What relevance does an article about Iraqi attitudes toward Americans that is more than two years old have to the current discussion? Civilian casualties in Sept. 2006 were roughly three times higher than they were in Sept. 2008 and the casualties dropped further in Oct. 2008.

 

Do you think that things just might have improved in the past two years and that Iraqi attitudes toward the presence of American troops might also have changed for the better?

 

Liberal proclamations that the war had been lost two years ago were wrong then and their demands for immediate withdrawal are wrong today. We cannot block the expansion of domestic oil and gas drilling while simulatneously surrendering the Middle East to terrorist thugs that will disrupt our oil supply. That combination of policies just will not work in our best interests. If we are going to abandon the Middle East, then we need to first become truly energy independent.

 

I thought this war was about freeing the Iraqi's? Is it about securing our oil, or is it about helping Iraq transform in to a democracy?

 

 

Oh and I found this:

 

Despite the security gains achieved over the past year, most Iraqis want the foreign soldiers to leave — and with provincial elections scheduled for January of 2009, Iraqi politicians don't want their fingerprints on the document.

 

LINK

 

I stand by my belief that most Iraqi's no longer want the Americans to be there.

I thought this war was about freeing the Iraqi's? Is it about securing our oil, or is it about helping Iraq transform in to a democracy?

You thought wrong. The war was about removing a threat to Middle East peace and deposing a government that failed repeatedly to live up to the terms of a surrender agreement. Our presence in Iraq has provided a balance to Iranian power in the region and if we leave a strong, stable Iraq in our wake, then Iraq can provide that balance.

 

 

Oh and I found this:

 

LINK

 

I stand by my belief that most Iraqi's no longer want the Americans to be there.

I am sure that you can find many opinions in Time magazine articles that conflict with my own. Undoubtedly, most Iraqis look forward to the day that American troops no longer patrol their streets. My point, which is a valid one, is that Iraqis are far better off today than they were under Saddam's reign of terror and they are better off than they were when liberals declared the war a lost cause and argued against the surge.

You thought wrong. The war was about removing a threat to Middle East peace and deposing a government that failed repeatedly to live up to the terms of a surrender agreement. Our presence in Iraq has provided a balance to Iranian power in the region and if we leave a strong, stable Iraq in our wake, then Iraq can provide that balance.

 

 

I am sure that you can find many opinions in Time magazine articles that conflict with my own. Undoubtedly, most Iraqis look forward to the day that American troops no longer patrol their streets. My point, which is a valid one, is that Iraqis are far better off today than they were under Saddam's reign of terror and they are better off than they were when liberals declared the war a lost cause and argued against the surge.

 

Then why were we smacked in the face every day with "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? Leading up to the war all I heard about was WMD's...then the day American forces attacked, all I started hearing was Operation Iraqi Freedom. Which is it now?

 

As much as I would like to take YOUR word for it...I can not. And some Iraqi's might be better off. But the innocent ones who are dead or injured, or the ones who have become sick, or lost their homes probably are not better off.

 

It is their country, if the people we are "helping" want us to leave, shouldn't we leave?

Then why were we smacked in the face every day with "Operation Iraqi Freedom"? Leading up to the war all I heard about was WMD's...then the day American forces attacked, all I started hearing was Operation Iraqi Freedom. Which is it now?

 

As much as I would like to take YOUR word for it...I can not. And some Iraqi's might be better off. But the innocent ones who are dead or injured, or the ones who have become sick, or lost their homes probably are not better off.

 

It is their country, if the people we are "helping" want us to leave, shouldn't we leave?

I do not take politicians'at their word. Not Bush's and certainly not Obama's. There are many countries around the world that we could "free" but the the fact that Iraq is in the Middle East, supported terrorists, and violated UN resolutions to give us the legal basis for overthrowing its government are the reasons that we are there. Had there been no oil or terrorists in the region, then the Middle East would not warrant our attention because we would have not national interest in stabilizing the region.

 

As for whether Iraqis are better off today than they were when Saddam was chopping peoples' hands and ears off or if they are better off than they were two years ago than they are today, you do not have to agree with my opinion but it is just as valid as your or a the opinion of a Time magazine writer.

 

As for dead Iraqis, I agree that they were better off alive - but are not live people generally better off than dead ones?

 

Fewer people live in fear of their own government today than at anytime since Saddam Hussein seized power and began executing political opponents. Junior high school girls no longer need to fear having one of Saddam's evil, twisted sons kidnap them from school for a session of rape, torture, and execution. Political opponents no longer fear being tossed from the tops of tall buildings by the nation's president.

 

American troops need to come home as soon as they can leave behind a stable, self sufficient Iraq and not a minute sooner. Otherwise, their younger siblings or children will one day be forced to return to the area to finish the job.

It should be concern for any American, however it is fallacious tactic to bring up American crime statistics in order to cloud a completely unrelated, yet legitimate issue. I can be concerned about crime and concerned about a misguided foreign policy at the same time.

 

Perhaps next time you should show it by questioning the need for all deaths and not just those in Iraq.

 

By your silly line of reasoning, we shouldn't have been outraged over 9/11, because the roughly 3,000 American lives taken pales in comparison to the roughly 16,500 murders in the U.S. each year. Silly.

 

You should curb your enthusiasm for the word silly and focus that energy to correctly disecting the logic of my posts. It is illogical to think that if I have already voiced concern over 446 deaths in Chicago (and questioned an apparent lack of concern on your part) that I would fail to voice concern over 3000 American lives on 9/11 or 16,500 murders in the US each year.

:thumb:H and HB20 you guys get it, very good for you guys.

Perhaps next time you should show it by questioning the need for all deaths and not just those in Iraq.

 

 

 

You should curb your enthusiasm for the word silly and focus that energy to correctly disecting the logic of my posts. It is illogical to think that if I have already voiced concern over 446 deaths in Chicago (and questioned an apparent lack of concern on your part) that I would fail to voice concern over 3000 American lives on 9/11 or 16,500 murders in the US each year.

 

 

Start a thread to voice your outrage over the number of murders in Chicago, then. It doesn't belong in this thread.

I do not take politicians'at their word. Not Bush's and certainly not Obama's. There are many countries around the world that we could "free" but the the fact that Iraq is in the Middle East, supported terrorists, and violated UN resolutions to give us the legal basis for overthrowing its government are the reasons that we are there. Had there been no oil or terrorists in the region, then the Middle East would not warrant our attention because we would have not national interest in stabilizing the region.

 

I think you are confused about the reasons why we are there, my friend. It is because we were told Iraq was involved in 9/11, had Weapons of Mass Destructions, and that it posed an imminent threat to domestic U.S. security. No other reason(s) would have come close to building the necessary popular support for such a costly enterprise. Period. Do you think if the President had leveled with the American people and told us we were signing up for the sacrifice of thousands of young lives, tens of thousands of wounded and PTSD victims, a broken worn-out military, and well over a trillion dollars of cost, the American people would have supported the idea to "help Iraqis achieve democracy"? The response would not have been "no", it would have been "hell no". Anyone who thinks otherwise is either being dishonest or has lost their marbles.

 

 

 

As for whether Iraqis are better off today than they were when Saddam was chopping peoples' hands and ears off or if they are better off than they were two years ago than they are today, you do not have to agree with my opinion but it is just as valid as your or a the opinion of a Time magazine writer.

 

As for dead Iraqis, I agree that they were better off alive - but are not live people generally better off than dead ones?

 

Fewer people live in fear of their own government today than at anytime since Saddam Hussein seized power and began executing political opponents. Junior high school girls no longer need to fear having one of Saddam's evil, twisted sons kidnap them from school for a session of rape, torture, and execution. Political opponents no longer fear being tossed from the tops of tall buildings by the nation's president.

 

 

That's nice, but the U.S. is not responsible for unilaterally eliminating evil in the world.

 

 

 

American troops need to come home as soon as they can leave behind a stable, self sufficient Iraq and not a minute sooner. Otherwise, their younger siblings or children will one day be forced to return to the area to finish the job.

 

 

Thinking the U.S. military is the proper instrument to encourage political reconciliation in a country with such complex sectarian divides is as misguided as using a shotgun to do brain surgery. As we approach the sixth anniversary of this foreign policy catastrophe, we should remind ourselves that there is still no oil sharing agreement, no agreement to integrate Sunni militias into the national security force, and provincial elections still have not been held. It seems you are content to hold this country together forever to avoid the humiliating admission that the war was a mistake.

I think you are confused about the reasons why we are there, my friend. It is because we were told Iraq was involved in 9/11, had Weapons of Mass Destructions, and that it posed an imminent threat to domestic U.S. security. No other reason(s) would have come close to building the necessary popular support for such a costly enterprise. Period. Do you think if the President had leveled with the American people and told us we were signing up for the sacrifice of thousands of young lives, tens of thousands of wounded and PTSD victims, a broken worn-out military, and well over a trillion dollars of cost, the American people would have supported the idea to "help Iraqis achieve democracy"? The response would not have been "no", it would have been "hell no". Anyone who thinks otherwise is either being dishonest or has lost their marbles.

What part of "I do not take politicians at their word" did you not understand? Although I believe that the administration placed emphasis on Iraq's terrorist links, which did exist, I never believed that it was the primary reason that Bush decided to invade Iraq. However, because liberals are not serious about seeing this nation become energy independent, this country stability in the Middle East will continue to rank high on this country's list of national security interests.

 

That's nice, but the U.S. is not responsible for unilaterally eliminating evil in the world.

That is true, but it was a nice side benefit for the world in this case, as this country acted in its own national interest by engaging in a legal war to bring balance to an area vital to our physical and economic security.

 

Thinking the U.S. military is the proper instrument to encourage political reconciliation in a country with such complex sectarian divides is as misguided as using a shotgun to do brain surgery. As we approach the sixth anniversary of this foreign policy catastrophe, we should remind ourselves that there is still no oil sharing agreement, no agreement to integrate Sunni militias into the national security force, and provincial elections still have not been held. It seems you are content to hold this country together forever to avoid the humiliating admission that the war was a mistake.

Don't worry, liberals will soon have another chance to show how their theories on world affairs work in practice. Let's hope that Obama does not blow it in the same way that Jimmy Carter did. Maybe a president who advocates a national security force and compulsory service will be able to organize one for Iraq first.