Marijuana.com

$moKeDanK

what are your thoughts about the war? do you think it should be hapening? do you think the "weapons of mass destruction" exist there? or was it a cover up? what are your thoughts about the thousands of iraq civilians killed? today i saw on the news about a 2 year old boy dying when his house was bombed, and also a hospital being bombed, with 10 ambulances being destroyed and people being hit as they walked out of the hospital.

do you guys think this is a war worth fighting for? should the troops stay there? is it ok to fire on them from the sky when they have no or little air defense?

what do u think?

 

Freedom_User

I was originally for the war in the beginning. 'The War on Terrorism' right after the 9/11 attack, sounded like a good idea. As the years pass, you realize that it was nothing but greed and misleading tactics to finish what his Dad couldn't. How can we win the war on terror when that certain President is in office now?

__________________

racin36er

I'm Canadian, but I'm a HUGE conspiracy theorist when it comes to 9/11. I think the people of the world, particularly Americans, deserve to know the truth, and deserve to finally be told that the United States government is lying to us, to further their control of the world.

But thats just me.


I created a thread shortly after the joining the site on this very topic, as well as whether or not it was going to turn into Civil War. My opinion are still very much the same, and very anti-war. This goes for the Canadian's involvement in Afghanistan, as well. I don't think anyone belongs there but the people of those countries.

However, straight pulling out, "cold-turkey" would be a tragedy. We're way to far in to pull out now. Civil war would exist for decades if we did. We made the mess, its EXTREMELY important we clean it up. I'm just curious when that "cleaning" is going to start. So far its all been needless bloodshed. Terrible.

__________________

Doc Mitch

i dont support the 3 trillion dollar war. terrorism only exists if you let it. people terrorize themselves. people say the war is being fought for our freedom, and i couldnt disagree more. the only thing that has come from this war/9-11 that pertains to freedom is the patriot act, which really just allows the government to invade your privacy.

with all that said, i do support the troops over there.

$moKeDanK

i hear people say that pretty often but i dont understand it, so there should be more bloodshed AND THEN the clean up? doesnt really make sence to me, but i could be wrong.

 

Darque Pervert

First of all, the invasion of Iraq was not solely about finding WMDs. Yes, that was one reason, and certainly a valid one. I believe they do exist, probably smuggled into Syria and quite possibly resold to whoever is buying.

Aside from the WMD issue that raises everyone's ire, there were other reasons for going to war in Iraq:
- Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, comparable to Pol Pot or Adolph Hitler. He wiped out tens of thousands of his own countrymen (with chemical weapons, no less!) because they were a rival tribe. He had no value for human life and displayed that in his daily actions.
- Saddam Hussein supported terrorist groups, primarily Al-Quaida. He provided resources to terrorist groups, allowed them safe harbor and passage in his country and even provided facilities for them to recruit and train.
- Saddam Hussein controls SHITLOAD of oil. He played bully to members of OPEC and used his thuggish influence to artificially inflate oil prices. Whether you like it or not, the entire world is dependent on oil to keep functioning. So when one dictator starts monkeying with oil supplies and prices, it affects THE ENTIRE FUCKING WORLD , not just the U.S. With oil prices presently at an all-time high, I'm sure each and every one of us sees the results. Everything you purchase costs more. Food, clothing, medications, housing, transportation, entertainment & luxury items... When oil prices rise, so do the prices of other goods and services.
- The people of Iraq lived in daily fear. They didn't have freedom of speech. They couldn't trash-talk their leader without fear of reprisal from the ruling body. Reprisal from Saddam was torture and/or death. They didn't want Hussein in power, but even the smallest uprising was quashed quickly, violently and publicly. Saddam himself was, by definition, a terrorist.

So....
Should we have invaded Iraq? If I were a leader and looked at all the evidence (some of which was based on incorrect information, admittedly), it's almost a no-brainer, I think. This dictator is so unpredictable that you don't know what he will do. Invade Israel or Egypt? Kill the Saudi king and take power there? Maybe he'll invade Turkey?
Better yet, invade Pakistan, since they have functional nuclear weapons....

Yes, going to war with Iraw was a good idea.

Do I support the war? I support the reasoning behind it. I don't support young men & women in the prime of their lives getting mowed down by secretive, cowardly assassins like they are. Understand that the vast majority of suicide bombers and assassins killing both military forces and Iraqis are NOT other Iraqis. They are members of terrorist groups and small militias, most of whom are from other countries with large radical Muslim populations like Syria and Libya, both of whom are also known to harbor and train terrorists.

I think the goal of erradicating terrorism is one that will never be achieved. As long as people disagree politically, economically and philosophically, there will be violent outbursts to achieve notariety or "victory" for whatever group someone belongs to.
People have asked for generations, "Can't we all just get along?"
The answer has always been, "No."


So here's the difficult question for the leader of a nation as powerful as the United States:
So we allow Saddam Hussein to continue his international thuggery and wiping out his own people without consequences, allowing terrorism to grow and flourish? Or do we try to do something about it, knowing it will be long and difficult with many lives lost on both sides?

I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision



At this point, the focus is on getting Iraq to a point where they can function without an outside military presence (namely the U.S.). U.S. soldiers are there to protect contractors that are trying to rebuild the country and provide them with essential services like running water, electricity, sewage, communications, and so on. We're also trying to rebuild the economy by getting oil pumping and refining back into operation so the nation can have a source of income to improve the lives of all Iraqis.

The bloodshed isn't coming from U.S. soldiers. The bloodshed is from terrorist militias that try to make the biggest splash they can when they kill, no pun intended. Car bombs taking out a wedding party and killing dozens (as happened this past week) makes a pretty big, fucking horrific splash.

Ask yourself this. Those same pissed off radical Muslims... Who and where would they attack if the U.S. military wasn't in Iraq? A U.S. Marine base in Kuwait? A U.S. Naval ship in a Yemeni port? Buses in London? A nightclub in Spain? Skyscrapers in the financial district of a major city? An airliner with hundreds of passengers on board?
Any and all of the above?

These people are going to commit violence and kill people. Right now, they have a large number of targets in a relatively small area of the world. While it's horrible that there are hundreds of people dying on both sides at the hands of these extremists, understand that they are not going to Asia, Europe, North America, Australia or anywhere else to ply their horrific craft. In that respect, the U.S. presence (and targetting) is a positive, because it's keeping the terrorists from doing their damage in other parts of the world.

Difficult decisions. Difficult times.

Again, it makes me glad I'm not in a position of power.

__________________

Life is always a spiral. It's the choices of the individual as to whether that spiral is aimed up or down.

Doc Mitch

so then why did we have to wait until the 9-11 incident to go to war?

Darque Pervert

It was the event that triggered the U.S. government into action.
Why did we wait until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor to join the Allies in WWII?

9/11 was an attack on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were suspected to be tied to Saddam Hussein, but never proved.

hermosthigh

MHO:
I believe the war in Iraq is wrong. I do not believe the weapons of mass destruction exsisted. What we have done to the Iraqi people is just immoral. The world is not safer with Saddam Huessin out of power. The Iraqis are definitely not safer. We need to finish what we started in Afghanistan and worry about Pakistan a lot more than we are. My personal opinion is that Pakistan poses a greater threat than does Iran.

It infuriates me the way the honorable intentions of our men and women that have joined our armed services are being exploited. My son joined in early 2002 because of 9/11. He wanted to do something for America and to be a part of the solution. My nephew and a niece's husband also enlisted for the same reasons. As I suspect many other young people did.

The military members of my family are now heartsick to feel like they have become part of the problem. I believe the quagmire that bush's war-mongering policies have created in Iraq will have far greater consequences than what happened in Vietnam. And for many many more years.

HMH
(who secretly believes the Iraq war was actually an elaborate retirement plan for cheney, rumsfeld and their cronies at haliburton - just how much money have these people made off this war?)

Freedom_User

I agree. I know 100% that Cheney and the other political gangsters have company ties to oil company's. Amazing how they join office, and just about everyday we have another record high for oil.