Anything Forums

Do you think it is right or wrong to send more troops to Iraq?
Why are we in Iraq in the first place?
Do you consider this a "civil war"?
and anything else you would like to comment on about the East.


i would love to hear your opinions and it also will help me more to understand this for my high school class. thank you


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58627

This should've been posted in the Debates subforum, but oh well.

Sending more troops is part of a solution, but it's more complex than just saying they need more troops. As the creators of the mess, it's our responsibility to do what we can to clean it up... to a point.

Justifications were declared as Saddam Hussein was impeding the UN Weapons Inspectors from effectively carrying out their work. Some of the intelligence the West received was dubious, and who knows how much of it was constructed. The reality is that Saddam was hindering the UN's efforts and needed to be dealt. Had the Coalition waited longer to see if he'd crack, who knows, thing could have ended differently, either with the Europeans more heavily involved in the military action, or no war having taken place. Unfortunately, what we have now is a state that may ultimately end up hostile to the West and influenced, at least to some extent, by Iran.

It's difficult to say whether or not it's a "civil war" per se. Not too long ago, I'd have said 'sure', but now I'm more hesitant. However, if things devolve once again and the country is thrown into bitter chaos, there is the potential for the conflict to spread elsewhere in the region as Shia nations/groups send fighters to Iraq to fight the Sunnis and vice versa. The Kurds may declare their own autonomy which could set the Turks off due to their bitter relationship with the Kurdish population and an ongoing guerrilla war/terror campaign by Kurdish separatists in the SE of Turkey.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58631

Stasi wrote:

Justifications were declared as Saddam Hussein was impeding the UN Weapons Inspectors from effectively carrying out their work.

  The reality is that Saddam was hindering the UN's efforts and needed to be dealt. 

North Korea stands up and yells from the highest hilltop

'WE HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"

while Iraq says

"an empty hand has nothing to give"

So the coaliton invades Iraq? What reality does this make sence? - Don't get me wrong Sadam is a terrible person and had committed many terrible things allbeit before 9/11

The iraq war is nothing more than a 'scapegoat' for the premeditated failure to capture 'Osama bin ladin'

It is no mistake he has not been caught. Also the so called justification was a "hindering of UN efforts" - the violation was to the UN so to would be the remedy?


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58632

Where in my post did I say the invasion was justified? I simply said he needed to be dealt with and then went on to say that had we waited, the way things played out and the ultimate result could have been or could be more favorable.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58633

scherzo wrote: It is no mistake he has not been caught.

I don't know that it's no mistake that bin Laden hasn't been caught and neither do you. Conspiracy-theory ramblings without sensible arguments or evidence are silly.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58634

Operation
Iraqy
Liberation

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58646

Stasi wrote: Where in my post did I say the invasion was justified?  I simply said he needed to be dealt with and then went on to say that had we waited, the way things played out and the ultimate result could have been or could be more favorable.

Justifications were declared as Saddam Hussein was impeding the UN Weapons Inspectors

I do not see how the ultimate result would have been any other way? the demand made during this 'waiting' period was 'turn over Saddam' -- Umm, pretty silly demand. who actually expected him to comply?

Okay we have an impossible demand (an impossible demand is seen as No demand), then there is the violation to the U.N. for which the U.N. would seek remedy, then we have the WHOLE purpose of the war, suspicion of WMD's while N. Korea tells the whole world they have them.

so with this logic, the ultimate more favorable result would have been for Sadam to actually have WMD's and tell everyone, this way the war could have been avoided?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58661

Once again, where in my post did I say the invasion was justified? Just because I'm referring to justifications declared by el Presidente, et al doesn't mean I'm personally saying it was justified. Take an English course or two....

"Justifications were declared..." (implication is those with the power to direct policy were declaring justifications for action) "... as Saddam Hussein was impeding the UN Weapons Inspectors from effectively carrying out their work."

I do not see how the ultimate result would have been any other way? the demand made during this 'waiting' period was 'turn over Saddam' -- Umm, pretty silly demand. who actually expected him to comply?

Personal incredulity disproves nothing. And I have no recollection of anyone saying "turn over Saddam" during the waiting(?) period. I do remember that sort of demand being made of the Taliban in Afghanistan to turn over Osama.

Okay we have an impossible demand (an impossible demand is seen as No demand), then there is the violation to the U.N. for which the U.N. would seek remedy, then we have the WHOLE purpose of the war, suspicion of WMD's while N. Korea tells the whole world they have them.

so with this logic, the ultimate more favorable result would have been for Sadam to actually have WMD's and tell everyone, this way the war could have been avoided?

Well, there was a difference in the geopolitical situation between Iraq and its neighbors (largely antagonistic with no powerful supporters) and North Korea, a regional thorn, but nonetheless something of a "little brother" to the People's Republic of China. The immediate ramifications of jumping into a war with NK were more severe than that of Iraq. You can't launch a major conflict in China's (and Russia's) back yard and not have critical consequences, more critical, in my opinion, than what we've faced being embroiled in Iraq.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58662

Red Squirrel wrote: Operation
Iraqy
Liberation

That's actually not the name of the operation.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58674

Stasi wrote:

Justifications were declared as Saddam Hussein was impeding the UN Weapons Inspectors from effectively carrying out their work.

as you were not 'quoting' a source, but the author of the use of the word 'justifications' It is understood that you had choosen your words carefully.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58715

scherzo wrote:

Stasi wrote:

Justifications were declared as Saddam Hussein was impeding the UN Weapons Inspectors from effectively carrying out their work.

as you were not 'quoting' a source, but the author of the use of the word 'justifications' It is understood that you had choosen your words carefully.

I'm not sure, but I suppose you're trying to say that since I wasn't quoting a source and used the word "justifications", I was choosing my words carefully and am therefore some closet fan of the Bush war?

Obviously, you have no concept of context. What in the paragraph in which the sentence you quote and can't seem to grasp of gives you the impression that I'm glad we went to war? I clearly state that something needed to be done about Saddam, and I clearly state that had the administration been less hungry for war, we'd probably be in a better position than we are now. What about that gives you the impression that I think the war was justified? You don't know me. Just because I think your explanation or thoughts on something are weak doesn't mean I support what you oppose.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58727

Stasi wrote:

scherzo wrote:

Stasi wrote:

Justifications were declared as Saddam Hussein was impeding the UN Weapons Inspectors from effectively carrying out their work.

as you were not 'quoting' a source, but the author of the use of the word 'justifications' It is understood that you had choosen your words carefully.

I'm not sure, but I suppose you're trying to say that since I wasn't quoting a source and used the word "justifications", I was choosing my words carefully and am therefore some closet fan of the Bush war?

Obviously, you have no concept of context. What in the paragraph in which the sentence you quote and can't seem to grasp of gives you the impression that I'm glad we went to war? I clearly state that something needed to be done about Saddam, and I clearly state that had the administration been less hungry for war, we'd probably be in a better position than we are now. What about that gives you the impression that I think the war was justified? You don't know me. Just because I think your explanation or thoughts on something are weak doesn't mean I support what you oppose.

Okay then I'll ask straight out

in your opinion was the invasion (war) justified?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58737

No, I don't believe the war was justified. Moreover, I think the Bush Administration did a piss-poor job planning the war and its aftermath.

That said, if you make a mess in a room you shouldn't have been in, it's your responsibility to clean it up. I'm a pragmatist and feel that since we're involved, we might as well make the best of it, but I'm not very optimistic at all about what the future holds.

Also, with more broad support, better planning, and stronger resistance from Saddam, perhaps war could have been justified at some point later than it occurred, but no, the war as it happened was not justified.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58739

Stasi wrote: What in the paragraph in which the sentence you quote and can't seem to grasp of gives you the impression that I'm glad we went to war? 

Wow, what an atrocious sentence.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:58740

Stasi wrote:

Stasi wrote: What in the paragraph in which the sentence you quote and can't seem to grasp of gives you the impression that I'm glad we went to war? 

Wow, what an atrocious sentence.

my son is thinking of joining the army l am pleased for him but also worried GOD BLESS ALL THE BOYS OUT THERE

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:63127

rissa wrote:

Stasi wrote:

Stasi wrote: What in the paragraph in which the sentence you quote and can't seem to grasp of gives you the impression that I'm glad we went to war? 

Wow, what an atrocious sentence.

my son is thinking of joining the army l am pleased for him but also worried GOD BLESS ALL THE BOYS OUT THERE

/agree
boys & girls

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3191, old post ID:63132