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

[Nobody]

No, I don't support this Iraq War. IMO, Bush is just waging his father's "unfinished war". Regardless of the arguments, I still see that we should just pull out ASAP and let them fend for themselves.

Iraq use to have a stable goverment, who provided the nessacitys of life to most iraqis. America went in there removed the goverment, started a civil war, took away there power and clean water. And now americans what to pull out and let them fend for thereselfs. They WERE fending for themselves!
But then america rolls in saying "we will teach you how to do it even better" But america makes a horrible mess of things so now iraq is in no position to fend for thereselfs.

America went into iraq and sent the nation into chaos, Now america owes it to iraq to stay there and sort out the chaos no matter how many billions it costs, or thousdands (of americans) who die!

 

[skadistic]

Iraq use to have a stable goverment, who provided the nessacitys of life to most iraqis. America went in there removed the goverment, started a civil war, took away there power and clean water. And now americans what to pull out and let them fend for thereselfs. They WERE fending for themselves!
But then america rolls in saying "we will teach you how to do it even better" But america makes a horrible mess of things so now iraq is in no position to fend for thereselfs.

America went into iraq and sent the nation into chaos, Now america owes it to iraq to stay there and sort out the chaos no matter how many billions it costs, or thousdands (of americans) who die!

The bolded underlined part is not correct. Saddam provided for the sunni minority. The Kurds got gassed, the marsh arabs had their homes drained out from under them and the shia were jailed beaten and killed by the tens of thousands, posibly even the hundreds of thousands.

America didn't sent the nation into chaos. The Iraqis did that them selves when they chose to kill each other like they had prior to the invasion for a thousand years. The Iraqis had a chance at peace and they chose not to take it.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I don't really care for the black and white poll options. I opposed the war from the start as I felt it was not in our national interest to invade, but invading a country and then abandoning ship leaving behind a more unstable region is not good foreign policy. I personally would like to see a 500,000 troop surge smash the insurgency, train up an Iraqi military, and come home all in a year.

 

[Integral]

Ok, I take issue with your "90% of CFC is far left". Put simply, there is quite a range of economic and social opinions on this site. There is a noticeable libertarian faction, as well as a small but vocal conservative group. Yes, a large number of OTers are...left of center, particularly in economic philosophy, but it's certainly not 90%. The forum is (as a whole) relatively liberal in social policy, but there's a large spread on economic policy.

This political compass thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=228895 shows the range of opinions. Post 132 has the 60 respondents plotted against one political compass. (By the way, that poll you've wanted to put up? The answer's in that graph )

Oh, and as to the war? We invaded the country and bombed it to pieces, so now it's our duty to put it back together. (Not that it was in much better shape under Saddam.) We owe the Iraqis that. However, if the Iraqi Parlament asks up to leave, then we should.

Integral

 

[downtown]

i never supported this war. It was a waste of resources, human capital, and IR capital.

I do not think that pulling everybody out right now is in our national interests, but I would like to see security benchmarks written up, and a timetable set up for us going home. We have little to gain in Iraq now.

 

[Warman17]

I've steadily lost steam to support this war. I'm giving it my last Friedman, if the September report is negative I'm pulling my support (for what its worth) for this war.

 

[The Yankee]

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.

Why would a new dictator necessarily sponsor terrorists? If the dictator were in the secular mold, he might want to get rid of the religiously-inspired terrorists also.

 

[GenMarshall]

America went into iraq and sent the nation into chaos, Now america owes it to iraq to stay there and sort out the chaos no matter how many billions it costs, or thousdands (of americans) who die!

I highly disagree, we don't own them anything.

 

[Whomp]

Yeah, Like Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton: When I'm president, I'll bring the troops home."

Stephen Colbert: Yeah, when your president, we'll bring the troops back on FLYING PIGS, that is, if it isn't to cold, withe HELL HAVING FROZEN over.

You heard "I'll bring the troops home" but it simply means some of the troops but not all of the troops. I doubt there's a candidate that has the capability to bring them all home. Just consider it would take 18 months to do something like that. We'll be there in some form for a long time.

 

[Fëanor]

Why would a new dictator necessarily sponsor terrorists? If the dictator were in the secular mold, he might want to get rid of the religiously-inspired terrorists also.

in other words the best possible outcome right now is to find a "new Saddam" (since they murdered the last one) and put him into power... with the only slight differences that the US controls the Oil and the Dictator. oh, and up to 1.000.000 Excess deaths...

 

[Norton II]

I highly disagree, we don't own them anything.

I don't know about that; the US government owes them something for two invasions and a blockade. Unfortunately, it's the US taxpayers who'll end up paying for rebuilding Iraq, just as we paid for destroying it. If there were some way of making the people responisble pay for reconstruction, I'd be all for it.

You heard "I'll bring the troops home" but it simply means some of the troops but not all of the troops. I doubt there's a candidate that has the capability to bring them all home. Just consider it would take 18 months to do something like that. We'll be there in some form for a long time.

Why would it take 18 months to get them out? It only took a few weeks to get them in.

 

[Merkinball]

Wow.

It is absolutely frightening how white washed and perverted the history of Iraq has become.

I mean...

Wow...

 

[The Yankee]

in other words the best possible outcome right now is to find a "new Saddam" (since they murdered the last one) and put him into power... with the only slight differences that the US controls the Oil and the Dictator. oh, and up to 1.000.000 Excess deaths...

That'd be a little too obvious. Besides, I'd see the Shi'a winning the war if all things went to hell anyway.

The best possible outcome might still be a somewhat-functioning democracy, but it'll take loads more work and such work rests more on the various Iraqis than on the Americans.

 

[Zarn]

My guess is when you say war, you mean police action? I do support the police action. I don't support Bush.

 

[The Yankee]

Why would it take 18 months to get them out? It only took a few weeks to get them in.

Really? I'm fairly sure soldiers and equipment were being sent to Kuwait all through the fall and winter of 2002/2003. At least the winter.

 

[Whomp]

Why would it take 18 months to get them out? It only took a few weeks to get them in.

Entering and exiting are two different things. They will need to prepare, amongst other things Iraqi forces and government, for the exit. If you listen to this there will be a minimum force of 60k for a long time to support the green zone and special forces hitting Al Qaeda.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11422176

The interview was very good because it discusses how the goals are shifting. Thomas Ricks, a military reporter for the Washington Post and author of the book Fiasco and Retired Maj. Gen. Mike Davidson, former assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

 

[Perfection]

Absolutely!

By my oath to Mephistopheles I must support all War (along with Pestilence, Famine, and Death)

 

[Phlegmak]

I know almost everyone here is to FAR left

Sorry, garric, but you phailed.

 

[The Yankee]

Entering and exiting are two different things. They will need to prepare, amongst other things Iraqi forces and government, for the exit. If you listen to this there will be a minimum force of 60k for a long time to support the green zone and special forces hitting Al Qaeda.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11422176

The interview was very good because it discusses how the goals are shifting. Thomas Ricks, a military reporter for the Washington Post and author of the book Fiasco and Retired Maj. Gen. Mike Davidson, former assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

No matter what, it might be prudent to leave special forces in there to hunt the al-Qaeda types that have flooded the country. How that could be done is something beyond me, since I don't have the access or resources to formulate a workable plan.

 

[Communisto]

I gave up pretending to know the solution to Iraq a long time ago. But I do know that there are only 2 paths that the U.S can take, neither of which appeal to me.

A: Completely withdraw and let the Iraqis sort it out for themselves, which will end in alot of deaths.

B: Take complete control of the country, double the size of the standing army in Iraq and force it to submit to stability by any means necissary.

I don't like either of the choices but I truly beleive it's one or the other. I'm just glad I dont have to make the decision