What exactly is your objection to the war in Iraq? (polls, deaths)

[magellan]

Originally Posted by Njrover0216

I am for the war, however, I am against how it is being handled. We are tip toeing around this person and that person because we do not want to get anyone mad. I think that we first should have settle things in Afagahnistan before rushing into Iraq.
The Iraqi war is a difficult war to fight because the enemy are a bunch of cowards that hide behind everyday normal citizens. There is not a line that says it is blue against red. The people of Iraq are afraid to point out who the insurgents are in fear for their lives. Now we are stuck, if we pull out then we are going to be blamed for Iraqs past and future, if we stay it is going to keep going round and round. I think that we should hold an election for the Iraqi people, does America stay or go? That way the decision is put into their hands.

My devil's advocate side says "Since when do Americans care what other countries think of us?" We are already being blamed by 99% of the world for Iraq's problems, what could we possibly do now to change that or improve that? We think we care, because Oprah says we should, but really we don't.

If by some far-flung miracle all of a sudden feuding Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis decide to come together in peace, after having been at war with each other for centuries, do you really think France and other countries are going to say "Whaddayaknow, those Yankee cowboys were right all along"? Don't count on it.

The first thing we can do to start repairing relations with the rest of the world is leave Iraq this year, and start re-forging relations with our old allies that are slowly leaving us behind (even Great Britain). Hold a press conference, rattle off a list of all the things we have done for Iraq: ie 1) helped them ratify a constitution, 2) removed their dictator that killed hundreds of thousands, 3) pumped $Billions into their economy 4) Trained thousands of troops and police officers 5) Set the stage so that they can join the world economy 6) Rebuilt schools and hospitals 7) Kept our word that we are not occupiers

Then tell them that the insecurity they feel is from their own doing (and lack of doing).

There's no quitting in that. Sounds to me like completing a "plan". Heck, Bush can even pull out that "Mission Accomplished" banner again.

Americans need to stop being so scared of the unknown, especially since the KNOWN is failure.

[mrrumples]

Though folks hate to admit it, the Clinton policy of containment was working - they had no WMD's, no atomic program. Poor intelligence does not negate that what Clinton did was working. Since our invasion, the death toll of civilians is far worse than what Britian experienced during the entire course of WWII. (British appox 62,000; Iraqi depending on the source - conservatively 67,172 to 73,497.)What is worse is that in the end, we will walk away on our way to the shopping malls and not look back on the death and destruction we have caused. Bush and Cheney should be brought to the Hague and tried as war criminals. A western liberal democracy is not possible everywhere.

[rd2007]

Originally Posted by mrrumples

Though folks hate to admit it, the Clinton policy of containment was working - they had no WMD's, no atomic program. Poor intelligence does not negate that what Clinton did was working. Since our invasion, the death toll of civilians is far worse than what Britian experienced during the entire course of WWII. What is worse is that in the end, we will walk away on our way to the shopping malls and not look back on the death and destruction we have caused. Bush and Cheney should be brought to the Hague and tried as war criminals. A western liberal democracy is not possible everywhere.

wow, where did you get your "facts"? I suppose you were one of the people preaching about the 50 million Iraqi children killed during the initial bombing too?
amazing

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by mrrumples

Though folks hate to admit it, the Clinton policy of containment was working - they had no WMD's, no atomic program. Poor intelligence does not negate that what Clinton did was working. Since our invasion, the death toll of civilians is far worse than what Britian experienced during the entire course of WWII. What is worse is that in the end, we will walk away on our way to the shopping malls and not look back on the death and destruction we have caused. Bush and Cheney should be brought to the Hague and tried as war criminals. A western liberal democracy is not possible everywhere.

As part of the surrender agreement from Saddamn, we put weapons inspectors in Iraq. Then Saddam forced them to provide a list of where they were going to inspect a week in advance. Then our intel guys would see them moving things out of those buildings for days before they were inspected. What did Clinton do? Nothing. Then Saddam actually threw our weapons inspectors out of the country. What did Clinton do? Nothing. He cowered in the corner at every turn during his entire time in office.

There were conditions of surrender and they started violating them the minute Clinton took office. Nothing was done. Containment working? What did he do to contain anything?

[bily4]

Originally Posted by jgussler

As part of the surrender agreement from Saddamn, we put weapons inspectors in Iraq. Then Saddam forced them to provide a list of where they were going to inspect a week in advance. Then our intel guys would see them moving things out of those buildings for days before they were inspected. What did Clinton do? Nothing. Then Saddam actually threw our weapons inspectors out of the country. What did Clinton do? Nothing. He cowered in the corner at every turn during his entire time in office.

There were conditions of surrender and they started violating them the minute Clinton took office. Nothing was done. Containment working? What did he do to contain anything?

Yea I remember Colin Powell discussing those "suspicous movements" in his U.N. speech. Remember his initial reaction when he was given the draft? "I'm not reading this. This is B.S."
Now that speech will be a stain forever on an illustrious soldier's career.

Looking back which was the better approach - to use caution despite those "things" getting "moved around", or to blow the horn and charge in with the Stars and Stripes blowing in the wind. "Bring em on!" Crows our illustrious leader, bravely taunting the terrorists to attack our troops. Bush did something all right, no doubt about that.

[rd2007]

Originally Posted by jgussler

As part of the surrender agreement from Saddamn, we put weapons inspectors in Iraq. Then Saddam forced them to provide a list of where they were going to inspect a week in advance. Then our intel guys would see them moving things out of those buildings for days before they were inspected. What did Clinton do? Nothing. Then Saddam actually threw our weapons inspectors out of the country. What did Clinton do? Nothing. He cowered in the corner at every turn during his entire time in office.

There were conditions of surrender and they started violating them the minute Clinton took office. Nothing was done. Containment working? What did he do to contain anything?

I think I mentioned somewhere else that facts get in the way of intraweb research
good job on bringing up very valid points (still no thumbup smiley)

Originally Posted by bily4

Yea I remember Colin Powell discussing those "suspicous movements" in his U.N. speech. Remember his initial reaction when he was given the draft? "I'm not reading this. This is B.S."
Now that speech will be a stain forever on an illustrious soldier's career.

Looking back which was the better approach - to use caution despite those "things" getting "moved around", or to blow the horn and charge in with the Stars and Stripes blowing in the wind. "Bring em on!" Crows our illustrious leader, bravely taunting the terrorists to attack our troops. Bush did something all right, no doubt about that.

he seriously said that? I've never heard that one before. do you have a link or something?

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by mrrumples

Though folks hate to admit it, the Clinton policy of containment was working - they had no WMD's, no atomic program. Poor intelligence does not negate that what Clinton did was working. Since our invasion, the death toll of civilians is far worse than what Britian experienced during the entire course of WWII. (British appox 62,000; Iraqi depending on the source - conservatively 67,172 to 73,497.)What is worse is that in the end, we will walk away on our way to the shopping malls and not look back on the death and destruction we have caused. Bush and Cheney should be brought to the Hague and tried as war criminals. A western liberal democracy is not possible everywhere.

North Korea says "Hi"....

The Clinton policy of sign a piece of paper and hope they honor it didn't quite work so well there did it???

[ElkHunter]

Originally Posted by bily4

Yea I remember Colin Powell discussing those "suspicous movements" in his U.N. speech. Remember his initial reaction when he was given the draft? "I'm not reading this. This is B.S."
Now that speech will be a stain forever on an illustrious soldier's career.

Looking back which was the better approach - to use caution despite those "things" getting "moved around", or to blow the horn and charge in with the Stars and Stripes blowing in the wind. "Bring em on!" Crows our illustrious leader, bravely taunting the terrorists to attack our troops. Bush did something all right, no doubt about that.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are things that could have been done better. But isn't that always the case looking back? Everybody blames Bush. He is the final decision, but he's not the one that came up with the idea. He has several field commanders and advisors that are feeding him info and making suggestions. Bush weighs those suggestions and makes the decision. Recently there was a general that testified before congress saying that yes, in fact, he gave bad info to Bush. But he warned Bush to be cautious. But when you have a dozen or so field commanders and advisors telling you that now the time is ripe, and only one field commander that is hesitant, what do you do?

It's easy to be an Armchair General, but damn, I'd hate to be in Bush's shoes. There's no simple, or right answer. You have to go with what you have.

[bily4]

Originally Posted by rd2007

I think I mentioned somewhere else that facts get in the way of intraweb research
good job on bringing up very valid points (still no thumbup smiley)

he seriously said that? I've never heard that one before. do you have a link or something?

It was oringinally in US News and World Report, quoted in many different media sources.

Powell's doubts over CIA intelligence on Iraq prompted him to set up secret review | Iraq | Guardian Unlimited

[bily4]

Originally Posted by jgussler

Oh, don't get me wrong, there are things that could have been done better. But isn't that always the case looking back? Everybody blames Bush. He is the final decision, but he's not the one that came up with the idea. He has several field commanders and advisors that are feeding him info and making suggestions. Bush weighs those suggestions and makes the decision. Recently there was a general that testified before congress saying that yes, in fact, he gave bad info to Bush. But he warned Bush to be cautious. But when you have a dozen or so field commanders and advisors telling you that now the time is ripe, and only one field commander that is hesitant, what do you do?

It's easy to be an Armchair General, but damn, I'd hate to be in Bush's shoes. There's no simple, or right answer. You have to go with what you have.

My issue with Bush is - he doesn't seem to want to listen to anybody, unless they are reaffirming his own preconceived views.