Iraq

[Teiwaz]

Should we be there? Should we come home? Tell us what you think, and why.

[Moondog]

This one is a tough one for all involved. I honestly feel like we should pull our troops out as quickly as possible. I understand that this will leave a country probably in worse shape than it was once we arrived, but probably not by much.

I think that our leaders should have only went into Baghdad if that is where Bin Laden was hiding. All of our concentrated assets and efforts should continue to hunt down those that attacked our soil and killed our people.

Everyone in the world knew what Saddam was doing and he wasn't going anywhere. I can't help but think that this became something of a more personal competition or vandetta to take out Saddam as a part of finishing what Bush Sr. did not get done. This is why I feel we should withdraw and get back to the objective of bringing those that attacked us to justice. Not just go to wat because we don't like the way other people thumb their noses at us. Where will it end?

[PCIncorrect]

I feel we went for the right reason, but do to the fact it seems we are now fighting this conflict/war like we did Vietnam (politically controlled), we should pull out as fast as possible. Our troops are dieing for nothing now. They have been killling each other there for thousands of years and will continue to do so for the next thousand, out men and women in the armed forces do not need to be part of their sacrificial elimination.

[Ais Sedai]

I don't see any way out that won't destabilize things worse than they are now. And I see a good chance that if we do pull out, it will encourage/reward the jihadists, with consequences for Israel and every other nation and regime in the region, including some that are at least luke-warm friendly to us now.

I believe we should have never gone in in the first place. Didn't want to see it happen then, can't stand seeing what's been happening since, but I just don't see a way out that won't result in even worse consequences.

The analogies to Vietnam are too many and too vivid. Political control from Washington, inadequate troop strength, nation-building (which we've ALWAYS failed at), cover-ups of what's really going on, Haditha and My Lai?

Watched a tv show on pbs (I think) last night about the Vietnam era. It was an interesting dual-"plot" show about the genesis of the anti-war movement specifically in Madison, WI and the slaughter of our troops in an ambush at a battle somewhere in Vietnam in about 1965 of so (location didn't sink in). Both plots included individual interviews with several of the survivors who played various roles in both situations, who are all in their 60s now.

The aspect that destroyed me was the ambush survivors, who are STILL distraught and angry. The denouement (sp?) for them was that many of them were awarded silver stars and Gen. Westmoreland came to the hospital to meet with them in one of those Vietnam era photo-ops. Some of them were told in advance to NOT describe it as an ambush. Another apparently didn't "get the word" in advance and told the Gen. that they'd been ambushed when the Gen. asked him what had happened out there. Westmoreland contradicted him, trying to play it as all having been part of a master plan, and the man said he'd said, "Well, sir, I don't know about anybody else, but I was ambushed."

The anger, feelings of betrayal, horror, and grief of the entire experience (not just the battle itself) is living on in these guys, 40 years later. The parallels to some news and other reports I read about Iraq are pretty anguishing, and it hurts me to think of what may be going on with our youngsters over there and what kind of burden they're bringing home with them. Does it seem to anyone else that we didn't we learn ANYTHING?

I can barely think about the sacrifices our troops and their families are making. The only thing I can stand to think about is how grateful I am that we have such fine people who are willing to take on these jobs, serve, and make these sacrifices for us.

[Freethinker]

War has NEVER been popular. We as a people do not have the stomach for it. Bush Sr. went into Iraq to stem the spread to Kwait. Mission Accomplished.

Bush Jr. went in to remove Sadam from power. Mission accomplished. But wait, we have to rebuild the infrastructure. We can't even keep OUR OWN infrastructure from falling apart (cue the Automobile industry woes). Now we want to bring Democracy to a people who in my estimation, just don't want it. Only if there was a cure for hate..........

Our courage as a nation is being tested. As Atticus Finch said in To Kill A Mockingbird, "Courage is knowing you're licked before you even begin. But you see it through no matter what."

[The_Man]

Freethinker,
I could not agree with you more, the world is watching and to pull out now would IMHO be a huge mistake. Not just from the bad image it would send to our enemies, but much would be lost also in the diplomatic relations with our allies in whom we ask for help at the onset of this conflict. War is never a good option, but when the commitment has been made, nothing short of accomplishing the mission should be expected or allowed.

[PCIncorrect]

I only agrre that we should stay if the job is going to be done right. Let the militray do what it needs to clean up the garbage, not the politicians. Also, why are we spending billions to rebuild there? I do believe we could use that money right here in the US. If the mid-east area wants IRAQ rebuilt, let them pay for it......

[Captain Dan]

See the link in this thread:
http://www.forum-political.com/showthread.php?t=32

[nelson]

Our courage as a nation is being tested. As Atticus Finch said in To Kill A Mockingbird, "Courage is knowing you're licked before you even begin. But you see it through no matter what."Thank you for that injection of wisdom, Freethinker. We are being tested. Whether we should have gone in or not, and for what reason, can be debated until the end of time, but it's old news now. Personally I think we did the right thing, Saddam did have WMD, the country was/is harboring terrorists including those who attacked us. But I don't know what our leaders know, I don't have all the information, and as stated all of that is neither here nor there. Let's finish the job as best we can. True we are ahead of the Iraqi people with our push for some form of democracy. And yes there are risks involved. But there are also many visionary Iraqis who share our hopes that the nation can overcome its handicaps. Men have died and continue to die for this cause, the hope for a future of peaceful relations with a new nation reformed from the most heinous of evils. There is plenty of talk about how terrible this is, but very little talk about the great potential should we succeed. Nobody said war would be pleasant. But things will have to get pretty damned bad before America ought to duck and run.

[Sonrisa]

I don't think saying Saddam was a monster is a sufficient justification. There are monsters as heads of state all over the world. We have to set limits somewhere. I can think of several that could use help, but never got it and most likely never will.

Also, war being a very serious state of affairs to go in without being sure if there were "weapons of mass destruction", and clearly there were not, and then adopting an attitude of, "Oh, well while we're here....." to me is dishonest not to mention criminal.

We really are in a real pickle now. To my view Pandora's box has been opened and the contents are spilling out in all directions.

Every conversation I've had with people of opposite views whenever Bush is somehow involved seems to come to two opposite views of which there does not seem to be any middle ground or solution. The people who either wholeheartedly or halfheartedly support him or his actions seem to be convinced that he is basically a good man doing his best, and that what you see is what you get. The other group believe he is evil, corrupt and a charlatan. In this case is seems to all hinge on their perception of his character or the lack of it. Everything action of his and his administration seems to be colored by this perception regardless of which "side" you're on.
It colors all actions including why we went to war, why we are there now, if we should leave, etc, etc.

["shazbat"]

It's kind of like sex, once you're in even with early pull out you're still f&%ked.
Guess you know how I answered the poll.

[nelson]

I don't think saying Saddam was a monster is a sufficient justification. There are monsters as heads of state all over the world. We have to set limits somewhere. I can think of several that could use help, but never got it and most likely never will.

Also, war being a very serious state of affairs to go in without being sure if there were "weapons of mass destruction", and clearly there were not, and then adopting an attitude of, "Oh, well while we're here....." to me is dishonest not to mention criminal.Hi Sonrisa,

It would be a dire mischaracterization to portray the United States and its allies as on a conquest against all monsters, without limits. There are in fact limits - legal, moral, ethical, international. As evidence of these limits, you'll find today monsters in North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, and elsewhere, who have not been invaded. That Saddam is a monster was never the justification used.

There are times our leaders must make tough decisions in a limited time frame without 100% information. I saw the war unfolding in a much different way than you have illustrated: we were attacked by an enemy that knows no borders, and our elected leadership decided to retaliate against one known enemy stronghold because we had the means and justification (Saddam's many UN violations and the vote from US Congress). By the response of our enemy alone, we made the right move. Now what kind of a citizen, when the task proves most difficult, attacks our leadership for making that decision, and calls for us to quit, making the jobs of our soldiers more difficult, and their lives more threatened?

Personally I value decisiveness in our leadership, I continue to believe we made the right decision, and I want to see this through.

Every conversation I've had with people of opposite views whenever Bush is somehow involved seems to come to two opposite views of which there does not seem to be any middle ground or solution. The people who either wholeheartedly or halfheartedly support him or his actions seem to be convinced that he is basically a good man doing his best, and that what you see is what you get. The other group believe he is evil, corrupt and a charlatan. In this case is seems to all hinge on their perception of his character or the lack of it. Everything action of his and his administration seems to be colored by this perception regardless of which "side" you're on.
It colors all actions including why we went to war, why we are there now, if we should leave, etc, etc.I have to guess the extreme polarization view is seen mostly from the side that opposes George Bush and anything they perceive he stands for. Because those of us who believe he did the right thing by invading Iraq did not support this decision simply because he was the one who made it. I, for instance, honestly believe it was the right thing to do. And who on earth first determines whether or not George Bush supports an issue before deciding how they feel personally (either in agreement or opposition). Does anyone really behave that way? In my mind, everything is not about Bush.