[Golden Legacy]

Link

Some have even suggested that the United States government is considering the scenario of leaving our troops there until 2010.

Personally, I find it frustrating. I was always opposed to the war, but leaving now would only ruin what little progress has been made, and would completely underscore American mediocrity as being weak, ineffective, feckless cowards.

Your Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Platinum Sun]

This is unfortunate, but unavoidable. That's life in the big city I suppose...

[Toasty]

Although I don't oppose the war in Iraq, it is unfortunate that this is to happen. I don't want our troops there any longer than they have to be, but if it promises to keep us safe from terrorist attacks like 911, then it has to be done.

[My Best Wishes]

Why are they still there? Last I heard they were there to enforce the peace until a democratic leader was appointed.

Even if they don't recall them all take some out, it's not nessacary, it's just upsetting people and risking lives.

[Ravenblade]

The President promised they'd leave after the elections. But then they didnt cos...i dunno?

Either way, i dont think it has anything to do with US security anymore, i think this is more to do with Iraqi security. If the troops left now civil war would be rampant and i think the US owes it to iraq to help them out a bit after messing everything up. That said, i wish Britain would pull its troops out so we can go about focusing on Afghanistan (there have been huge debates in Britain recently with army generals wanting to concnetrate on Afghanistan and leave Iraq)

Ideally, the US would pull out and the UN would take their place - that way the US wouldnt be able to exploit the Iraqi (puppet) government anymore. but if the Un wont do that then the Americans really have to stay. And they'll be there an awful long time im thinking...

[Platinum Sun]

The US can't step out until the new Iraqi government can take over power on its own. Current estimates place that date at February 30th somewhere in the year 2010.

[TheEnglishman]

Ravenblade, on Oct 18 2006, 08:20 AM, said:

Either way, i dont think it has anything to do with US security anymore, i think this is more to do with Iraqi security. If the troops left now civil war would be rampant and i think the US owes it to iraq to help them out a bit after messing everything up. That said, i wish Britain would pull its troops out so we can go about focusing on Afghanistan (there have been huge debates in Britain recently with army generals wanting to concnetrate on Afghanistan and leave Iraq)

There's has been a lot of talk lately. The head of the army said that, 'the presence of British troops is making things worse.' I can't see a clearer intention to leave.
However I can understan why they want to keep troops there. They want to see the job done. I guess it's a case of waiting, no matter if you want them to stay or not.

[Platinum Sun]

I think the natives are capable of causing a lot more damage than our troops are.

[TheEnglishman]

That's what I mean. The fact that troops are there mean that it is encouraging terroists to fight. I'm not blaming the troops at all.

[l3lueMage]

lol, everyone switches their there and they're around...

Quote

oops are there** mean that it

I see nothing of being 2010? plus elections are 2008 so he can only say 2008 cause after that he is not in power :P

[Toasty]

Ravenblade, on Oct 18 2006, 12:20 AM, said:

that way the US wouldnt be able to exploit the Iraqi (puppet) government anymore.

Lets start conspiracy theories why don't we. :P

As said if we leave, Iraq could break out in Civil war, and seeing as we helped establish their government (not becaused we messed everything up), then we should stay and keep that from happening.

[Eugine]

But then the US INVASION created the problem, so don't try to act like if you're saving them by remaining there, you're basically trying to clean the mess you started.

[Neon]

You can'tr just invade a country intending to make all sorts of world improving changes and then just pack up leave the place in ruins.

Besides, we all know they will never accomplish what they went in for, and will never pull out because it would be such as huge damage to their image etc.

When I say 'they' I should probably say 'we', since my wonderful country got involved too =\. I think our troops are staying there as well, naturally.

[My Best Wishes]

Well Neon, Bush has Johnny Howard on a leash so we're staying too. Just elect a leader already and stop making headlines!

[lphantoml]

This is just asking for another fight with watch as the instigater.

[Ravenblade]

It was in the papers today that the President accepted that the Iraq situation was like Vietnam. I think that says it all.

I still think you need to stick it out though. Its good to see the UN arent helping as they opposed the whole event in the first place. They did well in this whole dispute i think.

[Toasty]

So you're all saying that trying to give Iraq a stable government instead of a dictator, who used the people as labrats, is a bad thing? It's rough right now, because it's in a transition between no government, and a stable government. Of course it's going to take a while. Especially with terrorists still roaming the streets.

[Golden Legacy]

For the record, Sadaam brought stability. Yes, he was a dictator, yes, he was responsible for mass killings of the Kurds, but besides that, he brought Iraq to a reasonably stable, decent economy, and improved standards of living for Iraqis.

And to add more salt to the wound, the US is considering more GIs to be sent to Iraq.

[Toasty]

Well yeah, more insurgents are popping up, and causing more bloodshed, so unfortunately, to keep more of it from happening, we have to send a few more troops back to stabalize it.

[My Best Wishes]

Interesting enough on the radio the other day there was a audio clip of some Iraqi in a high position saying that it would cowardly for the Colliation to back out now. I agree with him, Australia America and England made this mess. Well us and all the other small countries.

It has to be done but I am sick of hearing about more deaths and bombings. Those soliders are doing their jobs and getting attacked. If the Iraqi's want Saddam back rather then trying to make a new government, then just leave them.

*I've never heard anyone say that want Saddam back, I can't imagine anyone would. Just saying most citizens want us out instead of getting through this time.

[pHantOm]

I think its stupid that we're in Iraq, but now were stuck so what can we do?

We've dug ourselves a hole, we cant just stop now.

[Toasty]

I'd like someone to point out how we dug a hole. The terrorists were already there, and they were already terrorizing. Sure, Saddam brought Stability, but so did Hitler. That's the thing, dictators usually give stability, but at a huge cost. That cost being innocent lives. We're digging the Iraqis out of a hole, if you ask me, and by staying there, we're keeping them from falling into another one. I don't like having more soldiers sent into Iraq more than anyone else, but it would be pointless to pull out now.

[Ravenblade]

While I would agree that you do need to stay there, Im not sure how far one could argue the Iraqis are being rescued - I very much doubt the new regime will last long and im pretty sure similarly problematic humanitarian issues will be created by it - Iraq isnt just suddenly going to become the Middle Eastern version of America. It'll still be dangerous and basically the same way it was before.

I read that more than 50% of Americans now oppose the war and think we should leave Iraq, and that the Republicans are kinda screwed in the next elections as a result of this - this suggests to me that the Republican Government are the ones who have dug a massive hole for themselves rather than America. Really, America can leave any time it wants to and the whole affair would cease to be a problem to them - its the government thats in trouble.

[pHantOm]

Ravenblade, on Oct 26 2006, 03:52 AM, said:

While I would agree that you do need to stay there, Im not sure how far one could argue the Iraqis are being rescued - I very much doubt the new regime will last long and im pretty sure similarly problematic humanitarian issues will be created by it - Iraq isnt just suddenly going to become the Middle Eastern version of America. It'll still be dangerous and basically the same way it was before.

I read that more than 50% of Americans now oppose the war and think we should leave Iraq, and that the Republicans are kinda screwed in the next elections as a result of this - this suggests to me that the Republican Government are the ones who have dug a massive hole for themselves rather than America. Really, America can leave any time it wants to and the whole affair would cease to be a problem to them - its the government thats in trouble.

Leaving would be worse than staying for sure, it would be chaos with battles between regimes to have control of Iraq, and in this case sadly the bad guys always win and a dictator would definitly take over.

[Hotshot101]

We are only staying in Iraq because the Iraqis can't fully defend themselves (you don't expect them to be able to after we smashed them when fighting Saddam)they are getting better though. I hate to see soldiers go into that bomb field but we got no other choice we back down now we will sorta sign another dictatorship and terrorism will continue (not to mention Iraq going into civil war). We back down now we will look like cowards. As for the republicans screwing themselves the next election is sorta write but the democrats don't have much more of a chance because of the way they been acting. I heard that most of their people say they won't vote because of their uncalled for actions.

Besides with Saddam would you want some torturous evil person that hung women upside down **** *** **** ***** ** i mean really saddam did some pretty bad stuff.

[Toasty]

The people in America who are against the war and say we should leave are stupid. All they see is that our soldiers are dieing, and nothing of what good will come of it. Yes, unfortunately Republicans are now hated more than they already were, but at least we chose to fight terrorism instead of letting them get away with it like Clinton did.

[Eugine]

O.o, I'm sure if you did an opinion pole on who was the better president, Clinton or Bush, most Americans will prefer Clinton X.X

And internationally definetly Clinton.

[Toasty]

Yes, I know that. I know why people outside of the US liked him, and that was because he didn't bother them at all, for anything. Good or bad. What I don;t get, is why the majority of Americans would prefer him. He sold nuke plans to China and some other country around there, which is probably how North Korea got the plans for one, though I don't know. And he didn't do anything to stop any terrorists. He just let them roam free. We could have had Osama now if Clinton had actually tried to do something about it. He's also had who know's how many wives, though that's not all tha bad since he divorced between marrages, it just shows he can't keep a spouse, so there has to be something wrong with his attitude.

[Hotshot101]

Eugine, on Oct 26 2006, 06:24 PM, said:

O.o, I'm sure if you did an opinion pole on who was the better president, Clinton or Bush, most Americans will prefer Clinton X.X

And internationally definetly Clinton.

Don't know why he did absolutly nothing while he was in office. And the incedent with him making out with someone when he was married. He was one of the worst presidents in my opinion. I am surprised the democrats where able to keep him in office. THe democrats can't see that talking it over won't work all the time. Sure i would rather not fight but i will if i have to and guess what we have to.

[My Best Wishes]

He had an affair big deal, they are so damn common these days.

I think all nations need to build huge fences around their boarders so no one can get in or out. No communication with any nation, ever. Never ever. Complete isolation.

And the Americans dug themsevles into a hole. Australia doesn't want the war. Britain doesn't want the war. Only America does and even then the population doesn't want it. But sadly the Yanks can't just up and go.

[Hotshot101]

It is sorta a big deal because a citizen is one thing but the Prez i mean cmon what does that say about the rest of us. As for use wanting the war is wrong nobody wants war but we gotta do it if we need to and this was something we needed to do.

[Toasty]

watch, on Oct 26 2006, 11:48 PM, said:

He had an affair big deal, they are so damn common these days.

I think all nations need to build huge fences around their boarders so no one can get in or out. No communication with any nation, ever. Never ever. Complete isolation.

And the Americans dug themsevles into a hole. Australia doesn't want the war. Britain doesn't want the war. Only America does and even then the population doesn't want it. But sadly the Yanks can't just up and go.

Affairs may be common, but that doesn't mean everybody has them. And basically, your saying you would want someone who had an affair to be your leader? Are you insane? And by saying you don't support the war, you might as well just let the terrorists run free and bomb you to oblivion. We're trying to keep the country stable, and though we may have made it unstable, it was the right thing to do. We got rid of a dictator, and now we're trying to give them a good govenment so that doesn't happen again. That may take a while, but we're doing the right thing.

[My Best Wishes]

1. I said Affairs are common, I don't condone them. Check divorce rates man.
2. Give up on the terrorists, you have zero proof. Over half the bombers on the 9/11 flights were Saudi Arabian, not Afghani, not Iraqi, not Mexican.
3. And at least with Saddam Iraq wasn't in civil war.

[Hotshot101]

watch, on Oct 28 2006, 10:23 PM, said:

1. I said Affairs are common, I don't condone them. Check divorce rates man.
2. Give up on the terrorists, you have zero proof. Over half the bombers on the 9/11 flights were Saudi Arabian, not Afghani, not Iraqi, not Mexican.
3. And at least with Saddam Iraq wasn't in civil war.

1. Divorce Clinton did it and he was still in marriage
2. They are the next to go. Iraq was a pit stop and what does mexico have to do with this?
3. Ya but now atleast people aren't being tortured to death by him the Iraqies hated him

[Toasty]

watch, on Oct 28 2006, 06:23 PM, said:

1. I said Affairs are common, I don't condone them. Check divorce rates man.
2. Give up on the terrorists, you have zero proof. Over half the bombers on the 9/11 flights were Saudi Arabian, not Afghani, not Iraqi, not Mexican.
3. And at least with Saddam Iraq wasn't in civil war.

Better yet:
1) Affairs are AGAINST THE LAW. Do you seriously want your leader breaking the law? Why don't you just give him a pistol and a pack of cocane while you're at it?
2) They were of different ethnicity, but they came from Iraq. That's where their base was numbnuts. Besides that, Saddam attacked us with his military, and the Iraqi's thanked us for getting rid of him.
3) What's worse, the possibility of civil war? Or the ensured torturing and killing of innocent people? I'll probably have to answer that for you too. ;)

[Golden Legacy]

Mr.T, on Oct 29 2006, 06:11 PM, said:

2) They were of different ethnicity, but they came from Iraq. That's where their base was numbnuts. Besides that, Saddam attacked us with his military, and the Iraqi's thanked us for getting rid of him.
3) What's worse, the possibility of civil war? Or the ensured torturing and killing of innocent people? I'll probably have to answer that for you too. :D

2) What are you talking about? Iraq was in no way involved with Al Qaeda. Why is Bin Laden's stronghold in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Why are the supposed terrorist training camps there and no where near Iraq?

3) Well, that's a moot point now, because now that "possibility" is reality. A civil war has emerged, there is more bloodshed now than before, America has lost its prestige, we've had thousands of casualties, and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight.

[Ravenblade]

The President has all but admitted the war was a mistake - I dont know what better evidence there is that it was a disaster. He said it was looking like another Vietnam. Im also very skeptical about any links between Sadam and Bin Laden - what would Bin Laden have asked him to do exactly? Even if they *did* speak to each other its not enough to warrant invading - you guys spoke to Bin Laden and gave him hospital care in the 90s and had half his family in the US around 9/11 time...Doesnt that mean you were collaborating with him too by the logic of "But Sadam spoke to him!"

Anyways this is all besides the point - if the US leaves now it will just prove to the world that countries like France were right and that they shouldnt have gone in in the first place - also, it wouldnt do Iraq any good for them to leave now.

[My Best Wishes]

Hotshot101, on Oct 29 2006, 02:40 PM, said:

2. They are the next to go. Iraq was a pit stop and what does mexico have to do with this?

I was saying that the terriosts were Suadi Arabian and not anything else, Mexico was a country that came to mind.

Mr.T, on Oct 30 2006, 09:11 AM, said:

Better yet:
1) Affairs are AGAINST THE LAW. Do you seriously want your leader breaking the law? Why don't you just give him a pistol and a pack of cocane while you're at it?
2) They were of different ethnicity, but they came from Iraq. That's where their base was numbnuts. Besides that, Saddam attacked us with his military, and the Iraqi's thanked us for getting rid of him.
3) What's worse, the possibility of civil war? Or the ensured torturing and killing of innocent people? I'll probably have to answer that for you too. :D

1. Glady, I think Australia has suffered under John Howard. But only the pistol if he uses it on himself.
2. Of course Saddam attacked you! You went againest the UN and invaded him with BS reasons.
3. Well there is civil war now, thanks to whom? America.

Golden Legacy, on Oct 31 2006, 05:15 AM, said:

2) What are you talking about? Iraq was in no way involved with Al Qaeda. Why is Bin Laden's stronghold in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Why are the supposed terrorist training camps there and no where near Iraq?

THANK YOU.

[pHantOm]

Golden Legacy, on Oct 30 2006, 01:15 PM, said:

2) What are you talking about? Iraq was in no way involved with Al Qaeda. Why is Bin Laden's stronghold in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Why are the supposed terrorist training camps there and no where near Iraq?

Bush never performed well on geography tests :/

[Toasty]

watch, on Oct 30 2006, 07:39 PM, said:

I was saying that the terriosts were Suadi Arabian and not anything else, Mexico was a country that came to mind.



1. Glady, I think Australia has suffered under John Howard. But only the pistol if he uses it on himself.
2. Of course Saddam attacked you! You went againest the UN and invaded him with BS reasons.
3. Well there is civil war now, thanks to whom? America.


THANK YOU.

1) Well at least there's some comedy in all this...

2)WE OWN THE ****ING UN! The dang building is in the U.S.! The U.S. started the UN! WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO EVEN PAY FOR IT TO EXIST!
Regardless, we had perfectly good reasons to invade him. Everyone else at the UN can **** themselves if they think that what he was doing didn't give us justification to take him out.

3)Well at least they have hope of a stable, safe government that won't kill it's own people. Thatnks to whome? America.

Nice goin' there bub.

[Eugine]

Quote

2)WE OWN THE ****ING UN! The dang building is in the U.S.! The U.S. started the UN! WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO EVEN PAY FOR IT TO EXIST!

Wow. I can't even reply to that... Another American who thinks they control the world.

[Ravenblade]

Mr.T, on Oct 31 2006, 09:42 AM, said:

1) Well at least there's some comedy in all this...

2)WE OWN THE ****ING UN! The dang building is in the U.S.! The U.S. started the UN! WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO EVEN PAY FOR IT TO EXIST!
Regardless, we had perfectly good reasons to invade him. Everyone else at the UN can **** themselves if they think that what he was doing didn't give us justification to take him out.

3)Well at least they have hope of a stable, safe government that won't kill it's own people. Thatnks to whome? America.

Nice goin' there bub.

If you own the UN, how come it opposed your war on Iraq, even though you bugged the rooms of all the representatives, stopped paying its budget and generally bullied it to think like you. It still resisted. Thats damn impressive, the UN stood up to you guys and wouldnt be swayed from what it thought was right.

Now, The UN, weak though it may be, was designed not to prevent superpowers going to war - it was designed to show countries what they can and cant do. It only works if the super powers who control it act responsibly, it isnt meant to start world war 3 if someone steps out of line. I think the Iraq war showed a positive future for the UN cos despite everything the US tried to do to it, it just gave you the finger.

[Toasty]

I was trying to make a point. While all the other countries don't pay a dime to keep the UN up and running, America pays for the whole shebang. No, Eugine, I don't think we control the world. That's why the UN was made numbnuts. It's supposed to keep an even balance of control throughout the world.

And RB, like I said, the UN must be dumb as **** if they don't think that what we're doing is right. There would have been a war either way, and if we hadn't shown the terrorists that we're willing to fight back, they'd turn the world into their own personal training ground. We basically just gave the first strike in a war that was bound to happen anyway.

[My Best Wishes]

Mr.T, on Nov 1 2006, 10:35 AM, said:

And RB, like I said, the UN must be dumb as **** if they don't think that what we're doing is right. There would have been a war either way, and if we hadn't shown the terrorists that we're willing to fight back, they'd turn the world into their own personal training ground. We basically just gave the first strike in a war that was bound to happen anyway.

There are no terrorists in Iraq. All you did is overthrow a dictator, and in doing so you caused how many deaths in civilians, Australia soliders, American soliders, English soliders, Japanese engineers. How many hostage's were taken? Thanks to who?

How to stop terrorism? Stop people being terrorists!

[Ravenblade]

Im tiring of this Iraq thing now - I was reading in the news today that a British Tomahawk was shot down by a US patriot missile, killing those inside. The people who fired it werent even trained to do so. They thought the plane was an enemy missile. I cant tell you how sick i am of hearing about the US army and its friendly fire!

We need to get out of their before the US kills us all, let alone the Al Qaeda..

[pHantOm]

Ravenblade, on Oct 31 2006, 10:39 PM, said:

Im tiring of this Iraq thing now

Yeah like 2 f*cking weeks ago I was, you people just cant shut the f*ck up can you? America is evil, America is Racist, America made me fat!

Stop crying and go play your video games.

[My Best Wishes]

pHantOm, your opinion, seeing as you want to go to Canada (NO sarcasm or spite or anything in that). Do you think America deserves the **** it gets, or is it just becuase people like to *****?

[Toasty]

It's obviously the second. We at least put an effort into getting rid of the terrorists, which will make everyone safer. Apparently everyone else just wants to be blown up. If that's how they view things, then so be it. Just whining about it.

[Ravenblade]

I dont know about you but i feel a lot less safe now...Im considering leaving the country once ive finished my degree and moving somewhere thats a lot less likely to get hit by terrorists - Britain just doesnt feel safe anymore after the whole Iraq thing =/

pHantOm, on Nov 1 2006, 05:47 AM, said:

Yeah like 2 f*cking weeks ago I was, you people just cant shut the f*ck up can you? America is evil, America is Racist, America made me fat!

Stop crying and go play your video games.

If you're sick of this discussion then dont bother posting? You're getting way too annoyed about this. And im not saying the US is evil, racist or that it makes me fat...(im not fat - maybe cos i dont eat at McDonalds =D). What im saying is, your foreign policy over recent years could be seen in a similar mentality to that of the Incredible Hulk: "Hulk Smash!! Hulk Smash!!" - honest to God, that is what you guys look like you're doing to the rest of the world, regardless of the fact you dont think you are.

[Hotshot101]

ouch thats bad to hear. The idiots that did that are probaly being court marshaled because they shouldn't have taken that action with out talking to the General in charge. And watch haven't you heard in the news about car bombings in Iraq

[pHantOm]

Ravenblade, on Nov 1 2006, 07:19 AM, said:

I dont know about you but i feel a lot less safe now...Im considering leaving the country once ive finished my degree and moving somewhere thats a lot less likely to get hit by terrorists - Britain just doesnt feel safe anymore after the whole Iraq thing =/
If you're sick of this discussion then dont bother posting? You're getting way too annoyed about this. And im not saying the US is evil, racist or that it makes me fat...(im not fat - maybe cos i dont eat at McDonalds =D). What im saying is, your foreign policy over recent years could be seen in a similar mentality to that of the Incredible Hulk: "Hulk Smash!! Hulk Smash!!" - honest to God, that is what you guys look like you're doing to the rest of the world, regardless of the fact you dont think you are.

HAHA I cant argue there, but thats how America has been since Reagan. Due to the republican parties spending our nation isnt as financially stable as it used to be. So we've had to take risks such as selling arms to nations that dont have them, only to have those nations turn the wrong way and go against us.

"pHantOm, your opinion, seeing as you want to go to Canada (NO sarcasm or spite or anything in that). Do you think America deserves the **** it gets, or is it just becuase people like to *****?"

A little of both, I cant say im happy with the American government but lets be honest politicians are politicians. In the end the Aussy government is just as curropt and stupid as the British or American. We can go on a huge rant about how much the british government is ignoring the wishes of its people, just like Americans. America isnt the best country out there, but it is nice and you foreigners dont give enough credit to its citizens. Its a lose lose situation. For instance, European countries complained in the 1930's about the US not helping with the war against the Nazi's, why didnt we get involved? It wasnt our problem. Now that we take inititive in forgeign countries that pose a threat, we are *****ed at by foreign powers in Europe.

If your on the same side as the French or Germans, your on the wrong side...look at history. With 2 world wars STARTED by Germany, and the French surrendering within 2 WEEKS to the Nazi's its quite obvious they are pretty much the biggest p*ssies ever. Now, here is a picture for you to think about

http://myspace-085.vo.llnwd.net/01281/58/07/1281657085_l.jpg

Do you want to trust Iran, or the middle east?

Its human nature to not take action, until action was taken upon you. Its self defense if you will, but why wait for something bad to happen? Iraq was a bad idea to attack, I have never argued that, but we are there now and if we leave it will only make more of you European countries cry about us and "leaving them in a state of despair, poverty and civil war"

So for the most part its countries that just sit on thier ass sipping tea and b*tch about us, but we do things that deserve to get b*tched about. But what if we dont help at all or stay out of it? If we dont help the Tsunami victims, the world will complain about it, yet the people there didnt want our help so they complained, thus since we did help the world changes its mind and says "hey get out they dont want you!" So no matter what we do, other countries will b*tch, so its at the point now where we just ignore you.

[Toasty]

^ Exactly. That's probably one reason we went into Iraq against the UN's orders. Either way, we were going in. It was just a matter of who struck first. It'd be better to mount a defense before the enemy can chip away at you any more.

[Eugine]

Anyway, America isn't winning the war currently. Actually, IMO it's losing and stretching its resoucres beyond repair.

[My Best Wishes]

Mr.T, on Nov 1 2006, 09:04 PM, said:

It's obviously the second. We at least put an effort into getting rid of the terrorists, which will make everyone safer. Apparently everyone else just wants to be blown up. If that's how they view things, then so be it. Just whining about it.

You created the terrorists! You trained Osama Bin Laden. You annoyed the middle east, this war againest Western society is pretty much wipe out the USA.

pHantOm, again, Thailand didn't need help. Not just your help, even Asia tried to help them. The Thai's are a vert proud and resilant people, trust me I lived there for 4 years.

[Hotshot101]

Eugine, on Nov 1 2006, 11:05 PM, said:

Anyway, America isn't winning the war currently. Actually, IMO it's losing and stretching its resoucres beyond repair.

thats highly debatable because i have a cousin that went to Iraq you ask him he would say we are winning the war

[pHantOm]

Eugine, on Nov 1 2006, 11:05 PM, said:

Anyway, America isn't winning the war currently. Actually, IMO it's losing and stretching its resoucres beyond repair.

not really

watch, on Nov 1 2006, 11:25 PM, said:

You created the terrorists!

You are one sad misinformed little man, if you think terrorism in the middle east was created just within the past 10 years, you are so wrong.

[My Best Wishes]

Yes, okay that came out wrong on my behalf. But the terrorists destroying the 'infidels', that's Bush's problem.

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Nov 1 2006, 08:05 PM, said:

Anyway, America isn't winning the war currently. Actually, IMO it's losing and stretching its resoucres beyond repair.

Heheh. Key abbreviation there Eugine, "IMO". It stands for "in my opinion". o it's just an opinion. We have the most powerful army in the world (don't start b****ing about me thinking we're better then all the rest of you. I'm just pointing something out, so cool it.), and we have the help of Britain. It's going to take more than a civil war to stretch this army thin.
And I'd say we are. We're accomplishing what we set out to do, which was protect the new Iraqi government until it's stablized. And so far, that's what we're doing.

[Sea of Time]

Living in Canada provides a very different perspective on the 'wars' in the Middle East. We're with NATO right now in Afghanistan, peacemaking not peacekeeping. Lots of people are against this, and are starting to dislike our new conservative government.

Polls show that people in Canada do not like the war in Iraq, because some of our citizens are with the U.S. army overseas. Double citizenship means that some of our citizens can be over there.

If you think you are stabilizing the government, than you are sadly mistaken. Democracy and 'liberty' and 'freedom' is far from being reached in Iraq, and if you guys continue fighting, you'll be there for another 10 years.

[pHantOm]

Sea_of_Time, on Nov 3 2006, 01:38 PM, said:

If you think you are stabilizing the government, than you are sadly mistaken. Democracy and 'liberty' and 'freedom' is far from being reached in Iraq, and if you guys continue fighting, you'll be there for another 10 years.

Thats true, even bush has said that.

[Sea of Time]

What do you guys think will happen in 2008 if the government turns Democratic? Will they really 'cut and run' or will they continue to stay in Iraq?

The only Republican I see having a good chance getting into office is John McCain. I like him, but I would rather see Barack Obama in office.

[pHantOm]

It doesnt matter who is in it, a democrat would be worse though. They would cut defense and increase spending on welfare etc. for the US's own good. In times of war, you dont want a democrat as a leader.

Neither will cut and run, its political suidicide to a global level.

[Sea of Time]

I think the priority for America should be to get rid of your crazy debt, and I think it's about time you get an agenda for getting out (that doesn't involve being there until 2020). Democrats aren't stupid, they know how to do those things.

[pHantOm]

Not really, both suck for spending. It depends on the president, clinton was great at that.

The only way to help the debt would be to either

1)Tax more, which is impossible now. American citizens are so spoiled with all these tax cuts the person that comes out and says they will raise taxes will not be voted in.

2)Sell arms to countries like clinton did, helps the economy but as we can see with the middle east it has its downsides.

[Hotshot101]

Sea_of_Time, on Nov 3 2006, 01:57 PM, said:

What do you guys think will happen in 2008 if the government turns Democratic? Will they really 'cut and run' or will they continue to stay in Iraq?

The only Republican I see having a good chance getting into office is John McCain. I like him, but I would rather see Barack Obama in office.

Ha ha i can answer that for you. The democrats do get in to office (fat chance especially after John Kerries little speel) they will cut and run and be the wimps like they always where. What we get help from other countries sorta makes this quote below from Korean past true to us as well

Admiral Yi Sun Sin, on Nov 3 2006, 01:57 PM, said:

So it is true then. Koreans must learn to defend themselves like anyother nation on earth we will rise or fall on our own. When others seek to divide us we must reach out as brothers and rebuild our nation again

Thats what i see in the world today.

[Sea of Time]

You had to know that John Kerry would kill it. What a freakin' idiot!!!

I guess nothing can be perfect in the world of liberals.

[Toasty]

^ That is very true.
When it comes to a war, the best candidate would be a Conservative since they won't back down, or let the enemy do what they want. But when it comes to debt recovery, Liberals are better suited.

[Hotshot101]

Only problem is they can't get along well enough to do that sorta thing if they could then that would be really great.

[Sea of Time]

Since George HW Bush took office, the Republican ideals have been very clear. They are a party that likes war, and both George W. Bush and his father started a war during their terms. Also, they both put the country in huge debt.

So, here's what the plan of the Republicans is. Start a war. Then put the country in so much deficit that when the Democrats take the office, they have to spend four years fixing the debt, raising taxes, becoming unpopular. Then, they can take office again and start the whole cycle over again!

[Hotshot101]

dude the republicans would like the democrats would rather sort things out, but a lot of peace lovers don't get that sometimes negotiating doesn't work. There is always war and there is nothing you can do about it. Also i heard that the democrats just spend money thats why they gave us higher taxes. Bush took his 1st 4 years cleaning up the mess clinton had.

[The Wind Seer]

War is bad! War means people without homes. . Suffering. And Death. The War should be stopped. I think that the U.S. should retreat so the people in Iraq wouldn't suffer from hungry, and other reasons later I will say.

[Toasty]

O.M.G. If we pull out now, then everything that we worked for, all of those soldiers who gave their lives for the cause, all of the deaths on both sides, would be for nothing. This is why the Republicans MUST win the next election. Like it or not, we're at war, and a war that we can't just pull out of. If a Democrat gets into office, he'll pull back all our troops, and everything that we worked for would mean nothing. And SoT, the Democrats aren't any better than the Republicans. Both sides have had their fair share of mess ups and what not, like Clinton selling weapons to other countries (who turned around and used them against us), and,well, according to all the Bush haters, Bush going to war with the Iraq. (and just to remind you all, we're there for a reason, and a dang goood one too. We're trying to give the Iraqi's a government after takeing out their dictator.)

[Hotshot101]

The Wind Seer, on Nov 7 2006, 02:26 AM, said:

War is bad! War means people without homes. No Food. Suffering. And Death. The War should be stopped. I think that the U.S. should retreat so the people in Iraq wouldn't suffer from hungry, and other reasons later I will say.

They ain't hungry for one this we where actually nice not to go atomic bomb on them and get it over with when taking out sadamm and the Iraqis are happy we went in there. THey going to be cheering like no tommorrow when saddam is hanged.

[TheEnglishman]

Well obviously those who have been tortured by him will be happy. I can understand that.

[The Wind Seer]

Hotshot101, on Nov 8 2006, 03:13 AM, said:

They ain't hungry for one this we where actually nice not to go atomic bomb on them and get it over with when taking out sadamm and the Iraqis are happy we went in there. THey going to be cheering like no tommorrow when saddam is hanged.

But later on!
War does many things to people.
1 -- fright
2 -- people homeless
3 -- death
4 -- people do not feed themselves properly which can lead to sickness and a couple of other reasons.( i will tell later)

P.S.
I know that everything that the U.S. had worked for, all of those soldiers who gave their lives for the cause, all of the deaths on both sides, would be for nothing. And I want the war to end. All of us, want the war to end.

[Hotshot101]

Yes we all do but we have to finish threw. War is hard times for many people but it can't be avoided. I know war brings this but if we did not fight this world would be alot worse then those problems.

[Toasty]

The Wind Seer, on Nov 7 2006, 11:33 AM, said:

But later on!
War does many things to people.
1 -- fright
2 -- people homeless
3 -- death
4 -- people do not feed themselves properly which can lead to sickness and a couple of other reasons.( i will tell later)

P.S.
I know that everything that the U.S. had worked for, all of those soldiers who gave their lives for the cause, all of the deaths on both sides, would be for nothing. And I want the war to end. All of us, want the war to end.

So basically you're saying you don't care that they gave their lives for the cause? You don't care that they died? Sure, people will die from the after effects of the war, but they'll still feel them if we pull out now. We're in a war, so no matter when it ends, what you are saying is bound to happen. The onlt difference is, is that in one case, Iraq will have a strong government, and will be able to save the people from poverty in their own country. The other, on the other hand, will lead to more Iraqi's being killed by insurgents, the Iraqi government falling, and the US being looked down uppon for not helping Iraq in its time of need. The only reason people want the war to end is so that our soldiers won't be killed. Well, they signed up for the military, and they did that knowing good and well that they could possibly be killed. Just because someone want's us to pull out doesn't mean we should. Right now, that would not only lead to the collapse of the new, frail Iraqi government, there would be one more reason for everybody else to hate us.

Pulling out now would be the stupidest dicision for any president to make. Sure, our soldiers wouldn't be killed anymore, but like I said, all of the men and women who died would have died for nothing. Do you ohnestly believe that is right?

[TheEnglishman]

The Wind Seer, on Nov 7 2006, 07:33 PM, said:

P.S.
I know that everything that the U.S. had worked for, all of those soldiers who gave their lives for the cause, all of the deaths on both sides, would be for nothing. And I want the war to end. All of us, want the war to end.

The problem with that is, although everyone wants it to end, as long as they have different views on what should happen then it can't end.

[Eugine]

The international community warned the US of the situation they're now, but they ignored it and still went to war.
The war ruined Iraq and it'll set it back a few years in development since most of the government resources are aimed towards security. Iraq was safer before the war, and removing Saddam shouldn't have been a US decision but an international decision.
All I know, Bush definetly regrets the war, it practically ruined them in this election. I hope Americans show they hate the war in Iraq in the polls today.

[Toasty]

The problem with that is, is that if they do, we'll end up pulling out. However bad the war is, or the intentions were for it, it will ruin our reputation, and make all of the deaths in the war worthless. That, in my opinion, is very bad. Besides that, we had perfectly good reason to believe Saddam conspired with the terrorists, and whether he did or not, we're still doing a good thing. We're giving Iraq a good, safe government that won't kill it's ocupants. You can argue all you want that Saddam brought stability to the nation, but it's worthless to have a stable government if your ruler kills his own people.

[Eugine]

The aim of the war was good yes, but what it has turned into is what the US expected...
The whole reason of the war was undermined, and now rather than extablishing a stable democratic government the US is there just trying to return the country back to the stability of Saddam reign...

[Toasty]

*sigh* No, we're not. We're trying to keep them from getting another dictator. That's why we're still there, to give them a safe and stable government.

[Eugine]

Then the US military would be there for 10 more years :)

[Hotshot101]

I have a feeling though once we kill saddam our job is only half done. The polls will show no different because people will again see that the democrats will not fight the terrorists and if they don't then we will die. I hope the polls show republicans because they are what america is going to need now. If we pull out then Iraq will fall into dissaray and become a dead country.

[The Wind Seer]

Mr.T, on Nov 8 2006, 10:54 AM, said:

So basically you're saying you don't care that they gave their lives for the cause? You don't care that they died? Sure, people will die from the after effects of the war, but they'll still feel them if we pull out now.

I care for the people who died.
I just wish the war would end and that Iraq would keep it country.

Anyway why did U.S.A. attack Iraq in the first place? (I do not read newspaper often[two per each year)

[Eugine]

If the US pulls out now, many countries will "LMAO" at them, because it'll show that the US admits defeat.
Plus, the US owes the Iraqi people now, they're in so much chaos now... Pulling out will only do more damage, but it's all the US fault!

EDIT: The US firstly attacked Iraq because it had "Weapons of mass destruction". When nothing was found they attacked Iraq "because Saddam worked with terrorists", thus "Saddam threated the US national security". The US government eventually found no link between Iraq and terrorists, so now they claim the war was to "establish a secure and safe democratic government" according to Mr. T
Hm...

[Golden Legacy]

Added in a poll at the suggestion of Eugine.

[Hotshot101]

Eugine, on Nov 7 2006, 08:09 PM, said:

If the US pulls out now, many countries will "LMAO" at them, because it'll show that the US admits defeat.
Plus, the US owes the Iraqi people now, they're in so much chaos now... Pulling out will only do more damage, but it's all the US fault!

EDIT: The US firstly attacked Iraq because it had "Weapons of mass destruction". When nothing was found they attacked Iraq "because Saddam worked with terrorists", thus "Saddam threated the US national security". The US government eventually found no link between Iraq and terrorists, so now they claim the war was to "establish a secure and safe democratic government" according to Mr. T
Hm...

Technically if there was no connection why would the terrorist fret about him so much.

[pHantOm]

The Wind Seer, on Nov 7 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

But later on!
War does many things to people.
1 -- fright
2 -- people homeless
3 -- death
4 -- people do not feed themselves properly which can lead to sickness and a couple of other reasons.( i will tell later)

P.S.
I know that everything that the U.S. had worked for, all of those soldiers who gave their lives for the cause, all of the deaths on both sides, would be for nothing. And I want the war to end. All of us, want the war to end.

You live in an ideal world, much like the democrats. But the world isnt perfect, its very flawed. There will always be war, mankinds leaders can never remove thier own selfish ideals.

[The Wind Seer]

pHantOm, on Nov 8 2006, 05:18 PM, said:

You live in an ideal world, much like the democrats. But the world isnt perfect, its very flawed. There will always be war, mankinds leaders can never remove thier own selfish ideals.

I know.

[Sea of Time]

pHantOm, on Nov 7 2006, 11:18 PM, said:

You live in an ideal world, much like the democrats. But the world isnt perfect, its very flawed. There will always be war, mankinds leaders can never remove thier own selfish ideals.

So, you're saying that Republicans are the only party that can see these flaws? The Americans voted for change last night and made sure that George W. Bush will get very little say in what goes on in the next two years. I'm glad, there will be much less corruption in the US government now, and a little tax hike just might be good for the country. It's time for the government to work towards middle class America, and represent their wishes, not those big business people at the top.

[Hotshot101]

Sea_of_Time, on Nov 8 2006, 02:54 PM, said:

So, you're saying that Republicans are the only party that can see these flaws? The Americans voted for change last night and made sure that George W. Bush will get very little say in what goes on in the next two years. I'm glad, there will be much less corruption in the US government now, and a little tax hike just might be good for the country. It's time for the government to work towards middle class America, and represent their wishes, not those big business people at the top.

Little you should expect a full blown hike, that what the democrats are known for.

[Sea of Time]

Well, they can't quite pull off a hike, because they're not completely in power....yet.

[Hotshot101]

Ya but once they are they will turn it into a big tax hike instead of a little one. you need to pray they don't get the chance to.

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Nov 7 2006, 05:00 PM, said:

Then the US military would be there for 10 more years :)

The we'll be there for ten more years. The thing is, regardless of what your imagination comes up with, we attacked for a good reason, and now we're staying for a good reason. I don't see why it's so hard for you to wrap your head around that. Especially since it's true.

And SoT, they prett much are. The majority of America's governors are now democratic (27 last I checked), they have the House of Reps. (221 las I checked, probably 227 now), and it looks like they might take the Senate, but I pray to god they don't.

The thing is, is that lower taxes help the middle class. Higher taxes don't hurt the upper class a bit, infact, they might even benifit from it. The only reason why the Republicans look bad, is becuase this war has gone on for so long, people hve lost sight of the true reason why we even went into the middle east in the first place. Now everybody thinks we're there for no reason, which isn't true one bit. The thing is, is that now they want to get out of Iraq, because they only see that US troops are getting killed. They don't see what for. And thus, they vote for the Democrats because they promise change (though that will likely be bad as usual), and they promise to get out of Iraq. Few people see what ill effects will become us if such a thing happens.

Bottom line? If the Democrats take power, we'll get greatly increased taxes (because that promises bigger, bloated saleries for the Govenment, i.e. Democrats), and we'll pull out of Iraq in flase hopes of settling it "another way" (what they mean is politically, which is pointless since the insurgents occupying Iraq don't even have a government). Hopefully their descions will shock Americans back to atention, and we'll have a Republican president the next time elections roll around.

[pHantOm]

As Roy Mustang has said

"Nothing's perfect, the world's not perfect, but it's there for us, trying the best it can. That's what makes it so damn beautiful."

The world is so spoiled, go to war for a few years and were losing the war.

[Hotshot101]

we ain't losing nothing. Don't listen to the media about anything political in America because they are libral and they do what the libs want them to. Instead listen to the soldiers that are there and back here they will tell you what the truth is.

[Golden Legacy]

This is an amazing statistic. Apparently, there have been many more casualties then we thought...

Link

[Hotshot101]

There will be casualltites. people die and those that do, some out of them will be living in a much better place. Just because people die we can't stop trying. We will go forward.

General Patton said:

We will go forward! We will go forward till the last shot is fired and the last drop of gasoline is gone! Then we will go forward on foot!

[My Best Wishes]

Finally an American admits thier media is trash.

Mr.T, do you really think Iraq can be governed by a Democratic government after the US invaded? No way will any on the tribes there permit another to be in power, and not even a dictator had 100% control of his own country.

Iraq is a lost cause, and it doesn't help you went there to wage a war on terror, then on WMD, then to overthrow Saddam.

[Toasty]

In a democracy, EVERYONE has a say in the matters at hand, so naturally, all of the tribes and cities will have a say in how the country is ruled. You obviuosly don't know how a democracy works. And yes, I do believe it is possible, because I know how a democracy works.

And just to let you all know, so that you don't go blameing America for all of the casualties in Iraq like I know some of you would do, most of those casualties were killed by the insurgents, not U.S., British, or any other soldiers who might have come in to help the cause. Any of the one's that weren't killed by insurgents, were victim's of friendly fire.

[Eugine]

Well, I agree with Toasty.

It's not the US or international community's fault that the Iraqi's can't set aside their differences. It's now up to them to try to unite under democracy and put aside their differences. If they don't want to, it's their fault.

[My Best Wishes]

Mr.T, on Nov 10 2006, 11:28 PM, said:

In a democracy, EVERYONE has a say in the matters at hand, so naturally, all of the tribes and cities will have a say in how the country is ruled. You obviuosly don't know how a democracy works. And yes, I do believe it is possible, because I know how a democracy works.

Are you being serious, did you even read my post.

I said it couldn't be governed by a democratic government becuase the other tribes would not allow it. Say there are three tribes, New England Patriots, Miami Dolphins and New York Jets.

Why would the Jets allow the Patriots to be in power when they could be in power?
Each tribe would want thier tribe to be in power and would not support the other. Basicly, how will Iraq unite under one leader?

[Toasty]

Well, they would start out with three leaders. One from the dolphins, the jets, and the patriots. They'd settle their differences, and select a neutral party (one person) that would be picked by the three to be the president. That way one tribe wouldn't have an advantage in voteing if theirs were bigger. There would also be an even number of people from each tribe, like a senate, but with more people per tribe, and who are elected by the people from the said tribes, seperately. The president would make a law, propose it to the "Senate", and the senate would vote about it. If more thought it was just, it was accepted. If more thought it was out of line, it was tossed in the trash and a new one would be presented. Reagardless, there would still be conflict for a while. That's where America and Britain come in. They break up the fights and keep civil war from breaking out. Once everyone is settled down and agrees with one another, America and Britain go home.

Now that may seem a little smooth, but it might even not work, and if it did, it would take a while for the fighting to stop. Possibly a few decades.

[Ravenblade]

What you're saying is right, thats how it should be, but the Middle East isnt ready for it yet.

The populations living in Iraq HATE each other. From 1980-88 there was a war between the Iraqis and Iran (which was basically two different Islamic groups) and a million people died.

Sadly there's no solution in the Middle East, they're always gonna be killing each other as they're about 600 years behind the west as far as civilisation goes.

[Hotshot101]

watch, on Nov 10 2006, 04:34 AM, said:

Finally an American admits thier media is trash.

Mr.T, do you really think Iraq can be governed by a Democratic government after the US invaded? No way will any on the tribes there permit another to be in power, and not even a dictator had 100% control of his own country.

Iraq is a lost cause, and it doesn't help you went there to wage a war on terror, then on WMD, then to overthrow Saddam.

Yes the American media is one sided trash now you can't really listen to it anymore. You have to talk to the soldiers. everything political in the media is lies. The media is where you guys are probaly getting all this we are losing the war and stuff from. We ain't losing nothing.

[Saturos S.]

There are US soldiers dying once in a while. And they can't fight an invisible enemy. A terrorist could be anyone there. So in a worst case scenario, a second vietnam could happen.

Also the republicans are losing support through out the US. You had the congres elections to show it. So there are losses for the president at the moment.

[Hotshot101]

Well i have heard the republican supporters did not even vote (they have admitted that). Hopefully they will see their mistake.

[Saturos S.]

Do you really think that so many republicans didn't bother to vote?

Because for a country promoting patriotism so big, it'll seem quite stupid not to vote. So it would seem as stupid as hell if about million republicans didn't vote.

[Hotshot101]

Thats what they said. Even if there wasn't that many republicans the people who voted for those democrats are going to regret it.