[Shikonaurum]

I thought I ought to bring this up; I don't mean to provoke conversation and debates, though this undboutely will.

It's the four-year mark since the United States has entered Iraq, many casualties on both sides, and changes in both Iraq and the States. Elections, the hanging of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, the Iraq War report, billions of dollars, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell later, we've reached March of 2007.

May Year 5 be better, in one way or another.

[Toasty]

Don't worry, your post isn't one sided. So far, the death rates of our soldiers and civilian casualties have dropped more than 33% thanks to Bush.

[Platinum Sun]

It might. It certainly can't get worse...

[Sea of Time]

Mr.T, on Mar 19 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Don't worry, your post isn't one sided. So far, the death rates of our soldiers and civilian casualties have dropped more than 33% thanks to Bush.

That Bush sure is a great guy, getting his country into a needless war to avenge his daddy's unfinished business. Now he can't get us out! But damn, he sure is saving those lives.

I support the troops, but not their cause.

[Toasty]

There was no "unfinished buisness." Bush didn't go to Iraq to finish what his father started, and he sure as hell didn't do it for oil. The reason we went over there in the first place was to take out the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. Now we're there keeping Iraq afloat and taking out more terrorist cells in the proscess. Too many people seem forget why we're really there, and only look at how many lives were lost.

[Platinum Sun]

I don't like this war was much as the next guy but that was uncalled for SoT.

[Sea of Time]

Shame on me for having an opinion.

Didn't Bush originally go into Iraq because they had "weapons of mass destruction"? (nice catch phrase, by the way, it really sold well) The Taliban, the group behind 9/11, is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Oil or not, Iraq was not the place to go in the first place.

[Toasty]

Sorry. I didn't clarify. I meant that our reason for going into the middle east was to take out the terrorists. And we had perfectly good reason to believe Saddam had WMD's. He gave no indictaion of anything else but the posession of them. Now we didn't find any, infact, all we found were some shells and ammo, but like I've said before they could be hidden somewhere, even out of the country. But that's just speculation.

And SoT, we don't care if you have an opinion. Just don't go bashing people without hard evidence.

[Sea of Time]

I don't understand what's wrong with me giving my opinion. I didn't insult Bush's intelligence, nor did I insult anyone close to you. So don't take it like I just slapped you in the face.

Now, since the purpose of the mission really hasn't come to fruition, you have to assume that there will be a plan for leaving Iraq. I'm sure there's a way out, and it would be nice to see some sort of plan before 2008. Otherwise, it looks like the current administration is just saying to the next one, "You guys deal with it."

[Platinum Sun]

Did you see "Our Children's Children's War"? Yeah, we're in this one for the long haul.

[Someone Else]

I hope we're pulling out soon. Social security for us is looking bad as is.

[Shikonaurum]

Perhaps the social security age ought to be upped... If people are living until 90s and 100s more frequently than ever, that's a good forty years of social security right there.. o_O

I'm all for pulling out, but I just can't see it.

And, on a side note, since when did not supporting what the troops are fighting for become unpatriotic? I was listening to the House debate over the War in Iraq, and aside from a whole ****load of political posturing that was going on, there was also a bit of flinging that "the Democrats weren't patriotic because they don't believe in the war." Um? SoT just reminded me of that question with his comment.

[Toasty]

It's not that they don't support the war, but that it's actually bad for the troops at this point. If we begin to pull out, the numbers of soldiers in Iraq will slowly decrease, meaning less protection for the troops left. A lot of them could be killed in the proscess. The Democrats aren't taking that into account. The death rate of the soldiers in Iraq decreased by 33% because we finally sent some decent backup (no thanks to the Democrats, which is probably one reason they were accused of being unpatriotic) for the ones still there.

But if you take a look at it, a lot of Democrats are supporting things that are actually bad for the U.S. One example is illegal immigrants. I'm not sure if they still support the integration of illegals, but I'm pretty sure they do. All illegals do is replace our American workers, and put them out of a job. That, and a lot of them are criminals. They only hurt our economy, not help it. You can feel sorry for them all you want, but they'll just walk all over you in the end. But that's for a different topic.

I don't like seeing our soldiers die more than anyone else, but we're in Iraq and we'll be there for a while. At the very least, we're taking out terrorists while we're there.

[Gardna]

Oh has it really been so long..? I don't really care about Iraq, but it pains me when I see almost everyday a headline like "five people killed by a suicide bomber, ten seriously injured" in news.

[Eugine]

And to think Bush said the war would only last a few months... Now it's entering 5 years...

[Gardna]

WWI was supposed to last only a couple of months too..

[Sea of Time]

Hey, what happened to the more timid America? The one that was late to arrive in WWI because they feared getting involved would bring battles to their shores?

After Vietnam, the U.S. have asserted their power in the world more than ever.

[Toasty]

That's because we finally realised that if we don't do anything and just sit on our asses, they'll all come to us, and we'll be attacked on our shores anyway. If we don't bring the fight to them, and take the advantage, they'll bring the fight to us. I'm talking about the terrorists and any other country that hates our guts. Like North Korea.

[Shikonaurum]

I'm going to use the age-old response and respond by saying this:

Like Vietnam.

Action then, and where'd it get us? Or perhaps you'd like to say that Vietnam was worthwhile? All the lives, the years, and the napalm?

[Toasty]

No, I wouldn't. Vietnam was poorly executed. That, and we didn't stick with it. Of course, if the Democrats have their way, our soldiers will get pulled out (along with many of them dying because of the evacuation, which would lead to fewer soldiers and thus less protection during the long period of retreat) and everyone will be happy. And then, everyone else will say that it was another "Vietnam." But if we stick with it, we'll actually accomplish something this time.

[Shikonaurum]

The goal of the Vietnam War was to prevent the commies from taking over the island.

The commies never took over the island.

Um?

And at what point does "getting things done" become outweighed by the price of "getting things done"? Lives, money, international relations, what have you? While it'd be great to have a "I told you so!" moment, I don't see that happening.

That being said, I don't support a timetable or any rush in troop withdrawal. I think we need to find equilibrium, though, to a point where we don't need to augment the troop size OR decrease it. What annoys me is the reckless planning of the war so that we'll constantly need to increase troop sizes. Bush and Rumsfeld have pretty much already acknowledged the problems with the original invasion; Bush pleading for one more chance doesn't seem like quite a morale booster, hm?

[Gardna]

Mr.T, on Mar 23 2007, 02:23 AM, said:

That's because we finally realised that if we don't do anything and just sit on our asses, they'll all come to us, and we'll be attacked on our shores anyway. If we don't bring the fight to them, and take the advantage, they'll bring the fight to us. I'm talking about the terrorists and any other country that hates our guts. Like North Korea.

I'm sorry to say it, but that was stupid. You sounded like a mad general seconds before pushing the big red button. Why do you need to bring the fight anywhere? I don't exactly agree with policy of appeasement, but this is either extreme.

Vietnam was a mistake. If USA had any interest in history, they would have known that nobody ever succeeded in defeating them. And god knows that many nations tried.

[Aquamarine]

Mr.T, on Mar 23 2007, 03:23 AM, said:

That's because we finally realised that if we don't do anything and just sit on our asses, they'll all come to us, and we'll be attacked on our shores anyway. If we don't bring the fight to them, and take the advantage, they'll bring the fight to us. I'm talking about the terrorists and any other country that hates our guts. Like North Korea.

Dude, every country of the world hates your guts.

I'm just stating the facts.

[Gardna]

Aquamarine, on Mar 25 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

Dude, every country of the world hates your guts.

I'm just stating the facts.

Maybe except Canada.. oh noes, forget it. :smile:

[Toasty]

Gardna, on Mar 24 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

I'm sorry to say it, but that was stupid. You sounded like a mad general seconds before pushing the big red button. Why do you need to bring the fight anywhere? I don't exactly agree with policy of appeasement, but this is either extreme.

I already stated that numbnuts. :P We bring the fight to them, so we can strike first. That in turn gives us an advantage. We could do that, or we could just sit here doing nothing, just waiting for another attack. Although if Bush didn't strike back at the terrorists, everyone would hate us anyway. Either way, we lose, and all because we got attacked by muslim extremeists. Looks like they got what they wanted.

[Shikonaurum]

I think you may have just gotten the idea of "everyone" wrong. When we talk about everyone, we're talking about more than Muslim relations. They've already hated us, and chances are they always will.

We're talking Europe and South America. Hugo Chavez, anyone? Not like he was ever our friend, but Bush gave him all the more cause for Venezuela to start a hate regime against us. Sudan is quick to use us a means of refusing UN peacekeeping forces into their nation because they claim that the US would only use the ploy to gain control of that nation. Even Britain is trying to disassociate themselves with us on this front.

That's everyone. Those were our allies. Saying that we'd garner hate from inactivity? I hardly can believe that.

[Toasty]

Well U.S. citizens would definately hate Bush for not doing anything, and when our allies began to be bombed, they'd hate us for not taking care of the problem before it came to that.

[Shikonaurum]

That seems like a sort of flawed argument. Just because we don't wage a "war against terrorism" doesn't mean that we're letting the government sitting idly by with a "HIT ME!" sign splattered across its face. We the citizens didn't all want retaliation in the form of war; increasing national security, perhaps? Combating terrorists without diverting trillions of dollars to the cause? Something like that?

And a government blaming an act on terror on us just because we didn't do anything to prevent global terrorism? I honestly can't see that. It only means that they are more responsible to take care of their own national security. See, the word is "allies." Meaning that they're responsible for something to. We aren't the God of any nation, by all means; why should they blame us, then? And if they do, why the hell would they still be an ally and not just a mutual accomplice or something?

Meanwhile, people in Spain managed to pin the blame of the Madrid train bombings because of America. Not the government, but there was that huge speculation that they were bombed because they assisted America in Iraq.

[Sea of Time]

Gardna, on Mar 25 2007, 06:55 AM, said:

Maybe except Canada.. oh noes, forget it. :P

We don't hate them, but we think they're stupid. There's a difference. If we hated them, it would mean we didn't respect them. And since we're so close, we'd probably then proceed to get invaded.

[Toasty]

Shikonaurum, on Mar 26 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

That seems like a sort of flawed argument. Just because we don't wage a "war against terrorism" doesn't mean that we're letting the government sitting idly by with a "HIT ME!" sign splattered across its face. We the citizens didn't all want retaliation in the form of war; increasing national security, perhaps? Combating terrorists without diverting trillions of dollars to the cause? Something like that?

And a government blaming an act on terror on us just because we didn't do anything to prevent global terrorism? I honestly can't see that. It only means that they are more responsible to take care of their own national security. See, the word is "allies." Meaning that they're responsible for something to. We aren't the God of any nation, by all means; why should they blame us, then? And if they do, why the hell would they still be an ally and not just a mutual accomplice or something?

Meanwhile, people in Spain managed to pin the blame of the Madrid train bombings because of America. Not the government, but there was that huge speculation that they were bombed because they assisted America in Iraq.

On your first point, I beg to differ. You may not have wanted us to go to war, but the vast majority of Americans practically held a gun to Bush's head, threatening to pull the trigger if he didn't retaliate. Now of course that's an exaggeration, but you get the point.

As for your second paragraph, if our allies are disgusted with us right now, how do you think they would act if they were attcked because we didn't intervene? That's what I'm getting at.

Now your last paragraph backs up my previous statement. Basically, if our allies were bombed, they'd blame us. Not the terrorists, but us. You want to know why? Because the world is filled with a LOT of really stupid people. Whether you're in America, China, Europe, or anywhere else, your bound to fins the majority of people there numbskulls.

[Shikonaurum]

What you're trying to get at is polarizing the situation to the point of it being a "war" and "no war." Things aren't so definitely black or white.

In your first response, the fact that you said the population wanted retaliation, that is true. Everyone wanted retaliation. Everyone wanted immediate retaliation. The fact that politicians voted for it does not mean that they would vote for the war now; does that make them flip-floppers? Possibly. But the facts were miscontrued by the government, the general idea distorted, the people were in a heightened frenzy of emotion, and I'm sure that some people would be willing to kill people with their own hands or see the destruction of a nation just to get revenge. If we want to look at the people, look at what's influencing the people first.

We were blinded. We wanted revenge, but moreover we wanted a swift revenge. Not too much a swift revenge now, is it?

In response to the second paragraph: The choice was not just between "inaction" and "war-action." The US is not god. Whatever happens to the country is their own responsibility. Anti-terrorism units are out there from the US as well as every other country. You can't pinpoint an attack due to the fact that the "US didn't intervene," because the US is still "combating terror" regardless of whether or not a war on the abstract idea of terror is going on. You can, however, pinpoint an attack due to the fact that the US did intervene.

Finally, I don't see how my point backs up yours. You can't automatically assume that because Spain blames us because we dragged them into the deep **** that is the Iraq War, they'd blame us otherwise. Because the US made an action, we are blamed. But because the entire world remained inactive, that's a different story.