Do you support the Iraq war TODAY??? NOTE: READ ARGUMENT FIRST! THEN vote

Do you support the Iraq war today?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 30.9%
  • No

    Votes: 103 69.1%

  • Total voters
    149
I know almost everyone here is to FAR left, so this is kind of pointless, I guess, but do you think that the continued occupation of Iraq is justified?

I say yes. We got in there, and it is our duty to finish what we started. We should stay there and reduce the terrorist thread as much as possible. When the government WE put there is stable, we should leave.

PLEASE READ:But in the mean time, if we leave, another dictatoship will take power (openly terrorist supporting) and we will have another war that will cause the 3000 dead in Iraq to be wasted lives, and will cause another 3000 dead in the next war, not counting those dead in terrorist attacks founded by the new regime.

So what do you think on my arguments?


What good is the co-alition doing by staying? It's no good reacting to terrorist bombs, you can't wage war on the individual, the forces are always just running to the bomb site to clear up, which the iraqi army can do. We did not invade legitimately, under false reasons also. Saddam's government was stable, also, while he was monstorous, the US embargo wasn't too nice either? Wonder how many died as a result of that... and it was stable ( especially compared to other middle eastern countries) Whereas the new government, is in civil war, is fractured, faces religious problems, and is snuggling closer to iran ( bad from your view)


So the forces should stay forever? :lol: if the government does become a dictatporship what will you do? Stay there forever and force your will upon them? And the ( current) government isn't showing signs of turning into a dictatorship ( unless the civil war take a nasty turn)

Cause another war? So I guess you will be apllying the same standars to every other government in the same line, like sudan ( 'cept they have oil) or zimbabwe?

the 3000 lives have been wasted anyway, the country will do what the country wants, despite american abitions, if they want a dictatorship then you can't do squat. How would those lives be wasted by withdrawing? All you would do is stop more deaths :crazyeye:

Oh BTW, CFC is actually fairly right wing :lol: look at posters like moboss and atlas, far left describes very very few here ( for a real culture shock google sovietempire.com and go on the first link ;) now they are nutters and far lefties)
 
GRAND QUESTION!

Did Afghanistan ever attack America?
 
No, but Bin Laden was based there (since he was trained there by the CIA) so I think Afghanistan was justified after 9/11.

EDIT: Apparently not trained by the CIA (according to Wikipedia anyway) but funded by them.
 
GRAND QUESTION!

Did Afghanistan ever attack America?

Well, the Taliban widely supported OBL and Al Qaeda in their attack and backed them 100%, so, considering that, I would say yes, they did attack America on 9/11.
 
No, but Bin Laden was based there (since he was trained there by the CIA) so I think Afghanistan was justified after 9/11.

EDIT: Apparently not trained by the CIA (according to Wikipedia anyway) but funded by them.

The theory that Bin Laden was funded by the CIA is shaky, at best. The Mujahadeen were funded by the CIA mostly during the early to middle parts of the war, and Bin Laden was a late arrival on the scene, and most of his money came from himself, you have to remember this guy was very rich because of his father in Saudi Arabia.
 
Fair enough, I think I was remembering what Robin Cook said in the UK (mentioned in Wikipedia article on OBL too).

Anyway, I think Afghanistan was justifiable but Iraq wasn't, for the reasons that were given prior to the war.
 
Afghanistan was justified for sure. As for Iraq, it wasn't justified because it was based on horrible intelligence. However, leaving now would also be unjustified. They have to leave when the Iraq military can take 100% responsibility, doing any more or any less is immoral. You can't just go in on bad intelligence, kill a dictator and then let the people fix them selves up out of the blue. Besides, America is doing a lot of good while in Iraq such as rebuilding and giving school supplies to children to make a better future.
 
They have to leave when the Iraq military can take 100% responsibility, doing any more or any less is immoral.

I don't know about it being immoral, but it may not be wise.

You can't just go in on bad intelligence, kill a dictator and then let the people fix them selves up out of the blue. Besides, America is doing a lot of good while in Iraq such as rebuilding and giving school supplies to children to make a better future.

America cannot do those things without 20,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq?
 
GRAND QUESTION!

Did Afghanistan ever attack America?

Read what MobBoss wrote. Whether it was ultimately a good idea or not to attack Afghanistan is a different question (and I'm not sure I'm convinced today that we should have), but it was certainly justified.
 
Well, I mean it would be immoral because then we're crossing the lines and letting the lives of millions of people be in the hand of extremists or a weak government.

America can help and rebuild with 20,000 troops in Iraq, but they certainly can't protect Iraqi's. They saved tens of thousands of lives through fighting extremists, finding weapon factories, and finding extremists before they blow up. I'm not sure if that could be accomplished with only 20,000 troops, unless of course it's in the future when the Iraqi military can take over.

The problem I see with a lot of people is that staying is judged by the bad reasons for entering, which is not the wisest idea.
 
I know almost everyone here is to FAR left, so this is kind of pointless, I guess, but do you think that the continued occupation of Iraq is justified?

I say yes. We got in there, and it is our duty to finish what we started. We should stay there and reduce the terrorist thread as much as possible. When the government WE put there is stable, we should leave.

PLEASE READ:But in the mean time, if we leave, another dictatoship will take power (openly terrorist supporting) and we will have another war that will cause the 3000 dead in Iraq to be wasted lives, and will cause another 3000 dead in the next war, not counting those dead in terrorist attacks founded by the new regime.

So what do you think on my arguments?


The problem is that if the left was intellectually honest, they would support the stabilization of Iraq. They constantly cry about how many Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war, but neglect to show any care for what will happen after we leave. I don't know how they justify that, but I would love to hear about it.
 
The problem is that if the left was intellectually honest, they would support the stabilization of Iraq. They constantly cry about how many Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war, but neglect to show any care for what will happen after we leave. I don't know how they justify that, but I would love to hear about it.

Actually, the problem is that "the right" doesn't recognize that not all withdrawals must end in collapse.
 
no al qaeda were there "they are now though heh"

no wmd were there

lets bring our brethren home and lets not bother with the irrationality of middle east politics like Ronald Reagan said


from Reagans autobiography

"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believe the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
 
The problem is that if the left was intellectually honest, they would support the stabilization of Iraq. They constantly cry about how many Iraqis have died since the beginning of the war, but neglect to show any care for what will happen after we leave. I don't know how they justify that, but I would love to hear about it.

Who is saying this? ;)

I've only heard this come from right wingers such as yourself as a strawman.
 
Ignoring the irrationality of middle eastern politics will ultimately end up being the wests own problem. Especially when you look at immigration, immigration policies, and the way Muslim immigrants are treated in various western societies. Ignoring the middle east, in the end, will cost countless more lives, and a much more serious moral debate than what's being done now.

Thanks everyone. So, in essence, both Iraq and Afghanistan were essentially the same. Both governments were state sponsors of terror, represented brutal examples of human and civil rights.

The reason of being against the war, and further action in the middle east because "we were lied to. We didn't find any WMD stockpiles like advertised." In my opinion, ignores all the other reasons we went and should have gone to war with Saddam, and in the end, is just completely and utterly morally bankrupt.
 
The reason of being against the war, and further action in the middle east because "we were lied to. We didn't find any WMD stockpiles like advertised." In my opinion, ignores all the other reasons we went and should have gone to war with Saddam, and in the end, is just completely and utterly morally bankrupt.

What are some of those other reasons we went to war?
 
It was a mistake to enter Iraq. Now we have to resist and try to repair as much as posible th chaos we have created.
 
Unjustified by the reasons given...

+Badly planned...

+Too few troops...

+Outstayed their welcome...

=quagmire, irretrievable situation and general FUBARness.

I think it is now too late to settle matters satisfactorily.
 
I think we should draft 10% of those that voted for Bush in 2004 and ship them to Iraq to finish up. If 6,000,000 can't get it done, then it likely can't be done.
 
Top Bottom