Support for the invasion

[Skyrad 0]

I'm curious about the support for the war in Iraq. At the time many people belived that Iraq posed a threat to the rest of the world. We were told the there were WMDs and AL Q training camps. As we now know that was not true. Two years into an Iraq war that has left more than 1,500 U.S. troops dead and another 11,200 wounded have you changed your mind? Do you still feel the same way you did then? Knowing what you know now would you have supported the war?
Just to clarify my position, I was against the invasion i would still be against the invasion. However now we have gone and done it I belive that we have a moral responsibility to see it through to a stable conclusion or be beaten trying.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[christelsabine 1]

Always was against, still am against invasion and will never see anything else in it than a violent infringement on another country.


Anyhow, I'd agree to your last senctence.

Christel

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Skyrad 0]

I'm actualy suprised, at this point everyone is against. I wonder how many of those voting are Europeans and how many are Americans? So far the only other vote was mine!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[shropshire 0]

Not surprisingly, I agree with you 100%... I guess the current poll position could be put down to the fact that at 20 past 12, only Europe is awake ...

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[tbrown 26]

I was against it, still am. We have friends whose kids are serving there, we send them packages. One of them lost his best friend a month ago when a crate full of rockets somehow armed itself and went off, blowing him clean in two.

Before the invasion Colin Powell warned President Bush, "If you break it, you own it". And that's exactly what's happened. Eventually the cost in American lives and dollars will be so great that we'll just pull out and leave the Iraqis to kill each other. Hate to say it, but that is what will happen, whether it's next year or in ten years.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

I didn't support the invasion but do now.

This comes closest to my thoughts on the matter.

I was very much against the invasion, and if we could repeat history I would still be against the invasion.

Reality is different though, and we can't repeat history. Hopefully we won't repeat history in other countries like Iran.

The invasion has already happened, and this presents opportunities for change. So far, some of the changes have been positive, some negative. Some of the positive changes are compelling.

Reasons for staying in Iraq are a lot stronger than the "moral responsibility", it's also a pragmatic responsibility. Backing out now would squander all the work done, and would make Iraq truly a hotbed of terror. Iraq wasn't a threat to the US when the war started, but if the US were to back out, it could very well become the kind of threat that Afghanistan used to be.

Iraq is well on its way to regaining itself as a great nation. I'd hate to see that fall apart.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Eventually the cost in American lives and dollars will be so great that we'll just pull out and leave the Iraqis to kill each other. Hate to say it

- Yeah, I hate to say it too and maybe (Hopefully) they will find a better way. (p.s Please dont forget, not only American & Iraqi lives , I have friends who are still service, out there too)

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kelpdiver 2]

Your polling choices are incomplete.

I supported the invasion. I never believed it was solely about WMDs, but there was no way to know until after the fact. Hussein's history on that matter was clear.

I was not a fan of the occupation, even with the somewhat successful election (where's the government?), not convinced that was worthwhile. US foreign policy/anti terror goals were met by removing Hussein from power.

Because Bush can just add to deficit spending, few here are affected by the costs of the occupation. The dollar costs are hidden, and while 1500 soldiers is no small number, it's dwarfed by the main forms of accidental death in the country.

[dorbie 0]

Dang, I voted for the invasion but I thought it was a poll about Iran.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Dang, I voted for the invasion but I thought it was a poll about Iran.

Is that an example of American humour?
Oh yeah forgot, after that huge success in Iraq, the US has any reason in the world to make jokes about next invasion.

The world is a funny play yard, isn't it?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[Gravitymaster 0]

Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy'
By Steve Negus in Baghdad
Published: March 25 2005 16:55 | Last updated: March 25 2005 16:55

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.


Sharif Ali Bin al-Hussein, who heads Iraq's main monarchist movement and is in contact with guerrilla leaders, said many insurgents including former officials of the ruling Ba'ath party, army officers, and Islamists have been searching for a way to end their campaign against US troops and Iraqi government forces since the January 30 election.

“Firstly, they want to ensure their own security,” says Sharif Ali, who last week hosted a pan-Sunni conference attended by tribal sheikhs and other local leaders speaking on behalf of the insurgents.

Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.

Sharif Ali distinguishes many Sunni insurgents, whom he says took up arms in reaction to the invasive raids in search of Ba'athist leaders and other “humiliations” soon after the 2003 war, from the radical jihadist branch associated with Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Unlike Mr Zarqawi's followers, who are thought to be responsible for the big suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilian targets, the other Sunni insurgents are more likely to plant bombs and carry out ambushes against security forces and US troops active near their homes.

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Dang, I voted for the invasion but I thought it was a poll about Iran.

Is that an example of American humour?
Oh yeah forgot, after that huge success in Iraq, the US has any reason in the world to make jokes about next invasion.

The world is a funny play yard, isn't it?

Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation.

Some things are funny yea.

[rhino 0]

Quote

I'm curious about the support for the war in Iraq.

I support the soldiers that are there very much... Sadham needed to be removed..

I support the cause enough that I am going to scout sniper school in july and quiet possibly Iraq in January.

[christelsabine 1]

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation.

Some things are funny yea.

[jdfreefly 1]

I have always said this was the right war for the wrong reasons.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[jimbarry 0]

As for those against the war:

- ...knowing that SH had WMD for quite some time in the past,
- ...never proving he got rid of them,
- ...and even if he had, making quite clear he wanted them again,

Would it have been better for him to continue developing his weapons, and waiting until he used them against us or someone else to the tune of 1,500 many times over, before we did something about it?

War is always a bad solution, but it's the right choice when you're convinced doing nothing will eventually be worse.

Right?

[Nightingale 0]

Was against it when it began, still think it was a really bad move. However, I think we need to stay and clean up our mess.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation.

Some things are funny yea.

As an scottish citizen, I wouldn´t have thought that you were affected by a severe case of selective memory as some american people seems to be.

The U.S was not alone in that war (France, UK, and Russia was there as well. As well as Germany was not alone (Italy and Spain were a very friendly neutral country toward the germans)

It was in the best interests of the U.S to stop the germans, and better to do it in Europe than in the U.S. You know less american civilians killed.

Make no mistake, every single country looks for their own interests, to do otherwise would be a treason of the government. But only the U.S tries to tell the rest of the world that they do things out of kindness of heart. Few foreign people believes it.

[falxori 0]

Quote

The U.S was not alone in that war (France, UK, and Russia was there as well. As well as Germany was not alone (Italy and Spain were a very friendly neutral country toward the germans)

if the us hadn't stepped in europe (starting with endless supply shipments to the UK), the UK wouldn't have lasted.
and Italy was not "neutral" either...

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Dang, I voted for the invasion but I thought it was a poll about Iran.

Is that an example of American humour?
Oh yeah forgot, after that huge success in Iraq, the US has any reason in the world to make jokes about next invasion.

The world is a funny play yard, isn't it?

The Iranian War is the sequel .

Ya, it's funny to kill people in other countries, apparently.

I was against then, still am. We will eventually pull out and then all those that sided with the US will be doomed by the Muslim extremists. The right thing to do would be to offer all the siders with the US assylum.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Dang, I voted for the invasion but I thought it was a poll about Iran.

Is that an example of American humour?
Oh yeah forgot, after that huge success in Iraq, the US has any reason in the world to make jokes about next invasion.

The world is a funny play yard, isn't it?

Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation.

Some things are funny yea.

I don't see how she's shown bigotry. She merely illustrated what most of the world has for the last few decades, very strongly since the Iraqi matter.

As for WWII, the US was aces. Anyone to denounce the actions of the US's involvement in WWII is either a devote Nazi, Hiro Hito Japanese, or pro-Mousilini Fascist. The US did save the world in the 1940's, since then we have abused our earned position and taken it too far.

WWII - Iraqi War = apples/oranges

[gkc1436 3]

...knowing that SH had WMD for quite some time in the past

Because we gave them to him to use against the iranian's
we also taught him how to make them!
-----------------------------------------------------------
...never proving he got rid of them,

because we yanked the inspectors before they could finish looking for them
-----------------------------------------------------------
...and even if he had, making quite clear he wanted them again

speaking from personal experience.....
after being attacked in my own house by a drugged out idiot, i choose to use a piece of oak firewood to beat the fuck out of the asshole....a loaded 9mm was within range.

next time, i wont hesitate to empty the a clip into him

ITS CALLED SELF PROTECTION!!!!!!!
against assholes that want to inflict their beliefs, laws and morals on you.

something they forgot to put in the bible....

[Botellines 0]

Quote

if the us hadn't stepped in europe (starting with endless supply shipments to the UK), the UK wouldn't have lasted.

I never said otherwise, but take away the help of France, Uk, or Russia and the Allies would not have lasted either. It was a collaboration among several countries against several countries. And on top of that, each member of the allies had personal interests that the germans didn´t win.

Quote

and Italy was not "neutral" either...

In that you are right, my bad.

• Quote

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

As for those against the war:

- ...knowing that SH had WMD for quite some time in the past,
- ...never proving he got rid of them,
- ...and even if he had, making quite clear he wanted them again,

Would it have been better for him to continue developing his weapons, and waiting until he used them against us or someone else to the tune of 1,500 many times over, before we did something about it?

War is always a bad solution, but it's the right choice when you're convinced doing nothing will eventually be worse.

Right?

- ...knowing that SH had WMD for quite some time in the past,

OK, and they were never found and the Whote House has admited there were none. So that's wrong.

- ...never proving he got rid of them,

Again, the White House just established they were gone. Maybe they were used, maybe they were sold, but they are and were gone.

- ...and even if he had, making quite clear he wanted them again,

What small country doesn't want them to protect themselves from large potential invaders like China, Russia or the US?

All 3 points are moot, and furthermore, the WMD thing was just a reason to go in and take out an inactive enemy and make an example of a leader for the reat of the Arabic nation, a sort of deterent. Bottom line, he actually did nothing but express dislike for the US.

War is always a bad solution, but it's the right choice when you're convinced doing nothing will eventually be worse.

And there's only 2 options? There are several, but the untelligent thing to ask is why Arabs/Muslims don't like us. Could ir be our involvement with Israel? Could it be our proactive involvement with them to the point we protect their hell-raising in the region? I think so. 3rd option: Quit defending Israel.