[GOD]

Originally Posted by crandc

And let us not forget one in three American servicewomen report being raped or sexually abused by American servicemen. Yet, these men are supposed to protect Iraqi women's rights.

Holy crap!! Is this true? I did not know this was the case, do you have a link, I would like to read more about it. I knew there were a lot of reported incidents, but had no idea the numbers were so high.

[Sug]

Did you know that Iraq's standard of education prior to the war was one of the highest in the world?

Did you know that people had running water and electricity before the war, and yet six years later there are still parts that have yet to have the damage repaired?

Did you know that there are many people in Iraq that are developing cancer as a result of depleated uranium from U.S. shells? (Google Iragi birth defects)

Did you also know that nearly one million Iraqis have been killed, injured or displaced as a result of the war?

Let me guess, war aint pretty. Well either is hell, and I am sure that the folks that planned and supported this war will have fun discussing it in a warm climate for the rest of enternity.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by hasoos

Ok so if things are going so well why are we still there? That's what I thought....

Really? That's what you thought? It's pretty clear that despite the progress we have made, there is still work to be done. All the victories we have achieved could be lost if the Iraqi military and police are not ready to take over when we pull out. Until they are, we should stay.

While it is nice to bring out some numbers, and have absolutely nothing to compare them to, I'll throw one out for you to chew on. The number of Police Officers Iraq is supposed to have by now is 300,000. This is just one of many goals not being met in Iraq. Number sure seem big and positive when they have no reference point don't they?

So every "goal" has to be met in order to justify the fight? The "war on poverty" that was started in the 1960's never did meet its goals, yet lots of people in Congress seem to think we should still keep fighting it, and keep doling out millions of dollars in entitlement programs. There have been failures galore in that "battle," yet we keep on fighting . . .

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

So every "goal" has to be met in order to justify the fight? The "war on poverty" that was started in the 1960's never did meet its goals, yet lots of people in Congress seem to think we should still keep fighting it, and keep doling out millions of dollars in entitlement programs. There have been failures galore in that "battle," yet we keep on fighting . . .

Okay... you do know that in the phrase "war on poverty" "war" is not meant in the literal sense, right? 4,000 US soldiers haven't died fighting the war on poverty.

[Sug]

Forget "did you know" and don't ever forget. These folks died for a manufactured cause. The real fight was not in Iraq, and the person that attacked us still lives to mock the deaths of these brave men and women. Yet George Bush says he doesn't spend much time on Bin Laden anymore.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Sug

Forget "did you know" and don't ever forget. These folks died for a manufactured cause.

You mean Saddam Hussein was not an evil dictator, and did not kill millions of his own people? You mean he didn't support terrorism, and give cash awards to families whose sons died as suicide bombers? You mean he wasn't trying to acquire WMD? You mean he was no threat to Israel? You mean he was a force for peace and stability in the world?

Or do you mean that a democratic Iraq would not make a difference in the Middle East? Or are you trying to say that the thousands and thousands of U.S. troops who firmly believe in their mission and think it is vitally important for us to win in Iraq are just deluded fools who don't know what they're talking about?

[Sug]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

You mean Saddam Hussein was not an evil dictator, and did not kill millions of his own people? You mean he didn't support terrorism, and give cash awards to families whose sons died as suicide bombers? You mean he wasn't trying to acquire WMD? You mean he was no threat to Israel? You mean he was a force for peace and stability in the world?

Or do you mean that a democratic Iraq would not make a difference in the Middle East? Or are you trying to say that the thousands and thousands of U.S. troops who firmly believe in their mission and think it is vitally important for us to win in Iraq are just deluded fools who don't know what they're talking about?

You forgot to add in, with the support of the United States. Saddam was supported and supplied by the United States for years. When he killed those people, he was an ally to the United States.

As for US troops, stop using them as a shield. They do their job, and their job is not to question. The try to complete the mission because that is their job. People who hide behind the troops, dishonor them. My grandfathers, uncles, and father all served in a time of war. They have had several discussions with me about the difference between politics and war. When you try to connect the military to the political objectives you have already made a fatal flaw. Soiliers are not there to resolve the situation, they are there to stabalize. That is not working out very well, and they know it better than anyone.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by Sug

You forgot to add in, with the support of the United States. Saddam was supported and supplied by the United States for years. When he killed those people, he was an ally to the United States.

Makes no difference. He was an evil guy and he needed to be taken out. We did so.

As for US troops, stop using them as a shield. They do their job, and their job is not to question. The try to complete the mission because that is their job.

Really? When John Kerry spoke out against Vietnam, he was lauded as a hero by the left. If his job was not to question, why was he questioning? And if it was okay for him to question, then it is surely okay for others to firmly believe in their mission.

You do our troops a terrible injustice (and insult them), by suggesting that, "of course they're going to support the war. That's their job." This portrays them as robots and drones instead of intelligent, rational people who believe in this country, and in fighting for freedom, and who know they have done a terrific thing in liberating the people of Iraq from the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

People who hide behind the troops, dishonor them.

What a ridiculous statement. I'm not hiding behind the troops, I'm CELEBRATING them. They are saving the people of Iraq from decades of oppression and fear and giving them a chance at a better life. That makes them heroes in my eyes.

Soiliers are not there to resolve the situation, they are there to stabalize. That is not working out very well, and they know it better than anyone.

And yet almost to a man they want us to stay in Iraq. And they know "better than anyone" what kind of price we will pay, and the world will pay, if we withdraw before the job is done.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

You mean Saddam Hussein was not an evil dictator, and did not kill millions of his own people? You mean he didn't support terrorism, and give cash awards to families whose sons died as suicide bombers? You mean he wasn't trying to acquire WMD? You mean he was no threat to Israel? You mean he was a force for peace and stability in the world?

Or do you mean that a democratic Iraq would not make a difference in the Middle East? Or are you trying to say that the thousands and thousands of U.S. troops who firmly believe in their mission and think it is vitally important for us to win in Iraq are just deluded fools who don't know what they're talking about?

He means that Saddam Hussein had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11, which was the battle cry back then. Especially if you take into account that there are SEVERAL more "evil" dictators that are ahead of Saddam on the "dictator" totem pole.

[2k]

Originally Posted by hoojacks

Good news about Iraq!

Did you know Iraq has the highest population of unicorns per capita?

Did you know that approximately 170,000 Iraqis learned to breakdance in the year 2005?

teh funny

[2k]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

Makes no difference. He was an evil guy and he needed to be taken out. We did so.

It makes a hell of a difference for a variety of reasons.

Good lord if you end up fighting a government that you helped arm you have to reevaluate where policy went wrong especially when it happened under the father of the current president. Its not like two vastly different ideologies were running the country.

One of the reasons why we misjudged Iraqi resistance was because we didn’t factor in how self-serving we would look invading a country we helped arm when it was beneficial to us. If you just reduce it to fighting evil you lose the nuance of thought.

Really? When John Kerry spoke out against Vietnam, he was lauded as a hero by the left. If his job was not to question, why was he questioning? And if it was okay for him to question, then it is surely okay for others to firmly believe in their mission.

Soldiers have a point in which they are to break from orders. Many soldiers pass this point and bare responsibility for war crimes if they dont oppose their orders. Its not an easy thing to do and sometimes soldiers become robotic to numb their conscience In Nam we passed that point long before Kerry spoke out. He was just doing his job and he was a hero to all Americans for doing it.

You do our troops a terrible injustice (and insult them), by suggesting that, "of course they're going to support the war. That's their job." This portrays them as robots and drones instead of intelligent, rational people who believe in this country, and in fighting for freedom, and who know they have done a terrific thing in liberating the people of Iraq from the tyrant Saddam Hussein.

Iraq is considered the second worse humanitarian crisis in the world. Trading an impotent dictator for that is not a great thing epically when competent government could have deposed Saddam and set up a representative government with the same casualty rate as the Bosnian war.

And yet almost to a man they want us to stay in Iraq. And they know "better than anyone" what kind of price we will pay, and the world will pay, if we withdraw before the job is done.

What??

Have you seen this poll?

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
This is 2006

An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

How about a more recent poll?
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...142665,00.html

[maxiep]

Originally Posted by Sug

You forgot to add in, with the support of the United States. Saddam was supported and supplied by the United States for years. When he killed those people, he was an ally to the United States.

Let's be clear about our relationship with the Baathists in Iraq in the 1980s--they were the enemy of our enemy, they were not our friend. Look at their weapons inventory. They were supplied by the Soviets and the French, not the US. We gave Saddam Hussein just enough information and help to fight the Iranians to a stalemate; President Reagan didn't have Saddam in Washington for a sleepover in the Lincoln bedroom.

Originally Posted by Sug