We didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

In 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait, we removed Iraq from Kuwait and destroyed Iraq's military power as a punishment for doing so.

That's a lot different than invading.

 

I never called you a leftist.

You're assuming I'm saying "You people" as leftists. While they fit into the catagory as well, I mean people who act like the Democrats are god (and the people who do the same with Republicans), except when someone they dont like do something good. Then it's "Oh, don't give them the credit for that"

 

Life? Are you referring to those who lost their lives over in Iraq? You do know that men and women who join the service know what they are getting into. Where there's conflict there will be loss of life...that's just how it is.

And people saying "oh...another Vietnam" need to stfu. This is a new kind of war...not fought on battlefields, this is where the enemy hides and just plants bombs. If they just came out of hiding and fought like our military and many other militarys are trained to do...then Iraq would be more stable.

Terrorism is irrational, war is rational...its that simple.

 

LT6916, but you know what they're going to say now.
"War never solves anything"
"War is not good"
"We should not be in war"

Pfft.



I'll just keep that in mind..

 

just one question:
why are we still over in iraq?

 

Hippee's must be a cycling trend: you wouldn't have seen this many anti-war protests during the Great Wars or the Korean Conflict. Now, ever since Vietnam...everyone is like "PRO-LIFE! END THE WAR! SAVE LIFE!" meanwhile back home, hundreds of thousands of unborn children are dying because the "free-spirited" women are having abortions left and right.

And to those saying that war is bad...antarius' post is 100% correct. If the US kept its isolationism seen pre-WW1, we would never have become the hegemonic state we are. And as the world's hegemonic state, there comes the responsibility of "policing" other states to free nations under a tyrannical state.

 

You forget easily?

Most people seem to.

Our mission was not to go into Iraq, remove Saddam and leave.

It was to go into Iraq, remove Saddam, rebuild Iraq, setup a Democratic Government. Then help train the police, the new army, help provide peace keeping support and stability while we train the police. Help the new Government setup a Constitution that wont be a mirror of the Saddam regeim, and only after they are stable on their own, policing themselves, and democratic will it be time for us to leave for good.

Clear things up?

 

Ugh ..last time I checked we invaded Afghanistan too didn't we? We are still there. It's a lot easier to find someone in a desert, than a large group of mountains. Saddam just happened to be an issue at the same time. Did everyone forget about him kicking the UN out of his country at the same time? A little suspicious? I'm so sick of this shit. Give me 3 good reasons to leave him in power of Iraq. If you were President you would of left Iraq alone? 10 yrs! How much more time did he need? another year would of not made any difference. He didn't just kick the weapons inspectors out once, he did it over and over. Then when we threatened him, he let them back for a little while but took them to sites by his picking, and his schedule.

Because if we left now, the country would be taken over by another dictator who wasn't elected by the people. It would be a waste of our entire effort so far.

 

i was honestly just asking that question, and i think antarius cleared that up.

i'm just so scared for my friends :happysad:

 

Why are we still over in Iraq?

Why are we still in a lot of other nations. The US is the only state that can "project" our forces and ideals in other states. We have military bases in many other foreign states and influence on foreign govt. We will always be in Iraq...as they slowly become another state that we will one day classify as a MFS (Most Favored State) in terms of trade.