Iraq War

[ChaosVincent1]

the biggest reason for staying in the war at this point is not oil, but genocide prevention. If there is an abrupt end to the war, it will cause the Shiites to think it's the perfect opportunity to get back at the Sunnis. Few people are aware of this problem, so we need to keep the peace and prevent a genocide.

I know how much Americans hate genocide, so that's why I informed you of this little situation.

[V2NT1]

Another reason is the threat that, should Al Qaeda be left to restore its foothold in Iraq and Afghanistan, they will attempt to cause another 9/11 tragedy or similar attacks against the Western world.

[frogger4Christ]

<i>Post censored by araharu.</i>

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

Genocide is wrong,
what is also wrong is that soldiers are being picked off like flies.
When will humans realize that there is no reason for hate amongst humans?
Differeces in skin, religion, even region, are irrelevant. We are all human.

[araharu]

Does nobody else see the correlation between this war and the Vietnam War? We're in a war of ideals; the natives of the country that we're trying to "save from the terrorist threat" see us instead as a foreign nation imposing our will upon them. It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the enemy and citizens of the country. While it is true that class and religion divisions threaten genocide, our occupation there is only helping them to unite against us. Just like the Nationalists and the Communists in Vietnam, somebody's going to get the fallout for backing the wrong party, and while we'd like it not to be the ones fighting for us, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we are fighting a losing war. I say we pull out now, if only to minimize losses on all sides.
I in no way condone genocide; if that does begin, then that gives us a new reason to go back in and actually have something to fight for. Right now we're fighting a battle to protect people, who I remind you again, don't want to be protected, against something that MIGHT happen at some point in the future. It just seems futile to stay in there any longer.

[Henriksson]

You don't even say that it's the Iraq War this thread is about (nobody in this thread has even mentioned Iraq yet!) which leads to the question: Why are some people so arrogant?

[araharu]

Topic title edited to reduce confusion from those from other countries.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Another reason is the threat that, should Al Qaeda be left to restore its foothold in Iraq
Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before we went in.they will attempt to cause another 9/11 tragedy or similar attacks against the Western world.
If you've read the 9/11 Commission Report, you'd know that 9/11 happened because we've been over there.

[Henriksson]

9/11 is a tragedy, but killing tenthousands of innocent Iraqis is A-OK? WTF?

[lukeh]

9/11 is a tragedy, but killing tenthousands of innocent Iraqis is A-OK? WTF?
I saw the smoke from 9/11 in person when I was coming home from school one day. I used to live in New York. But we aren't killing random Iraqis... Iraq has a huge terrorist problem and government problem. We are HELPING them, not hurting.

[Henriksson]

Your darn war has actually AIDED terrorism, not HURT it! Don't believe me?

Read this. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html)

Still not convinced? Read this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/31/iraq.iraq)

[TheFall]

The Iraq War would have been over a LONG time ago if one of two things might have happened:
1) During the Persian Gulf War, we would have followed Saddam back and finished him off.
2) If the country would not be so split on this issue, thousands wouldn't be dead!
For a defense of the second, the Legislative Branch is against the Executive, which is sort of split into two. Because of these splits, we have limited missile and bombing strength, and Clinton's army cut back in the 90's didn't help the future.
The point in staying in Iraq is similar to the following situation:
You are deserted in the middle of the ocean (why? BE CREATIVE) and you find that a shark is attacking you. You fight with it, fending it back for a while, but then two choices go through your mind. 1) Continue fending the shark back until the threat is gone. 2) Realizing that you've sacrificed so much of your energy, you find it a better idea to leave it alone and stay still in the middle of the water.

Which is the better choice, my friends?

[inamerica55585]

by attacking and murdering thousands of Iraqis we are giving these people reason to hate america. send peacemakers. by sending soldiers, the united states has declared war on Iraq.

continued: and that's the exact opposite of why we're over there. or is it? we didn't have to unseat saddam hussein. we didn't have to impose our values of democracy and capitalism on a foreign nation, especially one with lots of oil. could there be an ulterior motive to remain in Iraq?

Jus' throwing it out there.

[TheFall]

...the united states has declared war on Iraq
Quite the opposite, my friend. We're actually saving their government. Or maybe "trying" is a better word. The only problem is the mixed up Muslim extremists over there. They're killing their own people by attacking the United States, through car bombs and what-not. Going extremist religiously doesn't really attract others to your religion.

we didn't have to unseat saddam hussein.
This one kind of bugs me. We didn't have to join in World War II to help Britain and what was left of France to destroy the second cruelest man on earth (Hitler), but we did because it was the right thing to do. Hitler was Saddam's idol and used gas chambers and crap on disobedient Iraqis. Good idea dethroning him.

[Henriksson]

hey're killing their own people by attacking the United States, through car bombs and what-not. Going extremist religiously doesn't really attract others to your religion.
You're talking about Saudi Arabia. Most of the hijackers behind 9/11 were Saudis. Why didn't you attack Saudi Arabia?
1# The US owes Saudi Arabia a heinous amount of money.
2# The US is dependant on Saudi oil.
3# Iraq was a better scapegoat.

[TheFall]

I wasn't talking about 9/11, only about the normal stuff happening in Iraq almost everyday. The number of innocent people killed by bombs in cars or other vehicles (even bicycles!) is probably larger than the amount killed on that day in September.

Why can't we follow Denmark's example and have a federal program to start the use of hydrogen in public transportation. Then the Saudis could go suck on their oil.

[Henriksson]

And the "normal stuff" has obviously nothing to do with the US occupation. (sarcasm)

[DarkWarrior]

You're talking about Saudi Arabia. Most of the hijackers behind 9/11 were Saudis. Why didn't you attack Saudi Arabia?
Nationality doesn't imply loyalties. The threat comes from al-Qaeda, not the Saudis.And the "normal stuff" has obviously nothing to do with the US occupation. (sarcasm)
No, actually, it doesn't. It has to do with groups crawling for power. If we leave, they only have more freedom to move, so...by attacking and murdering thousands of Iraqis we are giving these people reason to hate america. send peacemakers. by sending soldiers, the united states has declared war on Iraq.
"Send peacemakers" ...What? You can't "just send peacemakers". That's...Wow. I don't even know how to address that one. I think you need to look up a little bit of Iraq's history.
continued: and that's the exact opposite of why we're over there. or is it? we didn't have to unseat saddam hussein. we didn't have to impose our values of democracy and capitalism on a foreign nation, especially one with lots of oil. could there be an ulterior motive to remain in Iraq?
The whole war-is-for-oil theory is bogus. No one's ever been able to provide evidence for it. Ever. In fact, we're losing money because of this.Does nobody else see the correlation between this war and the Vietnam War? We're in a war of ideals; the natives of the country that we're trying to "save from the terrorist threat" see us instead as a foreign nation imposing our will upon them. It is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the enemy and citizens of the country. While it is true that class and religion divisions threaten genocide, our occupation there is only helping them to unite against us. Just like the Nationalists and the Communists in Vietnam, somebody's going to get the fallout for backing the wrong party, and while we'd like it not to be the ones fighting for us, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we are fighting a losing war. I say we pull out now, if only to minimize losses on all sides.
I in no way condone genocide; if that does begin, then that gives us a new reason to go back in and actually have something to fight for. Right now we're fighting a battle to protect people, who I remind you again, don't want to be protected, against something that MIGHT happen at some point in the future. It just seems futile to stay in there any longer.
The thing is, it really depends on who you're asking, about that. I've actually had the opportunity to ask soldiers what their impression of support in Iraq was, and they said that it was a matter of who was where, and that different places in Iraq tended towards a specific viewpoint. And the "public opinion polls" I've seen, they contain an inadequate amount of people to count for the opinion of 28,750,770 people. (According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population)) And genocide is pretty much a guaranteed outcome of withdrawal. There is no "if" there, should we withdraw. The only "if" there is regards our staying in.9/11 is a tragedy, but killing tenthousands of innocent Iraqis is A-OK? WTF?
Or we could look at:
A) The risk posed by terrorist groups
B) Where the terrorist groups are, and who is supporting them
C) The amount of deaths that happened at Saddam's hand.
D) How many will die if we pull out.

There are a lot of issues to look at, besides the immediate repercussions of what's happened. However, too few people are willing to do so.Your darn war has actually AIDED terrorism, not HURT it! Don't believe me?

Read this. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html)

Still not convinced? Read this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jul/31/iraq.iraq)
Don't confuse "provided motivation" with "aiding". I'll also note that any attack on any institution at all will cause anger, as well as similar reactions from anyone. So this is more or less irrelevant.

[Henriksson]

Or we could look at:
A) The risk posed by terrorist groups
B) Where the terrorist groups are, and who is supporting them
C) The amount of deaths that happened at Saddam's hand.
D) How many will die if we pull out.
A) Already addressed in post #11
B) Already addressed in post #11
C) The War really didn't help. In any case, there would be a lot of other, better options.
D) Redundant, since you started the war.

[DarkWarrior]

A) No
B) No
C) Right, because diplomacy had worked so well with Iraq.
D) Saddam's rule, A, B.

[OverMind]

One point I'd like to make clear, and someone briefly touched upon this, is that Al-Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq while Hussein was in power. It was not until the Baathist government toppled that different factions (including Al-Qaeda) with their own ideological motives and interest moved in to get a stake in the action.

This fact gets swept under the rug a lot: The Baathist party was secular, it did not have religious leanings like other Middle-Eastern countries (see Iran, and Saudi Arabia). Hussein's oppression of certain groups (like Kurds) had more to do with oppressing uprisings and independence movements; it was all about instilling fear. Terrorist factions, thus, would not be able to work in Iraq (not even cladestinely) because Hussein's gustapo-like police forces would hunt them down.You are deserted in the middle of the ocean (why? BE CREATIVE) and you find that a shark is attacking you. You fight with it, fending it back for a while, but then two choices go through your mind. 1) Continue fending the shark back until the threat is gone. 2) Realizing that you've sacrificed so much of your energy, you find it a better idea to leave it alone and stay still in the middle of the water.
This is a flawed scenario. The shark is, supposedly, Baathist Iraq attacking the US (you); the US/you would be fighting in self-defence. I don't believe Iraq started the "war" ... Al-Qaeda is not affiliated with Iraq.

[TheFreedomIllusion]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>

[TheFreedomIllusion]

<i>Post censored by DarkWarrior.</i>