Would more U.S. troops help stop Iraq violence?

[213374U]

You might even consider that we all of us on this planet lost the "cold war". Look what we have now.  :crazy:

Lol.

 

 

The people of Iraq didn't decide what is Iraq, the British did

Good point, but irrelevant. They've had more than enough time to get used to the idea and learn to live in peace.

 

 

Now let's just theorize on this for a moment.. The Coalition pulls out and full blown civil war preceeds. What do you think will be the outcome of this? knowing which factions are most likey to sue for control - and what kind of goverment do you think will take control? I believe we will see religious extremists or a new facist faction "winning" .. is this favorable? I don't think it is..

It is favorable. For starters, you don't know what the political landscape will be like after a possible civil war. And even in the event of a rabidly fundamentalist, warmongering, anti-western faction gaining supremacy, it would take them a long time to rebuild and rearm the country into something that can be a threat. And when they do, well. If they are stupid enough to try and pull that one again after what's cost them, they deserve what's coming to them, quite frankly.

 

 

somtimes - even if it's hard, we must assume the role of the "responsible" party. Since we, willingly or not, are mainly responsible for the current situation in Iraq, it's therefore irresponsible for us to simply let them fight it out amongst themselves.. In the western world, most of our countries have moved through a civil war prior to democracy - but is that necessary?

Why this paternalist obsession with fixing their problems? The US didn't cause those problems, mind you. They only destabilized the already fragile balance that had been imposed (by means of strongarm and terror tactics, too) by Saddam. So, no. The invaders destroyed their state, and later helped them build a new one. However they can't seem to keep tribal feuds and old hatreds from resurfacing in the worst possible way... and there's very little anyone can do to stop that, even if we wanted to.

 

 

I believe we must help the transistion, no matter what the cost is to us at this point. Much like we would step in and resolve the conflicts between two factions within our own society, we must remain and keep the agression focused on us (as Iraq have stepped into our circle of allies now) - it's a sacrifice that would most likely ensure the stability of Iraq for long time .. and I would rather have a democracy that is a bit ambivalent towards us, than an extremist or facist leadership that needs to vent agression outwards to keep itself stabile.

The transition is complete, in case you have forgotten. The only transition that remains for the Iraqi people is the one that will make them into a fully mature society capable of living in peace without the threat of overwhelming force. Virtually all "modern" societies achieved this, by means of bloody (civil) wars. So why do you think it can be different with the Iraqi, even after facts suggest otherwise? Where do we draw the line and just quit, according to you?

 

Also, and just for the sake of coherence, would you be willing to serve as a peacekeeper in a military unit in Iraq?

 

 

Once Osama seemed quite unatainable the US sensibly went out and created some more terrorism to fight, since the desire for military intervention was not quite spent with Afghanistan. Now they are out there protecting America from another 9/11 by dealing with the hornet's nest they stirred up.... In Iraq.

Lol.

[Dark Moth]

 

Best way to lose an argument is to label your foe. In this case, a voicer anti-American, especially since he states real facts. Because it is you who view the argument one-dimensionally.

 

My my, you're a laugh. You haven't stated any facts. The only things you've stated are the same nonsensical propaganda that makes me weep for Americans today. And my view is far from one-dimensional, but take it however you want.

 

They wanted Saddam out. They also want the US. We aren't well liked there. They want us out. Their followers are increasing and increasing.

Get your "facts" straight. Once again, it has less to do with us and more to do with the fact that the Iraqis simply are caught in a civil war. A civil war that THEY started. The Americans didn't provoke it so much as merely create a power vacuum that allowed it to happen. You're also blatantly ignoring the reason we're still there in the first place: to try and stop this insurgency, stabilize the country, and hopefully save more lives. Not that you'll admit it, of course. Truth hurts, I know. Bush committed a serious error in 2003 by not solidifying our power there when we had the chance. Instead, he reduced troops and opened the door for the insurgency to take place.

 

If we aren't, then why don't we get out? Nothing to do with us right? Why stay in Iraq?  :crazy:

Maybe because we're still needed, both there and in Iraq, genius? :crazy: The Taliban are still around you know. Maybe you'd rather us just leave and leave the job unfinished, right? What a humanitarian you are.

 

You hate the truth. Understandable. Truth hurts, as does real life. Maybe a part of the reason is that we helped Saddam decades earlier, then after hating him we put economic sanctions on the country and let the people starve.

What do you mean I hate the truth? As laughable as it is hearing that from you, I never shy away from the truth. Is it wrong to hate the fact that apparently a ruthless dictator had to keep Iraqis from killing each other? Also, I doubt we would have helped Saddam "decades" earlier if we knew what he would become. Also, don't even bother to try and place the blame on us for those economic sanctions. Those economic sanctions were because of Saddam. Hell, they weren't even solely our doing as you try to make it seem. If Saddam actually did care about his people, he would have stepped down and allowed the sanctions to be lifted. Also, instead of blaming us for starving poor Iraqis, maybe you should blame Saddam for the oil-for-food scandal. Remember that? Saddam bought things with the oil money, but it wasn't all food, I guarantee you. :joy: Maybe if he had bought food with it, the Iraqis wouldn't have been starving so much.

 

As of this time 3000 US killed, ten times that number more wounded/maimed/aputated for life, more suffering from PTSD of killing innocent kids. As for Iraqi deaths, a LOT probably. Especially those who help out the USA to feed their families after we F'ed up their countries infrasturcture and economy with economic sanctions long before the war.  You're only an oxymoron.

"Killing innocent kids" God, you're pathetic. Tell me, how many Americans go out and purposely or accidentally shoot kids? Better yet, how many kids have died from terrorist attacks? Maybe you remember that incident about a suicide bomb going off right next to a group of children being given toys by US troops? Don't even try to pull that bull**** on me. Frankly, it's boring, it's pathetic, and frankly it makes me sick that people like you repeatedly demonize our troops while ignoring the atrocities committed by our own enemies. As for the economic sanctions, see my point above. I'm an oxymoron? Hardly.

 

So insecure of your stance that you try to place a last word statement? Ain't that easy when you're on the losing side.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Losing side? HAHAHA! Seriously, it's not the time for jokes. Trust me, I'm very secure in my stance. Unlike you, I have the comfort of knowing I can back up my statements and am not just spewing off random propaganda fed to me by the liberal media. Trust me, I've heard this stuff before. I've heard better arguments, and from people more convincing than you. You don't impress me. I've heard this stuff from you plenty of times before, and frankly it's hard to take you seriously. Case closed.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Dark Moth

[Volourn]

"Do I like the fact that we started a civil war?"

 

No, 'we' didn't. The Iraqis did. And, it didn't just start recently. It's been happening for DECADES. In fact, I dare say, it's likely bene happening since the split between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims. There's a reason why Saddam favored the Sunnis. Let's face it, Iraq has been in a civil war for a very long time. The only difference now is that one side used to have all the power. Now, the other side can actually effectively fight back.

 

To somehow blame the evasion for the hatred between these two Iraqi sects is nonsense.

[Rosbjerg]

You've changed my mind Rosberg about responisbility but its such a clusterfu## that what can we do! Its a lose-lose situation. A middle ground would be great, but where is it really?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm more concerned with what works rather than keeping everyone happy.. and it's not a lose/lose situation at all - it's ****ed up, true! but that doesn't mean all hope for progress is lost.

 

Now let's just theorize on this for a moment.. The Coalition pulls out and full blown civil war preceeds. What do you think will be the outcome of this? knowing which factions are most likey to sue for control - and what kind of goverment do you think will take control? I believe we will see religious extremists or a new facist faction "winning" .. is this favorable? I don't think it is..

It is favorable. [1] For starters, you don't know what the political landscape will be like after a possible civil war. And even in the event of a rabidly fundamentalist, warmongering, anti-western faction gaining supremacy, it would take them a long time to rebuild and rearm the country into something that can be a threat. And when they do, well. If they are stupid enough to try and pull that one again after what's cost them, they deserve what's coming to them, quite frankly.

 

I believe we must help the transistion, no matter what the cost is to us at this point. Much like we would step in and resolve the conflicts between two factions within our own society, we must remain and keep the agression focused on us (as Iraq have stepped into our circle of allies now) - it's a sacrifice that would most likely ensure the stability of Iraq for long time .. and I would rather have a democracy that is a bit ambivalent towards us, than an extremist or facist leadership that needs to vent agression outwards to keep itself stabile.

The transition is complete, in case you have forgotten. The only transition that remains for the Iraqi people is the one that will make them into a fully mature society capable of living in peace without the threat of overwhelming force. Virtually all "modern" societies achieved this, by means of bloody (civil) wars. So why do you think it can be different with the Iraqi, even after facts suggest otherwise? [2]Where do we draw the line and just quit, according to you?

[3]Also, and just for the sake of coherence, would you be willing to serve as a peacekeeper in a military unit in Iraq?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[1] To just sit idle by and watch someone even more cruel take the mantle of dictator only to eventually be forced to move in again later and crush a new merging power - is not only stupid and shortsigthed but also signs of a dangerously ignorant attitude towards others. Especially saying that they derserve what's coming to them .. I won't punish you for being the friendly neighbour of a serial killer. (A rather limited analogy - but you get the point)

 

[2] When the people of Iraq are ready to assume control (and ask us to leave).. which they aren't at this point.. and when the brewing civil war is merely people debating instead of fighting. This might be some years from now - but that's what we've chosen to involve ourselves in, now we must see it through! I wouldn't mind USA being "world police" if they demonstrate that they are capable of it. And I do see the irony in being willing to force freedom on others.

 

[3] If it was absolutely necessary yes.. but as long as I have the luxury of choice, no.. I won't kill, or be ready to kill, unless I'm forced to it.

[213374U]

[1] To just sit idle by and watch someone even more cruel take the mantle of dictator only to eventually be forced to move in again later and crush a new merging power - is not only stupid and shortsigthed but also signs of a dangerously ignorant attitude towards others. Especially saying that they derserve what's coming to them .. I won't punish you for being the friendly neighbour of a serial killer. (A rather limited analogy - but you get the point)

Again, you are making assumptions about the post-civil war scenario - you don't know what would happen. And what I'm saying is not any more stupid than proposing that US forces stay there suffering casualties indefinitely to stop a war that may or may not end, even more so considering that the locals don't want it to end. And from where I hail, I would be punished for being the friendly neighbor of a serial killer, if I did know what he is, and didn't do whatever I could to stop him (in most cases, report him). So, yeah.

 

 

[2] When the people of Iraq are ready to assume control (and ask us to leave).. which they aren't at this point.. and when the brewing civil war is merely people debating instead of fighting. This might be some years from now - but that's what we've chosen to involve ourselves in, now we must see it through! I wouldn't mind USA being "world police" if they demonstrate that they are capable of it. And I do see the irony in being willing to force freedom on others.

The same hypocritical and sickening paternalist garbage. Why must we solve the problems of other people, when solving those problems themselves may be in fact what they need to progress past the barbarism they are immersed in? What if they don't want to talk?

 

I'll say it again, since it seems you didn't get it the first time. We already tried providing them with the means by which they can solve their disputes in a civilized manner. Instead they chose to go out and start a civil war. The US' aim with the war wasn't to solve the ancient (yes, ancient) differences in an ethnically, politically, and religiously complex region. The aim was to bring down Saddam's government. That's what was done, and reparations were provided for that. The US is not the "world police", nor will it ever be. That's a bland caricature of the media. International politics isn't about law and order, good and evil, or anything else. They are about interests, and the US is just protecting their own.

 

 

[3] If it was absolutely necessary yes.. but as long as I have the luxury of choice, no.. I won't kill, or be ready to kill, unless I'm forced to it.

I see... and still you would demand of others what you would not do willingly yourself. Interesting.

 

Indeed, armchair politics is just great fun.

Edited January 10, 2007 by 213374U

[kumquatq3]

here we go again

[Guest The Architect]

IMO, a U.S. military escalation in Iraq would not be enough to stop the violence there. I personally think anti-militia legislation, a mishmash of jobs, better Iraqi security forces and provincial elections would be more effective in preventing the countries apparent plunge towards an all out civil war than what sending more troops there would. Meh, I

Edited January 10, 2007 by The Architect

[Eddo36]

Maybe because we're still needed, both there and in Iraq, genius?  The Taliban are still around you know. Maybe you'd rather us just leave and leave the job unfinished, right? What a humanitarian you are.

 

I'm talking about Iraq only. By "job" that needs to be finish you mean the quagmire started by the US? That's really humanitarian.

 

"Killing innocent kids" God, you're pathetic. Tell me, how many Americans go out and purposely or accidentally shoot kids? Better yet, how many kids have died from terrorist attacks? Maybe you remember that incident about a suicide bomb going off right next to a group of children being given toys by US troops? Don't even try to pull that bull**** on me. Frankly, it's boring, it's pathetic, and frankly it makes me sick that people like you repeatedly demonize our troops while ignoring the atrocities committed by our own enemies. As for the economic sanctions, see my point above. I'm an oxymoron? Hardly.

 

Whoa using profanity now. You seriously don't need to overuse smileys and resort to flames and deep sarcasm if this wasn't getting to you, for it only shows your insecurity in that matter.

 

And purpose or "accident" or "friendly buddy fire" are all the same. Just because they didn't mean to (except in that case where they got to rape the Iraqi girls and shoot the whole family to cover it up, or when they shoot innocent people when they can't find insurgents) don't matter. They signed up. They invaded a prefectly good country and messed it up by making it volatile, causing hundred upon thousands of civilian casualties. They secured their place in Valhalla. And so do anyone who is supporting it, for the blood is on your hands as well as theirs by you wanting them to be there to kill and get killed for a pointless reason by USA's own wiretapping invading dictator who ordered his minions to start the crap that hit the fan. Just on par with Nazi stormtroopers of the 1940's era, and the excuse of "oh I'm just following orders" didn't cut it for those Nazis at Nuremberg, because they got hanged anyhow.

 

They got to give toys because they probably killed the kid's dad in the war, making orphans and amputees by accidently bombing their homes. Trying to build up a little PR because the Iraqis are all pissed off at them by being there, and able to bang in their house every now and then on a constant basis and flexicuffing them in futile search of insurgents.

 

And now past those economic sanctions of that past, the entire Iraqi infrastructure is in shambles because of the invasion. Water sources, in shambles. Agriculture, shambles. The Iraqi military and police is ruined and cannot maintian order anymore. And it's the fault of the soldiers for doing it US soldiers and their very few allies even though the invasion was condemned by the UN secetary general and the World Court at that time.

 

The purpose of the invasion was to find WMD's. Did they find any? No. So the reason was switched to topple a dictator of a country where people don't want USA soldiers around? Despite the fact that USA supported Saddam some time earlier in the Iraq-Iran war? tsk tsk

 

Maybe if conservatives didn't thump their bible in a Muslim world, this wouldn't have happened. USA already made a bad page for itself in future history books. Along with countless others. To the people who fight willingly and support it, congrats on being part of that history. Especially those who don't believe in the cause, but are still fighting anyways because it's their "duty" to defend USA by invading and mesing up a once harmless country on the other side of the globe that posed no threat to national security. It takes people like them to make the world go around. GO USA! WOOT! And all that. Because USA is the perfect country and always the good guy, and can't be dead wrong and responsible for lighting the match for the current fiasco resulting in so many lives lost.

 

Their weakness is pride.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Eddo36

[alanschu]

So there are less insurgents now than there was in 2003? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's simply because there are more US troops in Iraq. I figured even you'd be able to figure that out. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh it's because the invasion, and initial and previous troop buildup for occupation started pissing them off? With all those "friendly" fires demolishing homes with smart bombs and soldiers from a country of a much different religion and implying new and unwelcomed sets of ideas to their country's culture, government and social way of life, led by a bible thumping conservative start raping a few of them and kill much more Iraqis, either those who are innocent or those who wants them out for that same exact reason?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why would someone that is not already motivated to be an insurgent, become one if more troops are added to a situation where there is already an occupation going on?

[Sand]

so let me get this straight, you believe the best course of action is to leave Iraq and let the different factions fight it out amongst themselves?

 

Yes.

 

Now let's just theorize on this for a moment.. The Coalition pulls out and full blown civil war preceeds. What do you think will be the outcome of this? knowing which factions are most likey to sue for control - and what kind of goverment do you think will take control? I believe we will see religious extremists or a new facist faction "winning" .. is this favorable? I don't think it is..

 

Favorable or not, that is for the people of Iraq to decide and not us.

 

somtimes - even if it's hard, we must assume the role of the "responsible" party.

 

We are not responsible for Iraq. We are only responsible for ourselves. We are not the police of the world.

 

Since we, willingly or not, are mainly responsible for the current situation in Iraq, it's therefore irresponsible for us to simply let them fight it out amongst themselves..

 

The Bush Administration is responsible, but not the current US Congress. In two more years when Bush is out of office we will no longer have any responsibility in Iraq. Hopefully at that time no American soldier will be in that country.

 

In the western world, most of our countries have moved through a civil war prior to democracy - but is that necessary?

 

Violence is a inherit nature of humankind. Sucks doesn't it. I do believe it is a necessary growing pain.

 

I believe we must help the transistion, no matter what the cost is to us at this point. Much like we would step in and resolve the conflicts between two factions within our own society, we must remain and keep the agression focused on us (as Iraq have stepped into our circle of allies now) - it's a sacrifice that would most likely ensure the stability of Iraq for long time .. and I would rather have a democracy that is a bit ambivalent towards us, than an extremist or facist leadership that needs to vent agression outwards to keep itself stabile.

 

There are some things one cannot help another in, that is true in the case of individuals as well as nations. We need to step back and let Iraqi handle this themselves without our interference or the interference of its neighbors. Calling for a sacrifice is all well and good if the sacrifice is warranted. In this case it is not. Iraq needs one thing and that is self determination, and it will only achieve that on its own.

 

In short, it's what would be most beneficial to the most people in the long run.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What is beneficial is Iraq standing on its own two feet without the help of others. In order to do that they need this civil war. They are going to have this civil war with or without our interference. Only thing we can do is get in the way and get killed or stand out of the way and watch. I know which one I prefer.

[alanschu]

Why must they have civil war?

Edited January 10, 2007 by alanschu

[Sand]

Because right now they are focused on their differences and that will always lead to violence. Only way to move past that is to remove the violence, to make them sick of fighting, sick of killing, and realize their similarities. A civil war is necessary in this. It is something the Iraqis have to realize on their own for it cannot be forced upon them, and in the end it will make them a stronger nation.

[alanschu]

Do you base this on anything, or is it just what you feel?

[Sand]

Basing it on our own Civil War. Our civil war had a long lead up period, and then it had a spark. It was a necessary event that made the United States stronger in the long run.

[alanschu]

Is following in the footsteps of the United States really the best thing?

 

 

Have all "successful" nations had civil wars?

[Sand]

No, but in some cases they were not needed. In some cases they are. For the US it was needed, as it is needed in Iraq.

 

For better or worse the US is a fairly strong and stable country with a good amount of freedoms that most other countries do not have. With all of its warts, yes, I do believe that following the US footsteps is the best thing for Iraq. Well, maybe not the exact footsteps. They really need to avoid Reagonomics.

[alanschu]

But you said it will be because the Iraqi will get sick of fighting. Why would they get sick of fighting?

[Sand]

But you said it will be because the Iraqi will get sick of fighting.  Why would they get sick of fighting?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you do something for far too long you will eventually get sick of it. At least I do.

[213374U]

Have all "successful" nations had civil wars?

Either civil wars, revolutions, or devastating conflicts with the surrounding groups or cultures (as the present concept of "nation" is quite new, historically), yes.

 

Change is never easy. And it often demands that a price is paid in blood.

[alanschu]

I am aware that the concept of a nation is relatively new. Well, the Nation-State anyways.

 

How specific do you have to be though. Australia committed atrocities against the indigenous aborginies, but did they have a civil war, revolution, or a devastating conflict?

 

The British and French frequently had colonial wars, but what is Canada's history of civil wars, revolutions, and devastating conflict? What civil wars, revolutions, or devastating conflicts did Sweden have after the concept of the Nation-State was conceived? They took part in conflicts prior to that (as did many other European countries), so I suppose that that is what you are looking at?

 

 

Besides, I specifically said "civil war," not revolutions, nor devastating conficts.

[Walsingham]

I apologise, but much as I'd love to pitch in, I have a work crisis on, but I'm sure you'll manage...

[Dark Moth]

I'm talking about Iraq only. By "job" that needs to be finish you mean the quagmire started by the US? That's really humanitarian.

 

I'm talking about both jobs, genius. I see your astound sense of logic is only matched by your reading comprehension. ^_^

 

Whoa using profanity now. You seriously don't need to overuse smileys and resort to flames and deep sarcasm if this wasn't getting to you, for it only shows your insecurity in that matter.

 

And purpose or "accident" or "friendly buddy fire" are all the same. Just because they didn't mean to (except in that case where they got to rape the Iraqi girls and shoot the whole family to cover it up, or when they shoot innocent people when they can't find insurgents) don't matter. They signed up. They invaded a prefectly good country and messed it up by making it volatile, causing hundred upon thousands of civilian casualties. They secured their place in Valhalla. And so do anyone who is supporting it, for the blood is on your hands as well as theirs by you wanting them to be there to kill and get killed for a pointless reason by USA's own wiretapping invading dictator who ordered his minions to start the crap that hit the fan. Just on par with Nazi stormtroopers of the 1940's era, and the excuse of "oh I'm just following orders" didn't cut it for those Nazis at Nuremberg, because they got hanged anyhow.

 

They got to give toys because they probably killed the kid's dad in the war, making orphans and amputees by accidently bombing their homes. Trying to build up a little PR because the Iraqis are all pissed off at them by being there, and able to bang in their house every now and then on a constant basis and flexicuffing them in futile search of insurgents.

 

And now past those economic sanctions of that past, the entire Iraqi infrastructure is in shambles because of the invasion. Water sources, in shambles. Agriculture, shambles. The Iraqi military and police is ruined and cannot maintian order anymore. And it's the fault of the soldiers for doing it US soldiers and their very few allies even though the invasion was condemned by the UN secetary general and the World Court at that time. 

 

The purpose of the invasion was to find WMD's. Did they find any? No. So the reason was switched to topple a dictator of a country where people don't want USA soldiers around? Despite the fact that USA supported Saddam some time earlier in the Iraq-Iran war? tsk tsk

 

Maybe if conservatives didn't thump their bible in a Muslim world, this wouldn't have happened. USA already made a bad page for itself in future history books. Along with countless others. To the people who fight willingly and support it, congrats on being part of that history. Especially those who don't believe in the cause, but are still fighting anyways because it's their "duty" to defend USA by invading and mesing up a once harmless country on the other side of the globe that posed no threat to national security. It takes people like them to make the world go around. GO USA! WOOT! And all that. Because USA is the perfect country and always the good guy, and can't be dead wrong and responsible for lighting the match for the current fiasco resulting in so many lives lost.

 

Their weakness is pride.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That wasn't a flame. Very deep sarcasm yes, but not a flame. Maybe instead of attacking my use of smilies and profanity, you should actually trying attacking the points I'm making. Oh, but it seems you can't. And as I said, I'm very secure in my position. I unlike you have at least some idea of what I'm talking about. If I do seem agitated, it's because I get a little tired of having to deal with people like you constantly. I don't know where your prejudice comes from, maybe you had a bad experience, or maybe you got beaten with the soap one too many times at boot camp, but it gets a little boring after a while. You've only spewed off propaganda and outrageous claims to try to justify your hatred of the US and its troops.

 

And yes, they did sign up. That does not make them mass murderers as you want people to believe. And I don't know where you pulled that crazy fact from, but Iraq was far from a perfectly good country. Maybe you don't see anything wrong with living under a bloodthirsty dictator, but I'm sure they did. Or maybe you should go live in the 90's Iraq or North Korea today and see what living under a real dictator was like. And by the way, believe it or not, the Iraqis did want us to topple Saddam in the first place. The man was not liked by his own people.

 

But back to the troops, yes they make mistakes. Yes, friendly fire happens and civilians die. That does not mean they did it on purpose, nor does that mean they are the bloodthirsty murderers you think they are. If you refuse to see that, I really can't help you. Fine, let their blood be on my hands. And let the blood of all American civilians, troops, and innocent Iraqis be on your hands for your despicable support of what the real murders do in Iraq. You really do make me sick, and frankly it appalls me that you feel the need to spout off your nonsense, trying to make monsters out of the very men and women who are dying overseas for ingrates like you. You try to pin everything that goes wrong on American and its troops, whether it be the civil war or the Iraq economy (which by the way is actually better today than it was under Saddam).

 

The absurdity of your stance is pretty much shown by what I've highlighted. You obviously couldn't hope to actually say anything that could be close to being true. Heck, you haven't even disproved a thing I've said. You've only kept spouting the same old boring drivel I've heard from you time after time. Frankly, given the gnat-like nature of your debating skills, that hardly comes as a surprise. And just to clarify something for you, yes WMD's were the main reason to go to Iraq, but they weren't the only reason. The reason also was that he was a brutal dictator who did in fact support terrorism. Or maybe you missed the times he publicly announced he funded suicide bombers and their families in Israel. And Saddam was a threat, even if only indirectly. And I guarantee you, if Saddam could have attained WMD's, he would have. Do you feel he should have been left in power? Answer me that.

 

I'll say it again, this has nothing to do with conservatives 'Bible thumping'. We thought a country was a threat, and we went in to take care of it. Yes, mistakes were made. Yes, it was handled poorly. Yes, we did make a mess. But at least we're trying to fix it. Or can you not comprehend that's the reason we're trying to send more troops over to begin with? The reason they're there is to fix the mess that we (and the Iraqis) have created. Or perhaps you would rather we do nothing, and just cut and run and leave the Iraqis to handle themselves. How caring of you.

[Volourn]

"what is Canada's history of civil wars, revolutions, and devastating conflict?"

 

Read up on the Kanada-Indian Conflict. People seem to forget that the US is not the only NA country with their own racial problem.

 

Though we luckily didn't need to have a major war for our Independence from Britian mainly because Britain didn't want a War of Independence 2: Kanadian Edition. I think they learned their lessons from the beating the Amerikans (with their French allies) did to them.

[astr0creep]

"what is Canada's history of civil wars, revolutions, and devastating conflict?"

 

Read up on the Kanada-Indian Conflict. People seem to forget that the US is not the only NA country with their own racial problem.

 

Though we luckily didn't need to have a major war for our Independence from Britian mainly because Britain didn't want a War of Independence 2: Kanadian Edition. I think they learned their lessons from the beating the Amerikans (with their French allies) did to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Those "French Allies" are still in Canada by the way. :D

[Volourn]

Please. Don't remind me. The day Quebec leaves this greta country is the day I will finally get gloriouslyd runk for the first time in celebration.

 

P.S. I am, by blood, French.