War In Iraq

[SarahMaree]

Hey Y'all...I just found out that my brother will be going to Iraq in September, and that got me wondering what y'all think of the war. Do you support it? Do you think we're making a difference? Any other thoughts?

Thanks for your opinions!

[Outshined]

Having been there twice myself, I support it. The reality of Iraq is not what is presented in the media.

[SarahMaree]

Having been there twice myself, I support it. The reality of Iraq is not what is presented in the media.

What were your experiences there?

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

I served in the Air Force during the Gulf War, and have watched this war with great interest. I also still correspond with two members of my old unit who have been there this time around.

I agree that the situation is more positive than most of the mainstream media would have you believe.

Yes, there are dangers. Yes, it will tear at his heart to see what is happenning there. But if he is a good person going in, the experience will strengthen him.

[Outshined]

What were your experiences there?

Most of the people I met were very grateful and friendly, and I heard a lot of horror stories about life under Saddam. So much more progress has been made than you ever hear about on the news; hospitals, schools, etc...

It made me grateful to have been born in a free country.

[Jason]

100% total support for ousting the Taliban in Afganistan, and maintaining our presence there indefinitely.

Not so for Iraq. Unless we actually do find the WMD's shipped to Syria...Im thinking that there are plenty of worse places in the world we could have "liberated" (Somalia, Congo, and Ivory Coast come immediately to mind).

However, I do think we've made life better for the majority of Iraqis. Hopefully, like they say in the Boy Scouts, we'll leave the place better than when we found it.

[Traveler]

I do not believe in war but from time to time I believe we must resort to war to protect our country.

If our country goes to war I believe that only congress has the power to declair war - then I believe it is up to the military to end it. For what-ever reason congress has not declaired war in over 50 years. Because congress did not declair war I do not believe we should be engaging in a war or war activities.

I believe that when the military finished taking Iraq that the Western border should have been closed, we should have demanded that all forigners regester within 48 hours or they would be considered spies and exicuted if caught. The Western border would then be announced as closed and all people within 200 miles of the border required to move and a no man's zone declaired. Any activity in that area would draw a military response. When we were taking Iraq all prisoners should have been ID'ed - both finger printed and DNA before release and informed that if caught with insergents or in possession of any weapon they would be exicuted as war criminals and spies.

War is not a good thing. I do not believe in war - but if we send our boys into war we give them every right to fight. At the end of WWII when the US was about to enter Germany three cities were chosen that had no military purpose. The three cities were bombed to warn the Germans not to resist our troups. Drisden was one of those cities and is still rebuilding to this day. There was very little German resistance and today Germany is not an enemy. I do not believe we should be fighting in Iraq and the main reason is that we as a country and a people are not willing to admit that it is worth a war.

The Traveler

[Palerider]

one of my old missionary companions is a press secretary for a senator from a western state and has sent me info from time to time of reports being filed by politicians and what all is going on in Iraq. We do not hear anything good coming from the media about that war. I am in support of it!!!!

[Aristotle]

Conditions which justify entering a war:

1) An attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency;

2) Loyalty to his country;

3) Defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one

The war in Iraq is justified based upon these conditions. My 2 second cousins and my husband's 2 nephews are all serving in Iraq.

[LionHeart]

I believe we had no choice but to declare war. Saddam was suspected of posessing weapons of mass destruction. He was not co-operating with the inspectors which only strengthened our suspicions of him having the weapons. Iraq is a big place. Just because we didn't find anything in any of the facilities, doesn't rule out the possibility of weapons being buried out in the desert somewhere.

Although, it apparently turned out that he didn't have any, we can ask ourselves: "What if he did?" What if he did have a nuclear bomb and he used it on New York? We just didn't know, and Saddam's un-co-operative actions only raised the suspicions higher. In my opinion, we couldn't afford the risk. On the one side, we have a few hundred thousand people in Iraq. Only a small fraction of them were killed in the war. On the other hand, if Saddam would have nuked New York, millions would have died; and not just from the original blast, but also from the nuclear fallout.

So again, with the information we had, I don't think we could afford the risk of not taking action.

If Saddam didn't want to get wasted, he should have co-operated.

[Aristotle]

Incidentally, the U.N. found WMD, which they confiscated and buried. (re: AOL News)

[Dror]

Removing Saddam Hussein from power was, in and of itself, a positive thing. Better planning for the aftermath would have been in order, though. If the Iraqi democracy survives, the long-term effects of this war will be good for the Iraqi people. However, I question Bush's reasoning for our going there in the first place.

1. The "War on Terror"/self-defense: Osama bin Laden attacked America, not Saddam Hussein. There was nothing linking Hussein with the Sept. 11 attacks or any other terrorism perpetrated against Americans. This is not a war of self-defense.

2. WMDs: Practically everybody now understands that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and that Bush's "evidence" was very questionable or downright fabricated. Also, is it sound foreign policy to invade every "unfriendly" country that develops WMDs? Is it wise, or even legal, to do so without UN support?

3. Freeing the Iraqi people/spreading democracy: This is something we may actually accomplish, which is a good thing. However, again, is it sound foreign policy to invade every country we want to liberate/establish democracy in? Who will be next? How do we decide who will benefit from our generosity and who won't? Are we going to do this all by ourselves, without the international community's support? Will we pay to rebuild every country? Do we "liberate" nations if they don't ask, or want, us to (such as when a person or party we don't like legitimately wins an election)?

My short and simplistic answer is, therefore, no, I don't support the current war. However, since we are there, it is our responsibility to clean up after ourselves and make the best of a difficult situation. The Iraqi people deserve better than Saddam Hussein, and deserve our support in the aftermath of this war, including our training them to support themselves politically and economically.

Are we going to invade Iran next? North Korea? These places either have developed or are developing WMDs, and are clearly unfriendly to us. What about Saudi Arabia? They could use some democracy there, and Saudis were involved with the Sept. 11 attacks.

I greatly respect our military personnel and the good job they're doing. The media need "hot" stories, and so they hype things up--I don't doubt things are going better in Iraq than it sometimes looks on TV. This doesn't mean, however, that the current Administration's decision to go to war in Iraq was a good idea.

Incidentally, the U.N. found WMD, which they confiscated and buried. (re: AOL News)

Please provide evidence. (And no, repeating oneself does not constitute evidence!)

[Outshined]

A couple of quick notes:

1. The "War on Terror"/self-defense: Osama bin Laden attacked America, not Saddam Hussein. There was nothing linking Hussein with the Sept. 11 attacks or any other terrorism perpetrated against Americans. This is not a war of self-defense.

Actually it is recognized that Iraq had terorist training camps, which the 9/11 commission acknowledged. They did not have any known link with 9/11, but were training terrorists, and paid the families of suicide bombers.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

2. WMDs: Practically everybody now understands that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and that Bush's "evidence" was very questionable or downright fabricated. Also, is it sound foreign policy to invade every "unfriendly" country that develops WMDs? Is it wise, or even legal, to do so without UN support?

See my thread on the Iraqi General who says there were flights out of Iraq carrying chemical weapons to Syria. It is far from a closed case. By the way, I believe that invading North Korea would be WWIII and possibly the end of the world...

Whether it was wise to invade Iraq or not, we did, and as you said, we must see the process through. Check my website for links to progress made in Iraq so far (another shameless plug).

[Dror]

A couple of quick notes: <div class='quotemain'>

1. The "War on Terror"/self-defense: Osama bin Laden attacked America, not Saddam Hussein. There was nothing linking Hussein with the Sept. 11 attacks or any other terrorism perpetrated against Americans. This is not a war of self-defense.

Actually it is recognized that Iraq had terorist training camps, which the 9/11 commission acknowledged. They did not have any known link with 9/11, but were training terrorists, and paid the families of suicide bombers.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20031201-123723-4738r.htm

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092503F

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html

2. WMDs: Practically everybody now understands that no WMDs were found in Iraq, and that Bush's "evidence" was very questionable or downright fabricated. Also, is it sound foreign policy to invade every "unfriendly" country that develops WMDs? Is it wise, or even legal, to do so without UN support?

See my thread on the Iraqi General who says there were flights out of Iraq carrying chemical weapons to Syria. It is far from a closed case. By the way, I believe that invading North Korea would be WWIII and possibly the end of the world...

Whether it was wise to invade Iraq or not, we did, and as you said, we must see the process through. Check my website for links to progress made in Iraq so far (another shameless plug).

Muchas gracias, Outshined!

[LionHeart]

I wouldn't say that the war in Iraq was ever intended to get revenge on the ones responsible for 9/11 but that it was more about preventing another one from happening.

I would agree that from my perspective, things could have been done better, however, we must understand that hindsight is better foresight. I also acknowledge that I often have an opinion about how something should be done, but when I become personally involved with the situation, and I learn all of the facts about it, I find that my opinion changes. And only then, do I truly understand why things are being done the way they are being done.

I also feel like our troops are doing a good job. They have my support.

[Aristotle]

Please provide evidence. (And no, repeating oneself does not constitute evidence!)

I did... AOL News.

As per repetition...isn't that all we hear at Church? It's a matter of reiterating things which we might otherwise forget. ;-)

[Outshined]

As per repetition...isn't that all we hear at Church? It's a matter of reiterating things which we might otherwise forget. ;-)

But repetition is only that; if it is opinion being repeated, it is still only opinion.

[Aristotle]

But repetition is only that; if it is opinion being repeated, it is still only opinion.

At Church, we re-read the scriptures and the words of the prophets...to instill in us the truthfulness of the gospel.

In the forum, I quote Founders and Prophets...i.e., truthfulness.

[Outshined]

Well, at least you are convincing yourself that it is the case.

(Since when is AOL a prophet or "founder?")

All Dror did was ask for evidence to back up your claim.

[Aristotle]

Well, at least you are convincing yourself that it is the case.

(Since when is AOL a prophet or "founder?")

People who are open to the truth don't need convincing. ;-)

AOL is a source...and I quote other reference materials, too...ya want my list of 'em? LOL

[Outshined]

Nor do people who convince themselves...

And no, you didn't answer Dror.

[Aristotle]

Yes, I am convinced of the truth!

And yes, I did answer Dror...the information can be researched on AOL News, if Dror really wants to know. ;-)

[Outshined]

Yes, I am convinced of the truth!

At least of what you believe the truth to be...

And yes, I did answer Dror...the information can be researched on AOL News, if Dror really wants to know.

When you make a claim you should be able to provide an actual source, not just "I heard it on AOL." It isn't his place to prove your claims...

[Jason]

Ari,

"AOL" is like saying "The Internet."

You need a URL, or a Date of publication, or an author, or preferably all three.

I realize they don't teach Nail Technicians how to properly reference a professional source, but do try to improve, ok?

[Aristotle]

Ari,

"AOL" is like saying "The Internet."

You need a URL, or a Date of publication, or an author, or preferably all three.

I realize they don't teach Nail Technicians how to properly reference a professional source, but do try to improve, ok?

Have a banana!