Exactly. The soldiers are there to keep some semblance of peace in a country still ripped apart in terms of infrastructure. It'd be fine and dandy for 'ARR TROOPS!!!' to come home but Iraq would more-or-less self destruct with civil war. We started it so we've gotta finish it, stop complaining as we can't go back in time.
It's been very good for some people's business... It's just the rest of the US that is picking up the tab (surprise surprise). I've said it before and I say it again: to not have been able to foresee this mess is to be too incompetent to run a country. Hey, good rhetoric. Would make a good poster. "Pre-emptive strike". Give me a break already. Sort of like shooting a guy and then saying: "Hey, I thought he had a gun and I thought he was going to take it out and shoot me... The soldiers and citizens dying right now thank you for this clarification.
Christ nexxo do you always have to tear everything apart and put your bland beige spin on everything? Stop acting like all your say is right and there is nothing else.
Indeed the most americans do not benefit from this(they probably have to pay more taxes). It are the people who live out of oil ( like the fammily bush)
I'm sorry, but I guess find it really difficult to make constructive remarks about a hypocrytical war that was driven by personal gain, and put a positive, attractively coloured spin on it... Feel free to disagree with what I say. Freedom of speech and all that.
well said Nexxo - i might not totally agree with everything you said, but I give you much credit for arguing level headedly - not pointing fingers and running around shooting off your mouth or something - the Republican party doesn't have everything all together - ideally what we need is a bunch of level headed people who will TALK things out and not point fingers and argue over stupid stuff - ^^^ to sum up my ramblings: -> We are in Iraq, and need to stick it out for better or worse, whether we belong there or not.
I know everything you say in constructive and all. Very middle fence. I just wish for once you would have a strong opinion. Or not kill everyone elses.
You invade an independent country with a pack of lies, rockets and bombs. You shouldn't be there. You better go home.
On the one hand you could be right... as Colin Powell apparently said to President Bush before they went in: "Remember: if we break it, we own it". However it seems to me that our presence is making the situation progressively worse, not better, and that we are stuck with a situation that has no end. This is a game (in the Transactional Analysis meaning of the word) that cannot be won, because terrorists are not out to win, they are just out to keep the game going, at any cost (and if you are not out to win, any loss is acceptable). Let me digress: there is a scene in the TV series "Angel", where he finds the Elevator to Hell (yes, really...). He arms up and descends, ready to kill the Big Evil once and for all. On the way down, he is challenged by one of Evil's minions. "You're not going to win, you know" Angel says to him, full of determination. "Oh, evil is not out to win" says the minion, somewhat surprised, "evil's just out to stay in business". The elevator door opens to reveal Hell. Angel looks out. He is still in Los Angeles. Our only way out is to stop playing the game. Perhaps, paradoxically, we do need to pull out. It will leave a mess, but it also will leave the terrorists no-one to play against (except the local population, and that would sort of defeat what they claim they are about). Perhaps we need to just send the money and the materials, but let local organisations rebuild it all. I don't think anybody can call my opinion about the war in Iraq "middle fence"... So I'm sorry, but I don't agree. You cannot "kill" someone else's opinion without having a very strong argument to put up against it. And if I do anything, it is challenging people's opinions with rational argument. Perhaps I don't go around saying that liberals are closet communists and communists are teh evil, that Western Democracy will smythe down evil dictators everywhere and make this world a safer place, or that Islam is a retarded religion, but thenagain I'm not naive or simplistic like that (I hope). If you want that sort of bull***t, then I am not sorry to disappoint you.
I meant generally your opinion is middle fenced. Of course your posts are always well thought and so forth, which is much better than "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERROPHILES" or the like. Which is a great thing. I just get annoyed by you easily putting down other people opinions based on your own, which may or may not be correct. You always seem to assume your correct end of.
Well no, not now. To imply we should go home now is almost as uncaring a thing to do as to go in in the first place. We're the ones who broke the country, so now we have to fix it, regardless of the cost to ourselves. Thats the burden our leaders gave the taxpayers and soliders of their countries, if you don't like it, deal with the leader, but we have to fix Iraq, for the poor Iraqi dude whos house we bombed, we have to fix Iraq.
No, putting down is: "Your opinion sux" or "You're talking crap". I like to think I don't do that. But if opinions are easy to challenge because the reasoning is spurious, or the argument weak, don't expect me to go easy on them. I may assume I'm right, but then again so does everyone else who posts their point of view here. If my opinion is wrong, then it can be challenged. When it is done so validly, I will concede. I have been known to get it wrong, and I have been known to change my mind. I'm not afraid to admit to either.
Since this topic has deviated from the purpose of the thread perhaps it should be moved to someplace more suitable (ie serious discussion). On the other hand I believe it's a bit short sighted to assume the US went to war in Iraq because of oil. If you'd care to do the research you'd find that out of 3,692,063 thousand barrels of oil imported in the US in 2004 (seeing as how 2005 data is not available yet) only 239,758 thousand barrels came from Iraq. That equates to about 6.5%, not enough to go to war. Rather the majority of oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia with Nigeria making it below those previously listed but higher than Iraq. While invading a country without better evidance of WMDs is irresponsible it clearly shows a need for better intelligance and decision making. It's easy to say now that it wasn't the right choice but hindsight is always 20/20. Hopefully we'll be able to end the problem in a manner that is not irresponsible and benefits everyone.
Rocket733, many of the more intelligent war critics would cite that you don't want more oil, that pushes prices down. What you want is the price of oil to go up, while the supply stays virtually the same, you get all the benefits of a lack of oil, without the actual lack of oil. Also, in the long term picture, it'll probably stabilise oil intrests within Iraq, and make them less likely to ever decide against going with what a US company wants.
Benefits of lack of oil, such as higher prices? However any economists knows that such prices are tempory over the long term as the market finds an equilibrium of supply and price. Higher prices will drive higher supplies and then the price will go down again. Iraq's supply is not enough to control the market and any such attempts are clearly against US law. As far as stablization of oil interests in Iraq; it would appear at current times that such stablization will not occur due to differences among northern and southern Iraqis along with the terrorist threat that would destablize such efforts.
Oh no! Communist liberals and left wing extremists! Thank god the power-hungry, big-money corperation conservatives and right wing hicks took control! At least now we got the opertunity to kill tens of thousands of people for reasons that the government "convientently" kept quite from us! I mean, its not like they had lives in the first place.... They didn't live in America!
