Topic: war in iraq

[TrekGeekMid]

Well, on the issue of the Iraqi people, I don't think that we have seen or will see them react to our invasion of the country in the manner in which we expected them to. There is actually a very interesting article in this month's Naval Institute Proceedings which details a number of assumptions that we made about going into Iraq and how they have panned out.

Anyway, back to the Iraqi people, I don't expect that a population that has been so brutaly repressed for so long is going to be very stable. There is a real danger that a fundamentalist Islamic movement that has already taken root in the country could bring about another totalitarian regime. I don't think the people of Iraq "root for the winning team" so much as they do what is necessary to survive. Back when Saddam was incharge, that meant rooting for Saddam and harrasing downed American pilots. With a number of radical Muslim groups threatening violence in various parts of the country and American forces seemingly unable or unwilling to stop them, survial might mean taking up the radicalist cause.

[manunited4eva22]

Or, not falling into that trap by rejecting the Aitallohs' idea of fundamentalism...

[baberg]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread from the dead, but I just wanted to say a few things.

Looks like there were no WMDs after all.  Halliburton, the company that Dick Cheney presided over and sill receives $1 million a year from, has been awarded exclusive rights to put out oil fires and, what's more, has been given an addition $50 million for a total of $76 million in government money.  That money, by the way, comes out of your own pockets and the pockets of every taxpaying American.

Saddam Hussein is still alive and still urging the Iraqis to fight against the indavers.  US troops killed 13 civilians who gathered to protest the US occupation of a schoolhouse.  Before anybody says "the Iraqis fired first" should look at the source of that quote - the soldiers who killed the civilians.  We'll never know who really fired first, or if the use of force was justified.

Terrorism still runs rampant and Al-Qaida is obviously still alive and kicking.  And guess what?  Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

But that's ok!  The jobless rate at home jumped to 6 percent, the federal deficit will be the largest ever, and Jenna won Survivor!

So all is well!

EDIT: It appears there's more to the story about Halliburton's contract than I knew.  Up to $7 billion.  No bidding.  And VP Cheney only stepped down from being CEO when he received the Vice Presidential nomination.  Where's the outrage?  Oh, right, it's directed at Saddam and Osama Bin Laden.  Sorry.

[oohhboy]

I wasn't "Dead", it was just in a state of limbo as it tried to decide whether another thread was to be spawn or not to continue th discussion on Iraq.

I favor re-titling the thread to "Discussion on Iraq" as it is a continuing issue which is still related to the war. Although the war all but offically decleared finnished, it still warrants continued discussion as phase two of any war begins. Depending on the point of view occupation/liberation/rebuilding.  

[manunited4eva22]

Baberg you present good facts, but your cynicism does nothing for your credibilty.

[nolimit19]

i have switched sides on this whole iraq thing.....but not cuz its about oil, or because we did more harm then good, but simply because we had no biznas there. i think that the us could have let the un "disarm" iraq. i still think the war did more good then bad. and anyone that says that the iraqis are better off under sadaam are dumb i think. but there is no doubt in my mind at the smae time that bush is an idiot....at least in some regards.

[oohhboy]

Every body is running the other way because thing are not going as planned. The U.S. had failed initailly to bring law and order. Failed to secure all culture and civil institutions, especially the Iraqi national museum. Their early on you could say they were still fighting a war and they really didn't have the personal to spare. But then when the troops did have people to spare, under the rules of engagement, thier hands were tied behind thier backs. Only now has marital law been decleared. Only now do law-enforcement have the power needed to bring in stabilty.

Bush went too fast, yet the UN was too slow. The UN had failed in thier mission they had failed to enforce thier own resolutions. France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front. They were against the war but failed to agree to themselfs as to what to do about it.

[nolimit19]

Quote
Bush went too fast, yet the UN was too slow. The UN had failed in thier mission they had failed to enforce thier own resolutions. France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front. They were against the war but failed to agree to themselfs as to what to do about it.

well said.....people talk about secret agendas with the us, but i think that france, germany and russias were no different. and the un needs to keep their crap together. why even have resolutions if u wont enforce them??? the one thing i find interesting is that a lot of people act like iraq was cooperating before the war......they werent. u can go to the un web site and read blix's reports. he clearly states that iraq needed to do more. there is no doubt in my mind that iraq had/has womd....but the us just havent/wont find them. either because irq sold them, or destoryed them.

[baberg]

Quote
Baberg you present good facts, but your cynicism does nothing for your credibilty.

What an odd statement.  I could understand my cynicism hurting my credibility if I presented no facts and simply ranted without backup.  However, when I give facts to support my ideas I don't see how the delivery should affect those facts.  Maybe it's just my style - sarcastic, cynical, and bitter.

Try reading it as if Jon Stewart of The Daily Show were reading it - add a touch of humor, some sly remarks.  That's the style I'm looking for.  But regardless, I find it strange that my presentation should have any bearing on the facts therein.  But that's just me.

Quote
France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front.

That's right, those three nations did have their own self-centered interests.  So did the US.  It just so happens that the US's interests involved invading a soverign nation while France, Germany, and Russia did not.  As for "upholding UN resolutions" I ask you this - why did the US and UK essentially fight this war alone?  Gulf War I (with Bush Senior) was fought with the united backing of the UN.  France sent warplanes, Germany assisted...  Everybody was fighting against the Iraqi aggressor.  But in Gulf War II, there were only a smattering of nations involved.

I had a revelation last night.  I was thinking of the book 1984 by George Orwell which, incidentally, you all must read.  It's a short book but packed full of relevant material in the post-9/11 world.  Startling, as it was written in 1949.

In one scene in 1984, the people of Oceania (US and UK, essentially) are in the midst of a "hate fest" where people gather together to hurl insults at the leader of Eastasia (China and other eastern nations, essentially).  Then, in the middle of the hate fest, the image changes to the leader of Eurasia (Russia et al).  The populace, so used to taking what the government and media say for granted, immediately forget that they were at war with Eastasia and now hurl insults at Eurasia.  The anger of the populace was redirected immediately onto somebody who was, until that moment, not hurting anybody in Oceania.

Compare this to the US with respect to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.  For weeks after 9/11 the populace of the US was made to hate Osama Bin Laden and everything he stood for.  Afghanistan was invaded, the Taliban was overthrown, but Osama Bin Laden was replaced by Saddam Hussein.  People redirected their hatred of Osama onto Saddam almost immediately, to the point where a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the planning of 9/11 (when, in fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq).

EDIT: Fixed formatting

[nolimit19]

well i dont know where all this husaine was part of 911 talk came from, but everyone i know, knows thats not true. i think there wasa poll in time or something that asked if people thought sadaam funded the 911 attacks and like 40 percent said yes and then a lot of people jumped to the conclusion that everyone thinks sadaam was part of 911. unfortunately, terrorism will always be around until the us stands down from its political stance with isreal....and i dont think that will ever happen. blame the nazis for this. if i remember correctly the uk gave the isralis their land because they wanted the jews to have their own place. its a problem that is unsolvable until the jews and palastinians can live in peace. and i think america has a lot to do with the lack of peace. its condems terrorist attacks, but allows the jew to shoot the palastinians when they are armed with rocks. imo america needs to just get out of that region of the world....i am saying it right now....america, at the current rate things are going, will be dragged into world war IV(many consider the cold war WWIII) if they dont change their political stance.


i read 1984 and it is a good book, but somewhat depressing....and i do believe that one day we may live in a similar situation.

[baberg]

I found the poll for you, nolimit19.  Taken in February, 76% thought Saddam provided assistance to terrorism (and he may have, I won't dispute this) but 72% believed that Saddam had personal involvement with the September 11th attacks.  Now I'm not naive enough to believe everything I read, and I know that statistics and public opinion polls are easily manipulated.  Still, I believe most Americans have misdirected their hatred and anger over September 11th onto Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

And yes, 1984 is depressing.  It's supposed to be depressing.  It's supposed to make you so sad and enraged at the thought of Thought Police and doublespeak that you take action against it when you begin to see it in your own world.  And therein lies the beauty.

[oohhboy]

Go look in the Congo, look at Sarivajo, look at Iraq. The UN had failed to uphold it's resolutions and failed even to uphold the peace. Congo reverted back to civil disorder, Bosina is barely a country, Iraq got invaded due to in part to it's inactions.

I did not say that the U.S did not have it's own agenda. Every nation had it's only agenda. The reason why the U.S didn't invade during the Clnton years was because there was not policitcal will to do so. Instead, clinton tried to negoiate with all these states that are or were labeled part of the Axis of Evil. Givin them deals, comproises etc. 8 years later? The world is back to square one. Why? Because of Korea's, Iraqs, Osama, Arafat own agendas. They never had any thought about going through with Clinton's plans. They were never intrested in peace. For 8 years, the UN could have solved the Iraqi problem. They could have sovled it in the first war. The coilition forces had the rug pulled out from under them during the first wars and the UN has been going down hill ever since.

With everybody moving in every which direction, over the years, everybody had moved too far apart to form a working compromise.

[baberg]

Ok, oohhboy, what's your solution?  If everything has truly fallen into the toilet, how do you propose we fix it?  Let the USA invade every country that disobeys a UN directive?  Dissolve the UN?  Create a true world government with all nations as nation-states?  Move to Mars?  Nuke 'em all, let God sort 'em out?  Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die?

Personally, I like the last one best.

[kennyb27]

Quote
As for "upholding UN resolutions" I ask you this - why did the US and UK essentially fight this war alone?

This is said because the resolution that was passed said that unless Iraq listens and obeys the Security Council, "it will face serious consequences" (Link, Acrobat Reader required).  The US and UK were the ones that had to act in place of the UN, this is where it failed as a world-peace organization.

[manunited4eva22]

Would you report what you saw on the daily show as something you believe to be the whole hearted truth? I know I wouldn't use it to prove a point to someone because frankly, they are more concerned with the humor of the news than the message of it.  

[Gamer Donkey]

Quote
I favor re-titling the thread to "Discussion on Iraq" as it is a continuing issue which is still related to the war.

I would prefer changing it to "World Relations" as we do discuss things not pertaining directly to Iraq. Just my personal opinion.

Quote
France, Germany, Russia have fail because because of thier own self centered interest had prevented them from estabishing a united front.

These countries should not be persecuted in any way, shape, or form because any country will do anything to protect their interests. You didn't hear on the news about the weapons funded by us (USA) during the Iraqi war with Iran. Heck, we even funded much of Al Quieda. They're bad decisions in retrospect, but back then they were best for our country.

Quote
Go look in the Congo, look at Sarivajo, look at Iraq. The UN had failed to uphold it's resolutions and failed even to uphold the peace. Congo reverted back to civil disorder, Bosina is barely a country, Iraq got invaded due to in part to it's inactions.

It's been said far earlier in this discussion that the UN is not a government. The worst thing they can do is condemn a hostile action and authorize governments to go in and fix the problem. I'm willing to bet they would have supported our invasion, had we gone about it in a different manner. I believe if we had gone in there saying, "Hey, we think Iraq poses a threat to us. We want you to send in inspectors and if they find something or are denied access, we will take pre-emptive action." Now of course it wouldn't be worded quite like that, but this is what I think the US sounded like to other countries: "Hey, we hate Saddam and we're going in there whether you like it or not, so you might as well approve our resolution." Please don't flame me or anyone who supports that statement (God forbid) as it was purely opinion.

Quote
Would you report what you saw on the daily show as something you believe to be the whole hearted truth?

He was not saying his information was from the Daily Show, he was saying his statements sound better if read in Jon Stewart's parodic style.

[oohhboy]

Quote
These countries should not be persecuted in any way, shape, or form because any country will do anything to protect their interests. You didn't hear on the news about the weapons funded by us (USA) during the Iraqi war with Iran. Heck, we even funded much of Al Quieda. They're bad decisions in retrospect, but back then they were best for our country.

I never said these countries should be persecuted. I said they failed to help maintan peace becauses they could not come up with a united front which was a result of each country having thier own agendas. If they came out in one strong voice, the US would have had to think otherwise.

Quote
It's been said far earlier in this discussion that the UN is not a government. The worst thing they can do is condemn a hostile action and authorize governments to go in and fix the problem.

I ask you, who are those soldiers in blue helmets? They are UN troops. Donated to work in the countries they are deployed it. They were deployed in Congo and even they are too scared to enforce the law there leading to civil disorder. Of course, the UN does not have enough troops to figh a war, but they were never ment to.

Quote
I'm willing to bet they would have supported our invasion, had we gone about it in a different manner. I believe if we had gone in there saying, "Hey, we think Iraq poses a threat to us. We want you to send in inspectors and if they find something or are denied access, we will take pre-emptive action." Now of course it wouldn't be worded quite like that, but this is what I think the US sounded like to other countries: "Hey, we hate Saddam and we're going in there whether you like it or not, so you might as well approve our resolution." Please don't flame me or anyone who supports that statement (God forbid) as it was purely opinion.

What happened when the UN got kicked out of Iraq in 1998? Nothing. Iraq violated a key resolution. Instead of trying to get back in, they waited till some one(The US) got pissed off enough to even bother asking the UN to send in weapon inspectors. Since 1998 the UN had done nothing in the region, they sat there with thier continueing sanctions and did nothing. Now even with Saddam gone, the sanctions continue. After the first gulf war, the UN has simply been unable to get it's act togeather. It is a shame really, I like Kofi Annon. A good guy surrounded with people who can't even agree on what thier doing in the UN.

As for the "We hate Saddam thing" he had it coming for 5 years since the inspectors were kicked out.

[The Omen]

Dictator=bad.  Whats so hard about that?  

Of course we have interest there, but France has much more economically speaking, than the U'S'.  That is why they did NOT back us, after saying they would.  They were giving counsel to Saddam up to the eve of war.  How can anyone defend them?  Pacifists can, because they'll defend anybody against aggression.  Unfortunately, until these people realize that war and aggression are here to stay, and have always been a necessity, they will continue to defend any country that opposes war.  If it wasn't for war, where would we be now?  Where would France be now?  Kuwait?  Go through history, and you'll see war is sometimes the only solution, and when you are given standards by which to abide, and you agree, then spit in the face of them, you have just sealed your own fate.  As Saddam has done for 15 years.  I was proud when the iraqis tore down the Saddam statue.  I am proud today, no matter what else transpires, because i know these people will taste freedom for the first time.  Who could be against freeing a people?

By the way, go through history, and you'll see we are the only 'super power' -EVER- to not try and take over another country.

[Ocarina Blue]

There are a few points I'd like to make here, they pretty much sum up my opinion on the war by themselves:
War is thought by most to be needed sometimes, but only in the right situations. Not many people were against theGulf war, because it was to most, clearly justified.

Pacifists rely on solving conflict through non-violent means, not through ignoring them.

France and Russia prevously both had large oil contracts with Iraq.

Even though the sanctions resulted in over half a million deaths in Iraq after the first gulf war, no country in the UN bothered to try to fix it.

The USA used cluster bombs in towns in Iraq, cluster bombs are designed to kill lots of people in concentrated areas, and were the cause of 1500 recorded deaths after the first gulf war.

There have been more brutal things happen in other parts of the world for a long time now, that have been completly ignored by almost all nations. Examples of this are persecution and flooding of traditional culture in Tibet by the Chinese government, torture and slaughtering of rebels in Aech in Indonesia and ethnic massacres in Rewanda.

The USA has no need to invade a country, it protects its 'forien interests' such as oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Nigera quite well. China before the 'communist' regime there never invaded another country.  

[oohhboy]

Quote
Pacifists rely on solving conflict through non-violent means, not through ignoring them.

That is true, but is the UN a Pacifist? I believe it is not. It either athorises action, or completely ignores it. You very own examples prove that. THe UN was built to be the world police. It's primary mission included preventing another world war and to settle new or continuing conflicts. Thankfully it has keeped another World War from erupting, but has failed to even address the second point with any true resolve.

Quote
France and Russia prevously both had large oil contracts with Iraq.

Fair enough. They had thier own agenda and so does everybody else.

Quote
The USA used cluster bombs in towns in Iraq, cluster bombs are designed to kill lots of people in concentrated areas, and were the cause of 1500 recorded deaths after the first gulf war.

Same is said about landmines, there is supose to be a ban on both isn't there now?

Quote
Even though the sanctions resulted in over half a million deaths in Iraq after the first gulf war, no country in the UN bothered to try to fix it.

The US after taking control, tried to get the sanctions lifted immediatly only to be stone walled by France and Russia. Why?

Quote
There have been more brutal things happen in other parts of the world for a long time now, that have been completly ignored by almost all nations. Examples of this are persecution and flooding of traditional culture in Tibet by the Chinese government,

Tibet happened 50 years ago when China and US relations were at an all-time-low. Even if the UN authorised war to kick China out, who would go in? Not the US, not Britian. Why? No will to do so and authorising action against China at the time would have caused world war 3. But even now nothing is done. The UN has ignored pleas from the leaders of Tibet. Why? It is the price of world peace. Until some one thinks of a way around this problem, the status quo on this issue stays.

Quote
torture and slaughtering of rebels in Aech in Indonesia and ethnic massacres in Rewanda.

Both been Civil Wars is outside of UN power interms of authorising miltary action, but does allow sending in of peace keepers. It is clearly a UN matter. The US and allies has not intention or right or obligation to do anything about it until they are attacked themselfs.

Quote
The USA has no need to invade a country, it protects its 'forien interests' such as oil wells in Saudi Arabia and Nigera quite well. China before the 'communist' regime there never invaded another country.

The differences is that those foregin intrests ask asked for the US's help and China before the Communist moved in was like France, always invaded.

[manunited4eva22]

John Stewart's job is to sound funny, and he does a good job of it. His job is not to report the news a serious by any means. Now for some reason if someone in a debate was being a smartass and acting like I was supposed to take that attitude as sreious facts, would I want too? Would you want too?

[Ocarina Blue]

Quote
That is true, but is the UN a Pacifist? I believe it is not. It either athorises action, or completely ignores it. You very own examples prove that. The UN was built to be the world police. It's primary mission included preventing another world war and to settle new or continuing conflicts. Thankfully it has keeped another World War from erupting, but has failed to even address the second point with any true resolve.

Aside from the issue of the sanctions in Iraq, which could be easily fixed without war, there was no conflict.

Quote
The US after taking control, tried to get the sanctions lifted immediatly only to be stone walled by France and Russia. Why?

I don't know why, I am not a representitive of France or Russia at all. The USA could have tried to lift the sanctions without invading anyway.

Quote
Tibet happened 50 years ago when China and US relations were at an all-time-low. Even if the UN authorised war to kick China out, who would go in? Not the US, not Britian. Why? No will to do so and authorising action against China at the time would have caused world war 3. But even now nothing is done. The UN has ignored pleas from the leaders of Tibet. Why? It is the price of world peace. Until some one thinks of a way around this problem, the status quo on this issue stays.

Good point, I was wrong there.

Quote
Both been Civil Wars is outside of UN power interms of authorising miltary action, but does allow sending in of peace keepers. It is clearly a UN matter. The US and allies has not intention or right or obligation to do anything about it until they are attacked themselfs.

Here is where I failed to point out my statement.  Instead of an attack on the USA, this more an attack on how much the UN and world care about other countries. If the USA govenment really cared about the people in Iraq, would they not at least raise the issue of these countries within the UN?

Quote
The differences is that those foregin intrests ask asked for the US's help and China before the Communist moved in was like France, always invaded.

But no country could afford to upset the USA in a refusal. The huge capitalist corparations of the USA do the same things economicly (eg McDonalds) anyway, and I forgot to add about the USA taking chunks of Mexaco a while ago. Also, now is alot different to 300 years ago. It was practised by many countries, and was generaly accepted by the people of those countries then, but few people would stand for something like that now. China managed to get around this through profuse use of propaganda, but that cannot be done so easily now due to the existance of so many international information sources (Television, the internet etc). So naturaly, large countries use their influence to somethin like the same effect.  

[Matrix]

I'm still quite upset at this war for happening. It was done for all the wrong reasons. Not a word of how "We put this evil bastard in power, so maybe should fix our mistake." Instead, we get this manufactored threat of "weapons of mass destruction." Have they even found any of these weapons yet? If stuff like that is so important, then North Korea should be taken out. We know they have nukes, so arn't they the biggest threat? Oh, wait, they're damn poor, and have nothing of value.

Also, anyone who doesn't think oil plays a factor, needs to have their head exaimined. The oil wells were the first thing the US forces ran off to save.

*sigh*

Oh well. What's done is done.  I'm going to keep a very close eye on how the US "rebuilds" Iraq, though. We all should. I'm worried Iraq will go the way of Afganistan.

[oohhboy]

Quote
Aside from the issue of the sanctions in Iraq, which could be easily fixed without war, there was no conflict.

I am confused by thsi statment, can you clearify?

Quote
I don't know why, I am not a representitive of France or Russia at all. The USA could have tried to lift the sanctions without invading anyway.

The sanctions were there to prevent Saddam from getting WMDs. But the U.S. needs them lifted so they can bring in technologies that were formerly banned under the UN sanctions so they can rebuild Iraq. The reason for invading Iraq was not to lift the sanctions, but to remove Saddam from power. With Saddam gone, continuing sanctions are not neededas it is hindering the rebuilding effort. Also it frees up the oil in Iraq so that it can be sold freely on the open market to rebuild Iraq. But I blieve the immedite lifting of sanctions may threaten France and Russias oil contracts even more than now.

Quote
Here is where I failed to point out my statement. Instead of an attack on the USA, this more an attack on how much the UN and world care about other countries. If the USA govenment really cared about the people in Iraq, would they not at least raise the issue of these countries within the UN?

The US did so agressively for 6 months before the war because there was political will to do so, even if is wasn't directly related to U.S. agenda. Clinton was happy with the Status quo so nothing happened. Again the price of peace. Clinton had undirectly given up on the Iraqi civilians so that he did not have to go to war. I has already shown that Saddam was not willing to step down, even with the threat of war, so any other measures would have been hopeless.

Quote
But no country could afford to upset the USA in a refusal. The huge capitalist corparations of the USA do the same things economicly (eg McDonalds) anyway, and I forgot to add about the USA taking chunks of Mexaco a while ago. Also, now is alot different to 300 years ago. It was practised by many countries, and was generaly accepted by the people of those countries then, but few people would stand for something like that now. China managed to get around this through profuse use of propaganda, but that cannot be done so easily now due to the existance of so many international information sources (Television, the internet etc). So naturaly, large countries use their influence to somethin like the same effect.

Going back to the original statment, Saudi Arabia had requested a U,S, presence to deter attak on them from Iraq especially after the first Gulf War. As for economicaly challenging China to release Tibet, it would be economic suicide. China is the U.S. largest maker of all the stuff that the U.S. themself could not produce econoically at thier current wage rate. Labour is dirt cheap in China. The U.S has lots of money to hire that labour. but cutting them off would hurt the US just as much as it would hurt China. It would be impossible for the U.S. to maintian thier current life style. No american is willing to give up thier living standards over Tibet. Basicly they are econoimcaly interdependant on each other now. you could go to Mexico, but then they don't have the amount of industrialisation that China has. Simply no matter how you go about it, the cost to victory is so high that it would turn to defeat.

Quote
I'm still quite upset at this war for happening. It was done for all the wrong reasons. Not a word of how "We put this evil bastard in power, so maybe should fix our mistake." Instead, we get this manufactored threat of "weapons of mass destruction." Have they even found any of these weapons yet? If stuff like that is so important, then North Korea should be taken out. We know they have nukes, so arn't they the biggest threat? Oh, wait, they're damn poor, and have nothing of value.

North Korea is a totally new level of threat to any country. Lets say that US has already got all the units they need to move in. What happens if N.K. was to nuke Bejin? China would quickly blame the U.S. for letting it happen and to the chinese, it would look like the U.S. had dropped the nuke themselfs. Quickly everything headeds off to WW3. The first time the U.S. went in they had UN approval. But before victory could be claimed, China moved in with 2 million troops, restablishing the stalemate which has now lead to the formation of th DMZ you see today. Russia had supported N.K, but only in equipment, not troops. If the UN forces were to continue fighting the chinese, if victory was to be had, the price was too high. casulties on both sides would have numbered in a million in total, if it ever ended.

[nolimit19]

i ahve been studying a lot about the psychology of war. i have taken a couple classes and its interesting to look at past wars and the effects after it. i think whats done is done, but i dont think we should have anymore wars that are unprovoked. i dont have mush faith in the future of things anyways. i think that bush shouldnt get reelected....the thing was that clinton should have invaded when they first broke the resolutions....but the bush invasion looks ill timed. but overall, the people in iraq have only to gain from the war. i think that the us needs to get out asap. i mean they will help set up a new government, but they need to stay out of involvement as much as possible.

"Also, anyone who doesn't think oil plays a factor, needs to have their head exaimined. The oil wells were the first thing the US forces ran off to save."

also this is not as true as everyone says....america gets most of its oil domestically, and the oil that it does import is mostly from the western hemisphere(canada, mexico, and venezuela). the u.s. gets about 20 percent of its *imported* oil from the middle east. the whole thing that the war in iraq was about oil is blown out of proportion.....look at the first gulf war....guess how much oil the us got from kuwait before and after the war....none that i am aware of. i read an article in the la times a couple weeks ago, and according to that article niether iraq or kuwait have never shipped oil to the us on a regualr basis. the reason they secured the oil fields is because it was americas war. the us takes it upon themselves to fix up the country that they destroy in the wars. so sooner or later hte us would have either had to: a) put out the fires......or b) secure the oil fields before they were set ablaze.  i am by no means a huge bush supporter or a pro war fanatic, but i think stating that the war was about oil is somewhat misleading....not to mention i dont see how a war in iraq had any effect on how much oil cost. i really hope bush is not re-elected, and i never thought i would say it, but i am almost to the point where i wish *god forgive me* gore was elected.....*runs in shame*