Should the U.S. Stop attacking Iraq?

If we leave OUR lives are at stake. The stupid muslem extremist want us all dead.....BOOM.....

 

Large sections of Iraq are under the control of local militias. Our training efforts are fruitless, and the Iraqi government is powerless to do anything.

 

The entire basis of this topic is worthless. The United States Military is NOT "attacking" anyone. At this point in time, we are merely sitting there maintaining order and rebuilding (not that it's doing any good.).

We should not STOP attacking, because that would require us to START attacking.

also, Sythe, nice random insertion of conspiracy theories.

 

Omg if you think we are there because of bombs or oil, then you are very mistakened. We are there to not have a civil war, causing a world war III

 

The original reason that we invaded was officially due to weapons of mass destruction.

We remain for the oil.

Think about Darfur, Sudan. They are in the middle of a civil war, yet we're not helping them.

 

Paintplaye. The main reason was because of weapons of mass destruction. Just what Shredderbeam2 and I have been saying for the past few days when I had written this thread. Even though I am canadian. Not Amercian. Stephen Harper should not be helping out Bush.

 

Hard to do otherwise when you're the strongest.

-ROFL, Korea doesn't have that capacity. Maybe you meant China.
-If we bombed every country in the world, they'd be nothing. So what's your point?

Elaborate on how you think they're stronger? They may be bigger, but not on military and arms.

No. We don't go to war with big countries because we'd be likely to just destroy each other. If we felt any differently, there would've been attacks during the Cold War.

That's just the highest, and likely the most exaggerated, figure. So many other sources, which I find to be more credible, say around 60-70 thousand.

No. Elaborate on your opinion.

-We're not targeting civilians.
-Many of the people included in those body counts weren't killed by the US.
-I'd focus on sentencing known terrorists before starting a lengthy investigation against an unknown one. Goes to show you how screwed up your priorities of immediate threat are.

Says who? There have, historically, been many spikes in petroleum prices during war times which are usually led by a recession. So stop speculating.

 

Thats not the point of this topic els you could have named it "Why did we attack Iraq" instead of "Should the U.S. Stop attacking Iraq?" ...

 

Australia and US should get out of iraq, i mean US has their oil secured, that the was the whole reason they wanted to go into iraq in the first place. Everybody knows that.. duh... and our prime minster was sucking up bush's ass by sending our army over there... all for a bit of oil

 

Please tell me what I said that can be considered ignorant? Was it when I disagreed with Iraq being worst than Vietnam? Or perhaps me disagreeing with your other assertions that lack proof? That's hardly any grounds for that accusation.

Of course it is, by anti-war rallyists most likely. Did you bother to find out their methology? How they took surveys of a fractions of the homes in Iraq and extrapolated the estimate from the surveys. The margin or error in that is staggering. The only justifications people are making are that "even if it is 50% off, it's still 300,000 minimum which is still high". Well... if those are the types of sources you trust, then so be it. I prefer Iraq Body Count's methodology:
http://iraqbodycount.net
Based on actual reports, meaning that there is a lag in accuracy, but it's certainly much better I feel. Only thing I don't like it that it doesn't distinguish between Iraqis killed by insurgents or by coalition forces. It's all lumped into one group of "Civilians reported killed by military intervention".

A fair opinion, but I disagree. I would elaborate myself, but I find it irrelevant and I have little time.

HAHAHA. You're calling me ignorant while saying "They are all civilians", great stuff. Trust me, those "civilians" strapping bombs to themselves and charging towards soldiers aren't doing it solely because they want the soldiers to leave. Does that make any sense to you?

Yeah... and they are investing that. And if they are found to be guilty, they should be sentenced severely if not killed. But they acted as individuals, those things aren't goals of the war.

Possible. I no doubt believe they wanted an "excuse" to go to war with Iraq. But I believe it luckily became a legitimate endeavor. It's a pretty big leap to say they conjured illegitimate excuses to fulfill their wants when they likewise want to do many other unpopular things, of which show no such similar tampering.
Only time will tell I suppose...

 

Cruel, not all of the deaths can be reported.

 

yea it pussy G w bush and his beilf of oil : PS

if they had nuclear weps
they'd already by now suicide bombed us not to be racist

 

meh h8 iraq

 

Iraq Should have the right to run its own country- So yes

 

I thought we were in Iraq because the United States government gave some Billions of dollars to Iraq and they turned around and built weapons. So we went there to find the weapons.

Though, I am probably wrong, correct me if I am.

 

bush is just doing this to take advantage of the goddamn gas prices -.-' bastard

 

I would like to what Sythe said with a little piece of information.

The Downing Street memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com) shows that Bush had considered invading Iraq well before 2003.

Take a look at that.