Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
retired UM

The Iraq War

Do you think the Iraq war is being carried out for the right reasons still?¿?  

34 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the Iraq war is being carried out for the right reasons still?¿?

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      20


69 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

zephyr

The real winners of this war will naturaly be the Iraqi people, but not before all the backward fanatic terrorists are disarmed and chased out of the country followed by a departure of all the occupying armies. The sooner the better, and whoever works to prolong the occupation is the enemy of the people! yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lochness_hunter

The iraq war is probably the best thing that ever happened to iraq. Come on, there are way to many good things to come out of this war. Here are some of the things which have happened since the ousting of saddam.

1. The iraqi curreny is at it's highest value ever.

2. There are hundereds of thousands of refugees flooding into iraq,

3. They are more businesses, schools, and hospitals opening everyday.

4. There is no more restrictions on presonal freedoms. The iraqi people are free to choose what they wear, listen to, and are able to vote.

And that is just the tip of the ice burg there people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Talon

The wars being carried out to make Bush a billionaire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
The wars being carried out to make Bush a billionaire.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that you are kidding. blink.gif

You are aren't you? huh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jjtss

That murderous bit of political vendetta should be stopped immediately, especially the continuing bombardment of people (civilians and military alike) with depleted uranium. American citizens should not be held responsible, just the Bush Crime Family. So much of America's protest against that mass murder is being suppressed that this is another crime against humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morpheas

-Post removed-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
its like bush saying mission accomlished

its like morpheus saying he supports Osama Bin Laden...

(my point is that you didn't say that, and Bush didn't say what you attribute to him, telling a lie over and over doesn't stop it from being a lie)

That murderous bit of political vendetta should be stopped immediately, especially the continuing bombardment of people (civilians and military alike) with depleted uranium.

they barely used any DU weaponry in this war...not exactly many armored iraqi targets to shoot at.

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

White House pressed on 'mission accomplished' sign

Navy suggested it, White House made it, both sides say

user posted image

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- What was once viewed as a premier presidential photo op continues to dog President Bush six months after he landed on an aircraft carrier to declare "one victory" in the war on terrorism and an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

Attention turned Tuesday to a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign that stood behind Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln when he gave the speech May 1.

The president told reporters the sign was put up by the Navy, not the White House.

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way," the president said Tuesday.

Now his statements are being parsed even further.

Navy and administration sources said that though the banner was the Navy's idea, the White House actually made it.

Bush offered the explanation after being asked whether his speech declaring an end to major combat in Iraq under the "Mission Accomplished" banner was premature, given that U.S. casualties in Iraq since then have surpassed those before it.

During the speech in May, Bush said, "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes on."

The speech and events surrounding it were widely publicized and served as the symbolic end to the war in Iraq.

At the time, it appeared that every detail of the day's events had been carefully planned, including the president's arrival in the co-pilot's seat of a Navy S-3B Viking after making two flybys of the carrier.

The exterior of the four-seat S-3B Viking was marked with "Navy 1" and "George W. Bush Commander in Chief."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told CNN that in preparing for the speech, Navy officials on the carrier told Bush aides they wanted a "Mission Accomplished" banner, and the White House agreed to create it.

"We took care of the production of it," McClellan said. "We have people to do those things. But the Navy actually put it up."

The banner has been used by critics of the Bush administration as evidence of bravado and an unclear sense of how dangerous the postwar conflict in Iraq would be.

Assigning responsibility elsewhere, especially to the military, is not a typical move for the Bush administration and raised suspicions among critics.

Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, defended the president's assertion.

"The banner was a Navy idea, the ship's idea," Chun said.

"The banner signified the successful completion of the ship's deployment," he said, noting the Abraham Lincoln was deployed 290 days, longer than any other nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in history.

At the time of the event, Democrats worried President Bush would use his speech and the dramatic landing for political gain.

On Tuesday, Democratic presidential candidates, hoping to make it a political liability for Bush, accused him of trying to shift blame for the stagecraft to the Navy.

"Landing on an aircraft carrier and saying 'mission accomplished' didn't end a war, and standing in the Rose Garden and stating that 'Iraq is a dangerous place' does nothing to make American troops safer," Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said in a written statement Tuesday.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean also issued a critical statement.

"Today, we heard him try to walk away from the USS Abraham Lincoln 'end of major combat operations' announcement, absurdly claiming that the White House was not responsible for the 'Mission Accomplished' banner that decorated the flight deck," Dean said.

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

Actually the Mission was accomplished. We defeated Sadaam and his forces. It was one of those 'surprise unknowns' that an infiltration of terrorists across the borders of Iran and Syria would insue. We defeated Sadaam. We accomplished the Mission. Now we are engaged in another Mission....that of defeating the terrorist insurgency in Iraq.

War (for those youngsters who may be confused) is not like a video game. It isn't over until one side is completely and utterly defeated. We will win the Peace in Iraq with the help of the Iraqis and our coalition partners in freedom. thumbsup.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fluffybunny

I thought the mission was to find and destroy the stockpiles of WMD's as well as to take care of the terrorists linked to 9/11.

In either case the mission was not accomplished in my opinion, and won't be for years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
It was one of those 'surprise unknowns' that an infiltration of terrorists across the borders of Iran and Syria would insue.

Interesting then how the terrorists that are against Iran too are going through Iran and not through some of the other neighbors of Iraq, where they are actually from! ohmy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gmac1000
Yes, it's wrong but now that he's started this war you can't expect him just to stop the war and pull- out tomorrow. Think of what that would do, and how pointless the deaths of U.S soldiers would be if he didn't finish what he started.

You either do something all the way through, or not do it at all. Giving up isn't an option anymore. So yes, now it is being carried out for good reasons.

448794[/snapback]

Why can't he just give up? He gave up on Bin Laden pretty damn quick, after saying that he will not quit until he catches him, a year and a hailf later he say's he has no idea where he was and frankly didn't care anymore.

So we know Bush can do things half assed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
So we know Bush can do things half assed.

Do you think he should, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
I think the war in iraq is great! I like seeing all the rape and pillage going on to the iraqi people and their land, it'll put some hair on their shoulders...

You act as if this was a movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hotoke
Yes, it's wrong but now that he's started this war you can't expect him just to stop the war and pull- out tomorrow. Think of what that would do, and how pointless the deaths of U.S soldiers would be if he didn't finish what he started.

You either do something all the way through, or not do it at all. Giving up isn't an option anymore. So yes, now it is being carried out for good reasons.

448794[/snapback]

Why can't he just give up? He gave up on Bin Laden pretty damn quick, after saying that he will not quit until he catches him, a year and a hailf later he say's he has no idea where he was and frankly didn't care anymore.

So we know Bush can do things half assed.

473295[/snapback]

they are still hunting for bin laden but you dont hear it in the news. the press tells you what is interesting. there are people in afghanistan hunting for laden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSinister

I agree with most of you with the idea that we must fight the war until Iraq is able to fend for itself. I do believe it was wrong for us to go in Iraq in the first place though for WMD. Once Bush couldn't find any, he said we'll be freeing the Iraquis. I mean honestly...what kind of BS is that. For those of you saying how a vast majority supported him going to Iraq, it was due to the fact that we were manipulated into believing there was something more then there really was. How are we to impose our beliefs onto them. If you do some researching, you'll find that the government aid we give to Iraq is Christian based. That's just violates the consitution. I do love my country, but i believe we need some changes and reforms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
it was due to the fact that we were manipulated into believing there was something more then there really was.

Actually, I wouldnt say that. I think a lot of people already believed he had WMDs, even before the whole thing started.

How are we to impose our beliefs onto them.

Is the coalition doing that? I dont see it.

If you do some researching, you'll find that the government aid we give to Iraq is Christian based.

What do you mean "Christian based"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
I do believe it was wrong for us to go in Iraq in the first place though for WMD. Once Bush couldn't find any, he said we'll be freeing the Iraquis.

i'm pretty sure that freeing the Iraqis was one of the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSinister
it was due to the fact that we were manipulated into believing there was something more then there really was.

Actually, I wouldnt say that. I think a lot of people already believed he had WMDs, even before the whole thing started.

How are we to impose our beliefs onto them.

Is the coalition doing that? I dont see it.

If you do some researching, you'll find that the government aid we give to Iraq is Christian based.

What do you mean "Christian based"?

473710[/snapback]

Well if he did have WMD's, bush sure did give him a lot of time to dispose of it, but that's if he did have it which i doubt he did. By Christian based, i mean they provide aid, but when they do that, they also try to impose or influence Christianity into the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSinister
I do believe it was wrong for us to go in Iraq in the first place though for WMD. Once Bush couldn't find any, he said we'll be freeing the Iraquis.

i'm pretty sure that freeing the Iraqis was one of the stated reasons for going to war in Iraq.

473810[/snapback]

Yes, that was a MINOR reason. The major reason was to erradicate the possession of WMD's that IRAQ. Based alone on that minor reason, i don't think we would've gone in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar
Well if he did have WMD's, bush sure did give him a lot of time to dispose of it, but that's if he did have it which i doubt he did.

The question is not so much "whether he had them" as "when/how did he get rid of them."

By Christian based, i mean they provide aid, but when they do that, they also try to impose or influence Christianity into the country.

Im sorry, but I dont remember the US discriminating against christians... they dont say "Well, this is christian money! We cant use it!"

Please... the muslims are free to donate too. The money provided by christian organisations is a gift, not a deal. Theres no "You convert, and we'll give you the money" going on...

Yes, that was a MINOR reason. The major reason was to erradicate the possession of WMD's that IRAQ. Based alone on that minor reason, i don't think we would've gone in.

I wouldnt say so. From practically the day that he started talking about WMDs, he talked about how SH is an evil tyrant who opresses and murders his people. He just didnt say "Liberate" until 3 days before the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaginCajun

the iraq war is bad and should never have happened the way it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSinister
Well if he did have WMD's, bush sure did give him a lot of time to dispose of it, but that's if he did have it which i doubt he did.

The question is not so much "whether he had them" as "when/how did he get rid of them."

By Christian based, i mean they provide aid, but when they do that, they also try to impose or influence Christianity into the country.

Im sorry, but I dont remember the US discriminating against christians... they dont say "Well, this is christian money! We cant use it!"

Please... the muslims are free to donate too. The money provided by christian organisations is a gift, not a deal. Theres no "You convert, and we'll give you the money" going on...

Yes, that was a MINOR reason. The major reason was to erradicate the possession of WMD's that IRAQ. Based alone on that minor reason, i don't think we would've gone in.

I wouldnt say so. From practically the day that he started talking about WMDs, he talked about how SH is an evil tyrant who opresses and murders his people. He just didnt say "Liberate" until 3 days before the attack.

473984[/snapback]

How could you ask "when/how did he get rid of them." when we dont even know if Iraq ever have any. For this, we must infer: "Did he have any?" Because of this reason, I remain skeptical. The US government donated money using the Christian name which violates the state/regilgion clause of the consistution. I would not mind Christian churches donating money under their name, but for the government to do it, it violates the law. Yes, i do agree he did express that Saddam Hussien is an evil tyrant, but most of us(including me, a reserve at camp pendelton), supported him due to the fact that there are WMD's. The liberation of the Iraqis is an extra bonus. Don't get me wrong, I love my country, that is why I'm serving; but i do believe we could have come about this in a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

I thought it was a right war. And I still think it is right war. blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fearfulone

At this point, does it matter anymore? We are in there, what good does it do to debate this topic any longer. The elections seem to be a success, we now have a democratic country in the middle east trying to get up off the ground, the iraqi people seem happy, now it's about security. Make sure the country is secure and bring our boys home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.