Hey Riot

[Silas]

Wow that says a lot right there.

[J@3]

Maybe the soldiers told them "thank you Bush" was the translation for "I'm hungry, please don't kill me."

Why do I even bother with you guys?

Classic

[bigh0rt]

From what I understand, July was the deadliest month in Iraq so far for civilians. How many? Try an average of 110 per DAY and a total of about 3,500 deaths in one month. 3,600 Iraqis were injured in July alone and a total of about 6,000 died in May and June combined. Ok, so, basic math... May + June + July = 9,500 dead Iraqi CIVILIANS. Sounds an awful lot worse than 9/11 and considerably worse than anything under the "tyrannical Saddam regime."

Shiite-Sunni fighting is escalating exponentially and the evidence suggests that the violence is escalating toward full blown civil war.

By the way, the "Baghdad Security Plan" which was the first step for the Iraqi government to begin taking over security enforcement in Iraq, went into effect in June. It failed miserably.

Meanwhile...

BAGHDAD, Iraq Sep 7, 2006 (AP)— Baghdad recorded more than 1,500 violent deaths in August, according to final figures released by the Health Ministry this week nearly three times the preliminary figure the same ministry had released last week. The figure is a sharp contradiction of U.S. and Iraqi claims that a security crackdown led to a steep drop in deaths in the capital.

The so-called US Security "crackdown" began at the beginning of August.... and the death toll pushed ever higher. 250 Iraqi civilians were killed in the final week of August in Baghdad alone.

While death tolls are largely unreliable for the past month, estamates but Iraqi civilian deaths in the month of August around 1,600.

More math... May + June + July + August = 11,100 Iraqi civilians DEAD.

Now how about you continue calling me names?

[Riot]

We aren't the ones killing them. They are killing themselves.

[Silas]

so they have self esteem issues?

[Big-D]

We aren't the ones killing them. They are killing themselves.

Fuck you. We called you on it and you wont admit it. I TOLD YOU I HEARD A STORY ABOUT A SOLDIER KILLING CHILDREN AND YOU DIDNT BELIEVE ME!!!!!

What else does bush have to do wrong for you to disaggree on him doing a good job. Its stupid.

[Big-D]

[quote="Riot"]I'd like to see official sources (pural) that have determined these are all by American forces. Until then, I take this with a grain of salt.[/quote

Here is something
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

[Riot]

We aren't the ones killing them. They are killing themselves.

Fuck you. We called you on it and you wont admit it. I TOLD YOU I HEARD A STORY ABOUT A SOLDIER KILLING CHILDREN AND YOU DIDNT BELIEVE ME!!!!!

What else does bush have to do wrong for you to disaggree on him doing a good job. Its stupid.

There have been isolated incidents where some of our troops have done horrible things. So what? The majority of the deaths are caused by terrorism or Iraqi's murdering other Iraqi's. On a day to day level our troops don't see much gunfire.

I understand there have been a lot of deaths. But going into this war, or any war, did you really expect anything less? When you fight a war in an urban area against an enemy that you cannot see it's obvious the death tool will be high. Especially considering the massive invasion and the scale of this war.

PS: Fuck you too.

[Big-D]

We aren't the ones killing them. They are killing themselves.

Fuck you. We called you on it and you wont admit it. I TOLD YOU I HEARD A STORY ABOUT A SOLDIER KILLING CHILDREN AND YOU DIDNT BELIEVE ME!!!!!

What else does bush have to do wrong for you to disaggree on him doing a good job. Its stupid.

There have been isolated incidents where some of our troops have done horrible things. So what? The majority of the deaths are caused by terrorism or Iraqi's murdering other Iraqi's. On a day to day level our troops don't see much gunfire.

I understand there have been a lot of deaths. But going into this war, or any war, did you really expect anything less? When you fight a war in an urban area against an enemy that you cannot see it's obvious the death tool will be high. Especially considering the massive invasion and the scale of this war.

PS: Fuck you too.

Since we didnt have a reason to be in this war
Since nobody should go to war
Since were looking for Ossama not Saddam

Hell yes i expect less.
Think before you speak man.

The only time it is right to kill anyone is when they have a weapon and there not a child. If I were a soldier a would honest to god value a childs life over mine even with a gun.

[Dro]

We aren't the ones killing them. They are killing themselves.

That's a terrible argument dawg. You very well know that there wouldn't be these many deaths if we never went into Iraq. I don't think Iraqis would call this type of lifestyle "freedom"...sure, there are the pictures of a kid holding up a sign he can't even read. Personally, the tens of thousands of deaths show me more than the signs do.

Here we are, 5 years later after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe not 40K, but it's safe to say that there have been at least 30,000 deaths in the war on terror. Have we really made any progress? The Taliban is weakened, but still has a presence in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is obviously not gone, and the man who runs it is still alive. The insurgency in Iraq is worse than ever these past few months...

I will be critical of whoever is running the country until we start seeing some results. All these civilian deaths with nothing to show for it? Except for Dick Cheney's oil, of course...

[Big-D]

We aren't the ones killing them. They are killing themselves.

That's a terrible argument dawg. You very well know that there wouldn't be these many deaths if we never went into Iraq. I don't think Iraqis would call this type of lifestyle "freedom"...sure, there are the pictures of a kid holding up a sign he can't even read. Personally, the tens of thousands of deaths show me more than the signs do.

Here we are, 5 years later after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe not 40K, but it's safe to say that there have been at least 30,000 deaths in the war on terror. Have we really made any progress? The Taliban is weakened, but still has a presence in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda is obviously not gone, and the man who runs it is still alive. The insurgency in Iraq is worse than ever these past few months...

I will be critical of whoever is running the country until we start seeing some results. All these civilian deaths with nothing to show for it? Except for Dick Cheney's oil, of course...

Give this man a fucking round of applouse. I aggree with you all the way.
This is the kind of stuff that never gets shown in the news. Can someone aggree that the reason why the gas price is going down because there is an election comming up. It really shows you who controls gas/oil. Maybe they wouldnt have to idle our economy with gas and work on out-sourcing. These are all hard questions to bring up, but because i love my country so much I am willing to deffend what i think is right and what makes this country so great.

[Riot]

Since we didnt have a reason to be in this war

Oh...we had reasons to go to war with Iraq. In fact, we actually have quite a few. This is a legal war and it's a war that should have been fought by the United Nations...not the United States. Regardless, the war is legit and it was justified. Whether or not you agree with it doesn't matter...we had reasons to go to Iraq.

Since nobody should go to war

Wake up and smell the coffee...this is called reality. Not everything can be solved with a timeout and and a spank on the butt. Humans can be ruthless people.

Since were looking for Ossama not Saddam

Of course we aren't looking for Saddam anymore...we got him! However, your logic does concern me. I understand the political gain of catching Osama Bin Laden but that should not be our number one goal. Our goal has to be much wider and broader than that. We aren't looking for one man. This is a War on Terror and not a War on Bin Laden. There are a lot more targets out there than just Bin Laden.

Hell yes i expect less.

I suppose you think World War II was bad? Should the United States have not gotten involved in that? There were a shitload more innocent lives lost in that war than in this one.

Think before you speak man.

I do. I tend to think a lot when I write these posts. Thanks for the tip though.

The only time it is right to kill anyone is when they have a weapon and there not a child. If I were a soldier a would honest to god value a childs life over mine even with a gun.

So what you are saying is you should not kill at a child what-so-ever? Not even if he was aiming a gun at you or your family and threatening to kill them? You would still think that child's live is more valuable than your own? If you were in Iraq and you had a wife and three kids at home waiting for you and some kid comes running at you with an Ak-47 in his hand aiming at you screaming in Arabic you wouldn't shoot him? You would let him take your life and leave your family behind? You would risk the lives of your men with you? You would make an awful soldier.

That's a terrible argument dawg.

I think what I said wasn't so bad. The first post in this thread suggests that American troops are terrorizing the Iraqi's. I'm pointing out that it is not our troops doing the majority of the killing. It's the Iraqi's or foreign fighters doing it because there is no law.

You very well know that there wouldn't be these many deaths if we never went into Iraq.

I know there wouldn't be. Saddam was an awful man and he had his country running his way and things were relatively under control. The country is in the process of rebuilding it's military and police force. Until it is full strength that country will continue to be out of control.

I don't think Iraqis would call this type of lifestyle "freedom"...sure, there are the pictures of a kid holding up a sign he can't even read.

There are a lot of Iraqi's living in freedom right now. There are only a few "hot spots" in the country where the majority of the violence takes place. A lot of the rural areas in the country are going about their everyday life. I admit freedom has not succeded in Iraq yet but I am confident that it will as long as we stay there. Freedom isn't something we can install overnight. You also cannot set a time table on when freedom will be erected.

Personally, the tens of thousands of deaths show me more than the signs do.

It shows me that the country is out of control and that we need more troops there to control it. That is what it shows me. It seems to me the point of this thread was to suggest that it shows our troops are terrorizing the Iraqi people. That is why I responded the way I did. The rebuilding stage certainly has not gone smoothly and will not go smoothly until we get more troops on the ground.

Here we are, 5 years later after the 9/11 attacks. Maybe not 40K, but it's safe to say that there have been at least 30,000 deaths in the war on terror. Have we really made any progress?

Yes we have. We have shut down dozens of training camp recruitment centers, training camps and have foiled numerous terrorist plots. We have captured or killed thousands of terrorist leaders, members or suspects. We have installed democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Saddam is out of power and Zarqawi is dead. The terrorists are being forced out of the Middle East and into Northern Africa. I think progress has been made...significant progress. It's not good enough but this is a war that we will be fighting for the rest of our days.

The Taliban is weakened, but still has a presence in Afghanistan.

The Taliban is very weak.

Al Qaeda is obviously not gone, and the man who runs it is still alive.

Al-Qaeda is getting weaker though. We have cut off some of their financial aid that they have been recieving in attempts to reduce their money flow. We have also captured dozens and dozens of Al-Qaeda members and operatives.

The insurgency in Iraq is worse than ever these past few months...

Perhaps that suggests that we are winning? They are fighting harder because they sense they are losing grip. That is what Zarqawi said in his War on Terror report card that they found in a raid.

I will be critical of whoever is running the country until we start seeing some results. All these civilian deaths with nothing to show for it? Except for Dick Cheney's oil, of course...

I think it's fair to be critical but to say nothing good has come out of it is a little harsh. You don't think the world will be a better place without Saddam in power? You don't think all the terrorist suspects we have in custody is progress? What about the foiled terror plots? Just because Bin Laden isn't dead or captured doesn't mean progress hasn't been made. The civilian deaths are awful but it's a price of war. There will be even more civilian deaths as the years go on.

[Riot]

Give this man a fucking round of applouse. I aggree with you all the way.
This is the kind of stuff that never gets shown in the news. Can someone aggree that the reason why the gas price is going down because there is an election comming up. It really shows you who controls gas/oil. Maybe they wouldnt have to idle our economy with gas and work on out-sourcing. These are all hard questions to bring up, but because i love my country so much I am willing to deffend what i think is right and what makes this country so great.

The gas prices are going down mostly because it is the end of the summer season. They will rise again shortly.

[Matthew]

I think what I said wasn't so bad. The first post in this thread suggests that American troops are terrorizing the Iraqi's. I'm pointing out that it is not our troops doing the majority of the killing. It's the Iraqi's or foreign fighters doing it because there is no law.

Solid point.

You also gotta ove these threads where its directed at riot, looking for a response, and then they virtually ignore what he has to say.

[bigh0rt]

Big-D wrote:
Since we didnt have a reason to be in this war


Oh...we had reasons to go to war with Iraq. In fact, we actually have quite a few. This is a legal war and it's a war that should have been fought by the United Nations...not the United States. Regardless, the war is legit and it was justified. Whether or not you agree with it doesn't matter...we had reasons to go to Iraq.

If the reasoning you're referring to are the ones I suspect, why aren't we in Iran, or North Korea for christ's sake? Do these nations not pose an equal, if not greater, threat than our current occupancy? I mean, after all, we're 'freeing' these Iraqi people -- why aren't we freeing North Koreans and 'liberating' them? What's the difference?

Of course we aren't looking for Saddam anymore...we got him! However, your logic does concern me. I understand the political gain of catching Osama Bin Laden but that should not be our number one goal. Our goal has to be much wider and broader than that. We aren't looking for one man. This is a War on Terror and not a War on Bin Laden. There are a lot more targets out there than just Bin Laden.

See, that's what really scares me. This all spawned from our wanting to capture and stop the man who orchestrated horric acts against our country and our innocent civilians. Can we all remember back that far? When we would "stop at nothing to find and bring this man to justice", meaning Bin Laden? Boy, how things change in 5 years. As I said in a previous post, now we've got these cool new buzz words and phrases like 'War on Terror' and we haven't heard the word Bin Laden in half a decade. I bet the surviving families of 9/11 victims are thrilled that we've moved onto 'bigger and better things'.

There are a lot of Iraqi's living in freedom right now. There are only a few "hot spots" in the country where the majority of the violence takes place. A lot of the rural areas in the country are going about their everyday life. I admit freedom has not succeded in Iraq yet but I am confident that it will as long as we stay there. Freedom isn't something we can install overnight. You also cannot set a time table on when freedom will be erected.

Especially when you can't even get a clear definition from the Commander in Chief on what this 'freedom' is. How many more must die unnecessary deaths before we finally say enough is enough? I imagine it'll take a new administration -- one that cannot come quick enough.

It shows me that the country is out of control and that we need more troops there to control it. That is what it shows me. It seems to me the point of this thread was to suggest that it shows our troops are terrorizing the Iraqi people. That is why I responded the way I did. The rebuilding stage certainly has not gone smoothly and will not go smoothly until we get more troops on the ground.

This is just a matter of personal preference, and off-topic to a degree here, but I personally would rather have my troops at home, on American soil, protecting me instead of half a world away unnecessarily dying to protect people who want us dead. Again, that's just something that's bothered me from day 1.

I think it's fair to be critical but to say nothing good has come out of it is a little harsh. You don't think the world will be a better place without Saddam in power? You don't think all the terrorist suspects we have in custody is progress? What about the foiled terror plots? Just because Bin Laden isn't dead or captured doesn't mean progress hasn't been made. The civilian deaths are awful but it's a price of war. There will be even more civilian deaths as the years go on.

I think the world would be a better place without Kim Jong Il, yet I don't hear a word about North Korea, the fact that they are a much bigger threat to the lives of you and I than any Iraqi is, or anything other than this 'progress' we've taken 5 years to make over in Iraq. I mean seriously... 5 years? 5 years and 'the greatest military in the world' can only say 'we've made progress'? Crap, if that's progress, let's send our boys home, stop them from dying unnecessarily for a cause with no light currently at the end of the tunnel, and have them do more meaningful duties -- namely, protecting American citizens.

[Riot]

If the reasoning you're referring to are the ones I suspect, why aren't we in Iran, or North Korea for christ's sake? Do these nations not pose an equal, if not greater, threat than our current occupancy? I mean, after all, we're 'freeing' these Iraqi people -- why aren't we freeing North Koreans and 'liberating' them? What's the difference?

The difference is North Korea has no ties to terrorist organizations, which is our main goal at this point in time.

See, that's what really scares me. This all spawned from our wanting to capture and stop the man who orchestrated horric acts against our country and our innocent civilians. Can we all remember back that far? When we would "stop at nothing to find and bring this man to justice", meaning Bin Laden? Boy, how things change in 5 years. As I said in a previous post, now we've got these cool new buzz words and phrases like 'War on Terror' and we haven't heard the word Bin Laden in half a decade. I bet the surviving families of 9/11 victims are thrilled that we've moved onto 'bigger and better things'.

Those families want those who are responsible brought to justice. I think everyone does. You must understand that there was more than just Bin Laden behind the attacks. In fact, he didn't even come up with the plan of the attacks. He basically just funded them. We already have the mastermind behind the attacks. The point of this war is to bring those to justice and to make sure terrorist attacks do not happen again. The goal of the War on Terror has never been to get Bin Laden...that is simply one of our objectives.

Especially when you can't even get a clear definition from the Commander in Chief on what this 'freedom' is. How many more must die unnecessary deaths before we finally say enough is enough? I imagine it'll take a new administration -- one that cannot come quick enough.

If we pull out of Iraq you realize that A. Iraq will be in even worse shape than it is now and B. our country will be in even more danger? As much as you don't like it, staying in Iraq and finishing the job is our only option.

This is just a matter of personal preference, and off-topic to a degree here, but I personally would rather have my troops at home, on American soil, protecting me instead of half a world away unnecessarily dying to protect people who want us dead. Again, that's just something that's bothered me from day 1.

1). You act as though America is under attack right now. If the troops were at home would they really be protecting you? Would they be walking the streets holding your hand? We have plenty of troops at home right now that could be called up or sent out if need be.

2). You really don't know anything about the war or the response from the Iraqi people. When we first arrived about 80% or more of the country welcomed us and wanted us there. Now that the war has been going on and on and security still has no been installed they are starting to get scared and restless. You don't hate Americans and most of them are grateful that we came to help them. The reason why they want us to go home is because they think our troops are the reason why all the "bad guys" are entering their country and attacking them. Part of it is obviously true but the country would not be safer without us.

You need to get this picture out of your head that all Iraqi's hate our troops. You act as if our troops are under constant fire and that it's them vs. 50 million Iraqi's. In reality, it's a very small number of people who are doing all the damage. It only takes on person to drive a car bomb into a large group of people.

I think the world would be a better place without Kim Jong Il, yet I don't hear a word about North Korea, the fact that they are a much bigger threat to the lives of you and I than any Iraqi is, or anything other than this 'progress' we've taken 5 years to make over in Iraq. I mean seriously... 5 years? 5 years and 'the greatest military in the world' can only say 'we've made progress'? Crap, if that's progress, let's send our boys home, stop them from dying unnecessarily for a cause with no light currently at the end of the tunnel, and have them do more meaningful duties -- namely, protecting American citizens.

Once again, I don't know why you think our troops would be "protecting you" here in America but they aren't overseas. Iraq is one theater of the War on Terror, which is a war to protect America and our allies. How can you not understand that?

Finally, the reason why we are not going aggressively after North Korea is because of the rest of the world. For whatever reason China does not want us to get involved with North Korea without their consent. China feels the need to control whatever happens in that region and we really do not have the time nor the patience to deal with them or North Korea. I honestly do not take North Korea as much of a threat. I feel Iran and Iraq are/were much bigger threats to us than North Korea.

[Matt]

all this debate and no one what the hell really happened on 9/11

[Dro]

So bigh0rt, are you suggesting we pull troops out of Iraq? That is the worst thing we could possibly do. In my opinion, it was a mistake to go into Iraq. The Bush administration should have seen all this secterian violence coming, and either put more troops in Iraq from the beginning, or not mess with it at all. What I wish the administration would do is admit their mistake, and tell us all straightforward what they're doing to solve it. Is that so much to ask? More US soldiers have died in Iraq than people in 9/11. The Bush administration owes the families of fallen soldiers the truth.

Anywho, back to pulling out...it can't happen. The secterian violence involves more than US troops, so it will go on whether the US troops are in Iraq or not.

[Silas]

You also gotta ove these threads where its directed at riot, looking for a response, and then they virtually ignore what he has to say.

Good point, they call him out and then he gives a response and they say, "fuck you", doesn't seem very nice to me, regardless of what his opinion may be

[bigh0rt]

So bigh0rt, are you suggesting we pull troops out of Iraq? That is the worst thing we could possibly do. In my opinion, it was a mistake to go into Iraq. The Bush administration should have seen all this secterian violence coming, and either put more troops in Iraq from the beginning, or not mess with it at all. What I wish the administration would do is admit their mistake, and tell us all straightforward what they're doing to solve it. Is that so much to ask? More US soldiers have died in Iraq than people in 9/11. The Bush administration owes the families of fallen soldiers the truth.

Anywho, back to pulling out...it can't happen. The secterian violence involves more than US troops, so it will go on whether the US troops are in Iraq or not.

I'm not saying we should pull out of Iraq (if I stated that anywhere, it wasa mistake) -- however it's not because I'm happy about what they're doing there. It's because they've already fucked up so badly, they've reached the point of no return -- if we leave now, it'll be worse off than had we never even gone (yay). I'm displeased that we ever walked into this thing, completely unprepared, not ready for what lied ahead, and now we're paying for it in American lives.

Be ready for a very large, harsh recoil -- similar to the one that happened towards the end of Vietnam. When the silent majority has had enough, and the death tolls mount up, and they feel these deaths are at the expense of something that they don't see as being necessary, or that we are losing lives unnecessarily -- suddenly they become the not so silent majority. I imagine we're not too far off from being at that point in the near future.

Just for fun, go to Google and search 'failure'.

[Ty-Land]

Oh...we had reasons to go to war with Iraq. In fact, we actually have quite a few. This is a legal war and it's a war that should have been fought by the United Nations...not the United States. Regardless, the war is legit and it was justified. Whether or not you agree with it doesn't matter...we had reasons to go to Iraq.

I'll think you'll find that any person that has studied any kind of International Relations, International Politics or International Treaty Law will tell you that this is not a legal war. The only legal wars technically are those sanctioned by the UN Security Council or in self defence (which does not include preemptive strikes of any sort). Also, the UN does not fight wars. It has the power to sanction wars and send peace-keeping operations to areas at war. Seeing that the war was not apporoved by the Security Council and the fact that Iraq was not at war at the time of the American invasion there was little the UN could do. The fact that the US undermined the UN by going ahead with the invasion before the final weapons inspection report and the possible resolution vote has created dire consequences about the legitimacy of war. The fact that America can overrule International agreements and procedures allows other nation states, potentially rogue states, to avoid further treaty obligations (e.g. North Korea and Iran breaching the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty etc.)

Wake up and smell the coffee...this is called reality. Not everything can be solved with a timeout and and a spank on the butt. Humans can be ruthless people.

This is a particularly common perspective in IR known as Realism. It is this kind of political philosophy that justified the Cold War arm's race, while being a necessity to a certain extent, became far to excessise and more detrimental to American security rather than a deterrent to the Soviets. Realists believe that war is inevitable and there's nothing nations can do to prevent it. All nations must prepare for it, be ready, and following Nietchzien beliefs exert as much power and influence in International Relations as possible. It is this primal, out-dated and flawed prospective that threatens the greater security of all states. It is these values that would make leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, Ghandi, Gorbachev and Roosevelt shudder at our lack of progress towards peaceful relations between states.

[bigh0rt]

Oh...we had reasons to go to war with Iraq. In fact, we actually have quite a few. This is a legal war and it's a war that should have been fought by the United Nations...not the United States. Regardless, the war is legit and it was justified. Whether or not you agree with it doesn't matter...we had reasons to go to Iraq.

I'll think you'll find that any person that has studied any kind of International Relations, International Politics or International Treaty Law will tell you that this is not a legal war. The only legal wars technically are those sanctioned by the UN Security Council or in self defence (which does not include preemptive strikes of any sort). Also, the UN does not fight wars. It has the power to sanction wars and send peace-keeping operations to areas at war. Seeing that the war was not apporoved by the Security Council and the fact that Iraq was not at war at the time of the American invasion there was little the UN could do. The fact that the US undermined the UN by going ahead with the invasion before the final weapons inspection report and the possible resolution vote has created dire consequences about the legitimacy of war. The fact that America can overrule International agreements and procedures allows other nation states, potentially rogue states, to avoid further treaty obligations (e.g. North Korea and Iran breaching the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty etc.)

Wake up and smell the coffee...this is called reality. Not everything can be solved with a timeout and and a spank on the butt. Humans can be ruthless people.

This is a particularly common perspective in IR known as Realism. It is this kind of political philosophy that justified the Cold War arm's race, while being a necessity to a certain extent, became far to excessise and more detrimental to American security rather than a deterrent to the Soviets. Realists believe that war is inevitable and there's nothing nations can do to prevent it. All nations must prepare for it, be ready, and following Nietchzien beliefs exert as much power and influence in International Relations as possible. It is this primal, out-dated and flawed prospective that threatens the greater security of all states. It is these values that would make leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, Ghandi, Gorbachev and Roosevelt shudder at our lack of progress towards peaceful relations between states.

Well said.

[Big-D]

So bigh0rt, are you suggesting we pull troops out of Iraq? That is the worst thing we could possibly do. In my opinion, it was a mistake to go into Iraq. The Bush administration should have seen all this secterian violence coming, and either put more troops in Iraq from the beginning, or not mess with it at all. What I wish the administration would do is admit their mistake, and tell us all straightforward what they're doing to solve it. Is that so much to ask? More US soldiers have died in Iraq than people in 9/11. The Bush administration owes the families of fallen soldiers the truth.

Anywho, back to pulling out...it can't happen. The secterian violence involves more than US troops, so it will go on whether the US troops are in Iraq or not.

It would be very bad to pull us out of iraq. We already pissed them off. Why not leave and come back in a few years to really see some wmd's.

All you fuckers that actually think we can stop terrorism are idiots.
YOU CANT STOP AN IDEA PERIOD!!!!!!!

The Saudis have more ties to terrorism than Iraq. Why not we blow the whole god damn world up so theres nothing. We created Ossama. We aided Ossama. Ossama turned on us. We had no clue. Open your minds you idiots.

[Riot]

I'll think you'll find that any person that has studied any kind of International Relations, International Politics or International Treaty Law will tell you that this is not a legal war. The only legal wars technically are those sanctioned by the UN Security Council or in self defence (which does not include preemptive strikes of any sort). Also, the UN does not fight wars. It has the power to sanction wars and send peace-keeping operations to areas at war. Seeing that the war was not apporoved by the Security Council and the fact that Iraq was not at war at the time of the American invasion there was little the UN could do. The fact that the US undermined the UN by going ahead with the invasion before the final weapons inspection report and the possible resolution vote has created dire consequences about the legitimacy of war. The fact that America can overrule International agreements and procedures allows other nation states, potentially rogue states, to avoid further treaty obligations (e.g. North Korea and Iran breaching the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty etc.)

Resolution 687 says "eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area." if they do not disarm. Resolution 678 calls allows "the authority to use force" due to a material breach. The question of legality should not be brought up. The war is legal and just because the rest of the world did not agree with it does not mean it is illegal. What is popular is not always right and what is right isn't always popular. The two major players against the war, France and Russia, both had their pockets being filled by Saddam and Iraq illegally. That is why they voted against the war because they did not want to lose buisness with Saddam.

Also, what is the point of having international law if you will not with hold it? Iraq violated enough resolutions for military force. This should have been a U.N. led operation to remove the Huessin regime from power. At the very least they should be helping with the rebuilding. However, just because they will not doesn't mean America was wrong. The rest of the countries simply did not want to go to war.

This is a particularly common perspective in IR known as Realism. It is this kind of political philosophy that justified the Cold War arm's race, while being a necessity to a certain extent, became far to excessise and more detrimental to American security rather than a deterrent to the Soviets. Realists believe that war is inevitable and there's nothing nations can do to prevent it. All nations must prepare for it, be ready, and following Nietchzien beliefs exert as much power and influence in International Relations as possible. It is this primal, out-dated and flawed prospective that threatens the greater security of all states. It is these values that would make leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, Ghandi, Gorbachev and Roosevelt shudder at our lack of progress towards peaceful relations between states.

Do you really think we can talk and negotiate with terrorists? Do you think we can ask them to please stop hurting us and fast until they do? No. It's unfournate that these people will not stop. Give me a solution to fighting terrorism and then I'll say you are right. The world is not full of Ghandi's.

It would be very bad to pull us out of iraq.

Yes it would be.

We already pissed them off.

The majority of Iraqi's are not "pissed off" at America.

Why not leave and come back in a few years to really see some wmd's.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you really that dense?

All you fuckers that actually think we can stop terrorism are idiots.
YOU CANT STOP AN IDEA PERIOD!!!!!!!

The Nazi's had an idea for ethnic cleansing. Their idea was to rid the world of the non-pure race. We seemed to have stopped them alright, no? We can stop terrorism but it will just take a long time. Plus, even if we can't stop it does that mean we shouldn't try? Why do you cut your finger nails if they just grow back?

The Saudis have more ties to terrorism than Iraq. Why not we blow the whole god damn world up so theres nothing.

What?

We created Ossama. We aided Ossama. Ossama turned on us. We had no clue. Open your minds you idiots.

We have aided and funded a lot of people in the past. That does not mean we cannot admit our mistakes and go after him. I don't understand your point of bringing this up. What are you trying to say? We shouldn't go after Bin Laden and we shouldn't fight terrorism? It sounds like to me that you just want to give up, pack it in and head home. Your lack of enthusiasm towards this war worries me.

[Ty-Land]

Resolution 687 says "eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area." if they do not disarm. Resolution 678 calls allows "the authority to use force" due to a material breach. The question of legality should not be brought up. The war is legal and just because the rest of the world did not agree with it does not mean it is illegal. What is popular is not always right and what is right isn't always popular. The two major players against the war, France and Russia, both had their pockets being filled by Saddam and Iraq illegally. That is why they voted against the war because they did not want to lose buisness with Saddam.

If you actually look at the words of the resolution that you just typed out it states that it was in order to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. In order for your supposed justification to hold any weight of legality it must be proved that Iraq in fact had any weapons of mass destruction. This classification must also fit the appropriate conventions, therefore these WMD's must be considered to be such under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and/or the Biological Weapons Conventions (which are the key legal groundings for WMDs and are signed by the majority of nations around the world inclusive of America who in many cases pushed for their existence). Nothing that has been discovered prior to or after the invasion of Iraq fits the criterion outlayed in these documents. The fact that missile shells were found that were capable of carrying WMDs is insignificant as any country that has any form of missile capacity is capable of adjusting the type of warhead it carries to fit the requirements for the transportation of nuclear, biological weapons (In fact, you don't even need a warhead in many case. If you had a car full of uranium enriched to 50% it could still be made into a fissile explosion). The fact that Iraq may have had the capacity to create Biological or Chemical weapons meads nada. Any developed state that has any form of bio-chemical industry is capable of achieving such goal. If this is considered a justification for war then every Western nation as well as many others should be considered rogue.

Your claims that the Russians and the French were being 'bribed' against enforcing a military resolution seem to be lacking a hell of a lot of evidence and logic. Could it potentially be that either of those States wanted to wait for the last weapons inspection report before concluding on the fate of Iraq. In essence, the ways that the US, UK and Australia (alongside many others) justified the war is so inherently flawed that it has greatly undermined America's position on the world stage. America traditionally could be trusted to have good intentions, but the Iraq invasion has raised doubts over that. The 2 justifications for the war, being WMDs in Iraq and the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda have, at present, been proven to be false. Sure there are terrorists in Iraq, but that is partially due to the fact that the war has essential created a terrorist training ground in that region. A place where terrorists can have hands on practice killing American's and their allies.

Do I think the war on terror is wrong? No. 9/11 was a horrible event. Yet the means to attack terrorists is not by invading other nations. It has to be done by attempting to change perception and eliminating the reasons why people turn to terrorism in the first place.

Do you really think we can talk and negotiate with terrorists? Do you think we can ask them to please stop hurting us and fast until they do? No. It's unfournate that these people will not stop. Give me a solution to fighting terrorism and then I'll say you are right. The world is not full of Ghandi's.

There is, at present, no solution to defeat terrorism. In fact their may never be a 'solution'. That does not mean that it has to be as prominent and fear-mongering as it is now. Terrorism at it's heart is a retaliation against western values (perceived commonly to be American), globalisation and modernity (or post-modernity as some theorists would argue). While there may not be a solution to fix the problem of terrorism, there are ways to minimalise it's effects. Such as:

a) Developing military stratergy that deals with non-states actors, so instead of invading states to fight terrorism nations coulde use covert operations to attack terrorist facilities.
b) Restart the peace process in the Middle East. From the basis of the 'Road Map to Peace' between Israel and Palestine (while using similar framework as used in the Israel-Eqypt accords in the early 1980's) create a different perception of America and Allies in the heartland of terrorism.
c) Get John Bolton away from America's position in the UN and other keep diplomatic roles. This guy is a tool. He has single handedly damaged America's reputation in the UN, NATO, in Arms Control, and has created a huge divide between continental Europe and the US.
d) Just do some positives to show that America can still be the good guys. Maybe enforce talks for peace in the Sudan, start the ball rolling on further weapons cuts between Mosow and Washington, or sign the Nuclear Test Ban treaty.

These are only few arguments that academics and politicians from around the world, inclusive of the US, UK and Australia, have to say on the issue. While these may only be small steps, they are crucial in order to turn the tide of terrorism and prevent further attacks.