is a war, which this shouldn't be, which means we screwed up.

I myself joined the army in 1998. Unfortunately I was injured and had to leave the service but I knew full well I would be sent over seas into some kind of conflict because I had a job that was particularly likely to be used in conflict. And if I had been sent over seas and had to listen to the media and all the other liberals tell me that the war was 'lost' or that we had no business being there, or that we should just pull out, when in actuality everything was going great and I was doing the job I was paid to do, I would be severely pissed off.

Going great? Sorry but even Bush admitted the war was going terribly. Petraeus and McCain were explaining how it was going poorly for quite a bit longer. I'm wondering, who is currently defining the Strategy for Iraq's reconstruction? That should tell you who was correct.

Rose-colored glasses much?

And what country is going to attack the US anyway? That is just begging for an *** kicking.

All about military force, isn't it?

The reality is that powerful countries almost always fall, not because of military defeats, but overarching factors (which often lead to military defeats in the long term).

Furthermore, conventional militaries have lost a great deal of their effectiveness. We are in the forth generation of warfare now, sure we can defeat any STATE, but non-state entities and asymmetrical warfare... we have a grave vulnerability in that area.