Iraq

You're insane, the government isn't established yet. >.>

TheFairMaiden wrote:You make a better argument here. I would like to list casualties from the Iraq war (so far) and from the Vietnam war, and then you can tell me if it's another Vietnam or not.

Iraq-
April of 04 there were 135 casualties.
The number of casualties this month: 34
In the five years that our troops have been stationed in Iraq, there have been a total of 3878 deaths.

Vietnam-
Estimated at 350,000 US casualties.
Estimated Vietnamese deaths was between 1 and 2 million.

As you can see, there's a vast difference between loss of life in these two wars. To be in Iraq for almost six years, and only have 3878 deaths, is nothing short of a miracle. Yes it is a lot of lives, but when you look at September 11th, in ONE attack, there were 2,974 civilian deaths. Compare that to six years of fighting back, and know that if we pull out, that could happen countless more times. As I said before, it was either here or there. Fighting over there keeps our people safe. As far as Iraq turning on us, there's no foundation for that claim. Sure it's possible, but not probable. Why would they, especially after what America has done. They wouldn't have the means or the resources to stage an attack.

Hate to correct you but you left out two things(1) Offically we where over there for 6 years unoffically 10 years(2) It was an upopular war.

Simularities between Iraq & Vietnam 6 years over there in both countries and both were and are unpopular all over the country so yes it is very much like Vietnam not in the loss of life but still ANOTHER VIETNAM.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The scenarios are completely different! No war is a popular war.

TheFairMaiden wrote:You're insane, the government isn't established yet. >.>

It's set up the stupid media just seemed to forget that little detail.

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

TheFairMaiden wrote:That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The scenarios are completely different! No war is a popular war.

The revolutonary war was popular WWII AND WWI WERE BOTH POPULAR


YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

It would be nice that someone pointed out that we've lost less than 2% of our total military deployed there. And contrary to popular belief asserted by the general media, our efforts in the East have been very productive. My only complaint is the sweet time we've been taking getting there through negotiations. We've been negotiating even before 9/11, and it's obvious what diplomacy's achieved.

For those that are against the war, be it because they think we're invading their homelands for some obscure reason (*cough* oil *cough*) or some other ill-crafted reason, this entire war is a response for their actions against us. They didn't want to get even with us for some past crime we committed against them; the minds behind the strike against us were vicious barbarian dullards who wanted recognition, and they built their image around the lies they told their people about us Americans. There was nothing -reasonable- about their actions. They struck out of a completely malevolent intention. And we responded.

For those convinced that we should have relied on diplomacy; we did. In fact, that's likely the main element that's stretched the war to this length. I'm not entirely convinced that glassing every eastern country involved would have made everything better, but reasoning with the mad seldom bears fruit. You also have to keep in mind that it's not our military against another military. It's our military against civilians with guns and bombs strapped to their torsos using the closest living body as a shield in the name of a god who demands the death of any people disloyal. If this was about strength or wit, we'd have won long ago. But we're fighting cowards in their own hole. They're nothing commendable or respectable about their ideas or principles.

What's worse, there's innocent people in the middle of this entire dilemma, and they're the ones paying for completely immoral tactics of said terrorists. The only valid argument that can be made against our presence there is that, had we not reacted to the attack on 9/11, then the terrorists wouldn't be killing their own people. True; then they'd be continuing they're godless crusade against everyone who doesn't agree with them. Passiveness after the events of 9/11 would have been the worst course of action. And to be blunt, all of this is happening because we're playing fair. Otherwise, the entire place would have been turned into a glass parking lot a long time ago.

Now, why are we still there? Well, are we being productive? Yes, we're helping a nation build itself up to be able to govern itself, that's arguably productive. Do we have an excuse to be there? Other than the retaliation of their original attack and our successful efforts to prevent them from achieving another successful attack on a large scale which has saved far more than have died by their hands, not at all. Are their political affairs any of our business? Perhaps not, but then again if it hadn’t been for us, they wouldn’t have any political affairs to begin with, now would they. But, is it time for us to leave?

My opinion; it’s long past time that we should have left. It’s also long past time since we originally predicted that we’d defeated them. But we’re still progressing, and we’re in a stage of the process that –requires- our presence there. This war has been very prolonged, but we made a decision to take action against the threat posed for us, and if we pulled out now, our efforts will have been cut short, and all effort we've thus far poured into that land will eventually have been voided.

I don't think anyone likes the war anymore, if anyone ever did, but we have to take responsibility for our decisions.

Star Scream wrote:

TheFairMaiden wrote:You're insane, the government isn't established yet. >.>

It's set up the stupid media just seemed to forget that little detail.

On, it's set up. But do you really think they're capable of maintaining a government on their own in their current possition? It was never a matter of 'setting up a government', it's a matter of setting one up and equiping and helping the people to maintain it themselves. This was the 'responsibility' I was talking about in my last post. If we left now, then I would have fun making wagers with people on how long it would last; I'd go for a month, but that's probably wishful thinking on my part.

Green-inferno is the one who's the most logical post so far. I don't think we're 'invading their homelands', but as the war continues the more I don't like it (I come from a very 'we support whatever the military does' family). I was very PRO the war in Iraq for years, but now the more we stay, the more uneasy I feel. I agree with Green-Inferno, it's long past the time that we left. And though I do agree with dealing with one's decisions, I also just want my cousin to be able to come home and support his family. If it weren't for my desire for family and other American families to be free of this kind of burden, I'd probably be very apathetic toward this subject.

Okay, Starscream and Fairmaiden. No, this war isn't 'popular'. I SEE what Starscream is trying to say, but the better term would be 'supported'. Wars can happen where American people support it, this is not one of them. And also we seem to have different opinions on the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam. Fairmaiden, you CAN'T expect people NOT to not be reminded of Vietnam when looking at Iraq even if they do have differences. I'd actually like to see Green-Inferno's opinion on that. And let's ALL remember, nobody is mad at each other.

i don't like the war over there because i have an uncle over there who get's hit every time he goes out on a mission by ieds and somtimes he'll call and have to put the phone down becasue they are getting shelled by mortars and he will have to take cover and you can hear the bombs going off in the background. that's why i don't like it

Hey, I was wondering does anyone suspect that maybe a candidate could get in office by saying he'll pull out of Iraq when President?

Also, is it just MY news station or is there not too much anti- or pro-war things going on in the media? Everytime I watch the news it just seems to be a straightforward apathetic view to the war. Still people saying we shouldn't or should be there, but the media itself not saying much. I'm really wondering if it is just the news I watch, because whenever I watch it I never get the impression they're expressing or supporting one certain opinion.

Fox news is the least biased. They pretty much report what is going on and don't add in their own opinions. That's what I like about them. I also would like to state that more people are supportive of this war then you might think. Many news stations report in such a way that it makes you think everyone is opposed to it. They say the majority of the people in the polls they take are against it, but what they don't tell you, is that only a set amount of people were interviewed, and they could have asked people they knew would be against it. Obviously they didn't ask every person in America, or you would get a completely different result in the polls. Also, I watched Fox news just the other night, and they had interviewed several Iraqi refugees who were staying in Sudan, and thousands of them were returning to Iraq because things were so much better and safer than it was previously. Obviously progress is being made, and we probably won't have to stay there much longer. A negative spin is put on anything having to do with Iraq, but good things are happening. I would also like to agree with Esther, this has just been a political debate, nothing personal.

Actually, I don't see this war being that supported. I don't see it being positively protested either, I think we are just about straight divided on it. Again, does anyone think that someone could get in the oval office over this?

I think there's a good chance, but if that's the only reason people voted for them, than it would be foolish.

Well, it probably wouldn't be the ONLY reason, but the American people are divided so '50/50' it might put someone over the edge.

Shadow_Girl wrote:Hey, I was wondering does anyone suspect that maybe a candidate could get in office by saying he'll pull out of Iraq when President?

Also, is it just MY news station or is there not too much anti- or pro-war things going on in the media? Everytime I watch the news it just seems to be a straightforward apathetic view to the war. Still people saying we shouldn't or should be there, but the media itself not saying much. I'm really wondering if it is just the news I watch, because whenever I watch it I never get the impression they're expressing or supporting one certain opinion.

yes some one would get in that's why i want to just so i can have some fun (snikkers to self good bye N.Korea AND CHINA

I don't think you could do that even if you we're president, Beaver. lol

Yeah, they'd probably throw you in jail and destroy the key...o.o

THAT'S WHY GOD INVENTED ASSANATION ATTEMPS AND FEAR

God didn't invent assassination attempts. lol This is simply a perversion of God's creation as is fear. The Bible tells us we were not meant to have a spirit of fear. When the Bible tells us to fear God, the text means more like respect God than actually be afraid of Him.

OK (what else can i use ah crap)you ruined it for me

Sorry. lol

Mike Huckabee put into words the point I've been trying to make on his campaign site. He said "We don't declare war until 'two weeks from Wednesday,' we declare war until victory."

Until the government is established?

I shall not comment further.