The US in Iraq Poll

[Doboji]

I will add more questions and answered as needed....

 

[Todd33]

First off there is no "war" in Iraq. It's an occupation, we are not actively fighting anyone. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Driving around waiting for IUDs is not a war.

Second, you don't define "win", I really don't know what it means to win at this point. I guess you can loosely define it as the ability to withdrawal without the country instantly breaking out into civil war. In my opinion this is like Vietnam, we can keep things together as long as we baby sit the place wasting billions. What happens after is and always will be beyond our control, so when you are in a hole stop digging.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: Todd33
First off there is no "war" in Iraq. It's an occupation, we are not actively fighting anyone. Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Driving around waiting for IUDs is not a war.

exactly, if the poll question, "On a scale of 1-5 1 being extremely poor, 5 being extremely good, how would you say the Iraq war has been managed?"

i said 3. the actual war was managed very well. now, not so much.

also they won the war, just not the occupation.

 

[lozina]

Were there ever WMDs in Iraq? 15 votes - No

wtf, we have receipts for the WMDs we sold them during the Iran/Iraq war, so to think they never had WMDs is just as silly as the notion that they had WMDs at the time we invaded or the even more silly idea that WMDs was an actual reason for the Bush administration's desire to invade Iraq

 

[2Xtreme21]

Your last question is ambiguous. There were WMDs in Iraq when the US gave 'em to them, though not when it was given a reason for invasion.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Your last question is ambiguous. There were WMDs in Iraq when the US gave 'em to them, though not when it was given a reason for invasion.

ah yeah, come to think of that's what people are mostly thinking then. I read it literally, but I'm sure most of those who voted No thought of the question as WMDS being in Iraq while we were beating the war drums in 2003

 

[Doboji]

I think we're actually winning in Iraq... but we are winning far too slowly. The insurgency's whole strategy is to appear unending and undefeatable... they actually have a pretty sophisticated media campaign going.

I think that if we stay the course, we will eventually succeed... but I don't think america has the fortitude or patience to withstand the costs, and time it would take to actually win.

Which makes me angry... what makes us think we can just change something this big in such a huge way and at the same time be able to slide in and out without a scratch in no time flat. I said from the beginning... 30 years, 10,000 American casualties... and I think it would be worth it... I know I'm a hypocrit for saying 10,000 american lives when none of them include mine. But that is my opinion.

-Max

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Doboji
I think we're actually winning in Iraq... but we are winning far too slowly. The insurgency's whole strategy is to appear unending and undefeatable... they actually have a pretty sophisticated media campaign going.

I think that if we stay the course, we will eventually succeed... but I don't think america has the fortitude or patience to withstand the costs, and time it would take to actually win.

Which makes me angry... what makes us think we can just change something this big in such a huge way and at the same time be able to slide in and out without a scratch in no time flat. I said from the beginning... 30 years, 10,000 American casualties... and I think it would be worth it... I know I'm a hypocrit for saying 10,000 american lives when none of them include mine. But that is my opinion.

-Max

You're making the mistake that everyone seems to be making, that it's just about some nebulous "insurgency", and once we take care of them (in an occupation lasting far longer than it took to free and totally rebuild all of Europe in WWII, according to you) everything will be all rosy. Perhaps that was once true, but we've long since crossed a line...now the real threat is civil war. The insurgency may have been the spark, and the administration deserves blame for failing to stamp it out at the beginning when it would have been easier, but I think we're beyond the insurgents now...the slide to civil war seems to have enough critical mass to keep going all on its own. And now we're going to be faced with a new problem, one for which we don't have near enough troops to solve...trying to stand between several groups that all hate each other and comprise the majority of Iraqis. It's not some minority insurgency problem any more, it's slowly but surely transforming into something far more difficult to stop.

But you know what makes ME angry? The fact that people like you think all those lives are worth whatever we'll get at the end of this...giving a little dirtball country the "freedom" to hash out their deep hatred for their fellow countrymen for decades to come. THAT is worth 10,000 American deaths and 30 years of occupation? You go on and on about having the fortitude and patience to "win", but why the hell is that such an attractive option worth such sacrifice? It's not that I don't sympathize with the Iraqis, but if we're going to be the international freedom faeries, I say we start with people who actually WANT freedom and who are going to do something more productive with it than kill each other.