Bring soliders home now!

What everyones opinions of bringing home all the troops in Iraq??
Im scottish and have been brought up with almost every male in my family joining the blackwatch. I think that there wouldnt have been a war in iraq if it hadnt of been for tony blair and george bush becoming such good friends, all this war in iraq was meant to be because of weapons of mass destruction but I hvaent heard anything to do with thes soo called weapons of mass destuction in years so why are scottish english irish and american troops still out there??

Arent the governments just putting more men and womans lives at risk??

unfortunately that is the nature of the military, join the military- you might be called forward to fight.
I believe that the government and mind of saddam hussein was the weapon of mass destruction, his government needed to be taken down- the atrocities that have surfaced about his 'policies' are truly horrendous.
remember how eager his people were to tear down his statue?
we need to stay the course, until that area of the world stabilizes, and the insurgents are either all killed- or decide to surrender.
we can not show these people that we will simply leave after 4 or 5 years of fighting.
we have brave men and womens lives lost to this conflict- we must keep up the pressure so that they did not die in vain.
that area has always been a very volatile area.
so I personally agree that we need to apply as much force possible.
I happened to like the tony blair- george bush team- they did what they felt was right, regardless of public opinion.
and I do support our brave troops- american and british and our other allied countries alike.

As bad as Iraq was there are far worse attrocities out there that America happily ignores; then again those places don't have oil.

Going into Afganistan seems justified to me since Al Qaeda actually was operating there. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake. They had no WMDs. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Prior to the invasion they were not supporting Al Qaeda (though Al Qaeda has started operations there after we invaded). Due to Bush's ideology of privatization this war has been insanely expensive and has nearly bankrupted our country and our recession will likely spread to a world-wide recession. Our occupation of Iraq has created another generation of people who hate the US and are willing to join terrorist groups.

We are supposed to have a democracy in America. The idea of leaders going off and doing what seems right to them against the will of the people goes against everything we stand for.

*** 'we have brave men and womens lives lost to this conflict- we must keep up the pressure so that they did not die in vain. '

That isn't a valid reason to stay. If our leaders screwed up and the war was not necessary, those lives were lost in vain regardless.

Most of the attoricities Saddam did were done when he was an ally of the US. We turned a blind eye. At the time we invaded Iraq, it was a relatively stable country. Run by a strongman yes, but he was not committing any attoricities at the time, nor had he for a long time. Make no mistake, he was a real bad guy, but there were much better ways to deal with him than to start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people, cost trillions of dollars, and makes the entire region much less stable.

As filetofspam said so well, there were far more recent attoricites happening that were ignored. It is no coinicnidence that we chose to invade a country with the second largest oil reserves in the world. They weren't just wrong about WMDs. They lied.

I say bring them home as fast and as safely as possible.

not committing any atrocities??? now who is turning the blind eye, according to the above you are buying into the same past policies. sooner or later that eye is able to see the atrocities committed. then what- just sit on our hands and ignore the truth?
saddam needed to be brought to justice- period- which does justify our actions.
to say he DID commit atrocities but not for awhile is completely ludicrous!!!
and lets face reality here for a minute- THE WORLD IS RUN BY OIL!!! of course our nation has vested interests in what happens in that area of the world.
and I continue to not buy the ideology that if we would have left saddam alone- he would have been a good boy.
to ignore the atrocities of saddam hussien is to buy into those atrocities, sorry- but that is how it is.
the guy had EVERY opportunity to come clean- to show the world that he had no WMD's- he had EVERY diplomatic opportunity to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors- bush issued numerous DIPLOMATIC opportunities to saddam- what did saddam choose to do? he chose to start playing games with the weapons inspectors- he chose to represent himself as someone who had something to hide.
bush pursued diplomatic solutions before the declaration of war.
saddam chose to do exactly what it took to make the u.s and its allies invade- it is a matter of public record.
and doesn't it strike you odd that he decided to be a coward and run and hide once the invasion was taking place- it was the reaction of someone who knew he would be brought to trial and found guilty of atrocities- and sentenced to death- his running as far as I see it is an admission of his guilt.
and since when is there a statute of limitations- on murder, rape ,and torture???
the time frame of the atrocities is NOT as important as the fact that they were committed- under the orders of saddam himself.
I believe that what we are doing is RIGHT over there, you can support saddam all you like but it doesn't change the fact that HE WAS BROUGHT TO TRIAL- AND HE WAS FOUND GUILTY OF THE CRIMES HE HAD COMMITTED.
and we are not solely after bin laden's network in this war- we are after any terrorist organization- and the countries that support them, that seems to have gotten lost somewhere.
yes we need to continue fighting this fight- until the terrorists of the world finally understand that they will not stop us from tracking them down- and taking them out. if they want peace- it is pretty simple- lay down your arms- stop killing innocent people, and go back to your lives- pretty simple concept.
no insurgents in iraq means that the government there can start to flourish and actually start accomplishing something- which means that the majority of the troops come home.
so instead of chastising president bush for his actions- suppose you started publicly chastising the insurgents actions in preventing a stable government in iraq.
suppose you publicly started chastising terrorist actions in preventing the emergence of a peaceful world.

Its a fight we cannot and will not win. And I want to bring our troops home because I got relaitives over there. But I really don't think it would be smart to withdraw now. WOMD, thats all in the past now, we can't change the reasons why the government said we went in, we just have to deal with it, now what. this is just my opinion, I feel that if we withdraw now, the U.S is going to be in much more trouble than it is right now. We need a secure oil connection for the future, the governement knows this. Without oil our way of living would change dramatically. the government knows how big of a problem it is they just keep it hush hush. And I believe the only reason we don't withdraw is because we're afraid Iran is just waiting for us to leave. And when we do Iran will plow through Iraq because we wiped out there defenses(we didn't think about that before we attacked). Then there goes our oil.

There are atrocities going on all over the world as we type. The US does not invade every tyranical nation, and never has. The war in Iraq was pitched as necessary because Saddam posed a threat to other nations due it's WMDs.

Well, now we know not only were there no WMDs, but our 'leaders' knew as much and lied to us about it. It's only after this knowledge has been revealed, that the spin machine began trying to rewrite history to claim the war had something to do with human rights violations.

I'm not convinced oil was the reason either, since we have not taken ownership of the oil fields. I think the real reason we invaded Iraq had more to do with Bush's religious ideals than anything else.

Baldwinwolf:

<< not committing any atrocities??? now who is turning the blind eye, according to the above you are buying into the same past policies. sooner or later that eye is able to see the atrocities committed. then what- just sit on our hands and ignore the truth?
saddam needed to be brought to justice- period- which does justify our actions.
to say he DID commit atrocities but not for awhile is completely ludicrous!!! >>

Of course you use typical right-wing rhetoric to completely twist my point. I never said Saddam didn't deserve to be brought to justice. First off, the reason we were told we had to invade was to protect us from an imminent threat from Saddam, not to bring him to justice. If that were the sole reason the public would never have supported it. While bringing him to justice might have been a good thing, the cost of it isn't. The point of saying he wasn't committing attrocities at the time was to show that not only was he not a threat to us, he wasn't even threatening his own people at the time. Our invasion has only made the Iraqis lives much worse than under saddam.

<< and lets face reality here for a minute- THE WORLD IS RUN BY OIL!!! of course our nation has vested interests in what happens in that area of the world. >>

Having interests there and imposing our will through military force are not the same thing.

<< and I continue to not buy the ideology that if we would have left saddam alone- he would have been a good boy.
to ignore the atrocities of saddam hussien is to buy into those atrocities, sorry- but that is how it is. >>

Show me one opponent of the war who ever said we should ignore saddam? Containment was working.

<< the guy had EVERY opportunity to come clean- to show the world that he had no WMD's- he had EVERY diplomatic opportunity to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors- bush issued numerous DIPLOMATIC opportunities to saddam- what did saddam choose to do? he chose to start playing games with the weapons inspectors- he chose to represent himself as someone who had something to hide. >>

He did come clean. Inspectors were on the ground from December 2002 until a week before the war started, when Bush told them to leave because he was going to start the invasion. The inspectors were reporting that they were being given full access to anywhere they asked. I suggest you go back and review what actually happened, and not the revisionist history the bush admministration would have you believe.

<< bush pursued diplomatic solutions before the declaration of war.
saddam chose to do exactly what it took to make the u.s and its allies invade- it is a matter of public record. >>

Wrong on both counts. Do you call kicking the inspectors out (while doing the very thing we had been demanding from saddam) pursuing diplomatic solutions. And the Iraq war authorization also required that he go back to the UN for another vote from the security council. He never did.

<< and doesn't it strike you odd that he decided to be a coward and run and hide once the invasion was taking place- it was the reaction of someone who knew he would be brought to trial and found guilty of atrocities- and sentenced to death- his running as far as I see it is an admission of his guilt.
and since when is there a statute of limitations- on murder, rape ,and torture???
the time frame of the atrocities is NOT as important as the fact that they were committed- under the orders of saddam himself. >>

Again, you completely missed the point. No one is arguing Saddam's guilt. We are arguing the wisdom of removing him with complete disregard of the cost of that action in blood and treasure.

<>

And waht has that to with Iraq. It has been shown over and over that Saddam had nothing to do with AQ or OBL, nor offered any significant support of any other terroist group.

<>

Your bloodlust is obvious. Has it ever occured to you that by taking this hardline approach you are actually creating more terrorist. Not reducing them. Because that is exactly what has happened.

<< no insurgents in iraq means that the government there can start to flourish and actually start accomplishing something- which means that the majority of the troops come home. >>

Forgive me, but you haven't exaclty wowed me with your knowledge of events, so I will take this for what it is worth. Who exactly are these insurgents? They are Iraqis, who want us out of there country. They were not radicals until we invaded and occupied there country. They want us to leave now. We should.

<< so instead of chastising president bush for his actions- suppose you started publicly chastising the insurgents actions in preventing a stable government in iraq.
suppose you publicly started chastising terrorist actions in preventing the emergence of a peaceful world.>>

How exactly am I going to chastise insurgents or terrorists? They are not the leader of our democracy. They are not doing things in my name. Bush is.

Toadaly, Just because we as the US has not taken oil directly from Iraq, what has happened to the price of oil since the war started? Do you think it is unrelated? Who is making money from that oil? Bush's pals in the oil industry and their good friend the saudis.

It is ALL about the oil...

The price of oil has gone up of course, but most of that increase is really just the devaluing of the dollar. That's why gold is nearly $1000 an ounce today vs. ~$350/ounce before the war started.

I was paying rather close attention to world events at the time, and I am fully aware of the GAMES that saddam was playing.
and the hardline approach was the only solution to the problem, diplomatic channels failed, the you and failed, leaving the U.S. and our allies to BEGIN CLEANING UP THE MESS.
I have seen numerous posts here- stating that WE CREATED saddam , does that say that he didn't need to be brought to justice- that our government somewhere made the decision that enough is enough.
the U.S. is currently involved with cleaning up past mistakes- I support that wholeheartedly.
iraq needs to be stabilized- we are involved in a war, I would like the troops to be brought back as much as anyone here- but it is not reality- the world is not a utopian paradise- we need to send our combined energies towards those who are fighting against us in iraq- and lets look at what they are fighting against- they are fighting against a democratic government taking hold - you know freedom for all. so I do not sympathize with their cause- they want us off of their land, then they need to put down their weapons- stop fighting, and go with the new government over there.
break this down with those left wing tactics.

Personally, I really don't care if we leave and Iraq implodes into chaos. Right now we're accomplishing nothing of significant value to us there. We have not westernized Iraq, we have not confiscated the oil fields, we have not sold them on the idea of freedom.

If we left today, and Iraq fell into Chaos, Iraq would divide itself into 3 major power structures, who would fight bitterly among themselves. Iran would make a play for the oil fields, but we would send cruise missiles after their military fronts. In the meantime, chaos from Iraq would cause sectarian division in Iran as well, helping to destabilize them, which is after all what we want.

Eventually, Iraq would become 3 different nations.

I don't see any of this as a loss to the US.

Not that I don't care what happens to the Iraqis, but Toadaly is right. There is nothing being gained by us staying there. Our continued presence is not only accomplishing nothing, it is actually making it worse. We are one of the major targets in Iraq. Taking us out of there will only imporve the situation. Bush and McCain never intend to leave. Never!

Baldwinwolf, you obviously were not paying attention when this war started, or you would never have said just yesterday that Saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors. Show me one inspector that was in iraq just prior to the war that said saddam was not cooperating,

This is from 1/9/03. It is Hans Blix and El Baradei's press briefing on how the inspections are going:

blix: HB: Good afternoon. Mr. ElBaradei and I briefed the Council, and for my part, I said that WE STILL GET PROMPT ACCESS FROM THE IRAQ SIDE; that the inspections are covering ever-wider areas, and ever more sites in Iraq; that in the course of these inspections we have not found any smoking gun. However, we are getting more and more information, better knowledge about the situation, and that the Declaration regrettably has not helped very much to clarify any question marks of the past. Lastly I can tell you that the Council gave very good support, expressed confidence in our two organizations and that they look forward to the briefing that we will give on the 27th of this month.

El Baradei: I think, as Dr. Blix mentioned, it was a very good meeting with the Council today. We reported that we are inching forward with implementation of our tasks. We are getting access to all the sites, however both of us also indicated that we need more proactive support on the part of Iraq; to be able to move quickly to implement our mandate. We also indicated that we need more actionable information on the part of governments and we committed ourselves to intensify the process so we can achieve the results intended as soon as we can. We will provide an update report on the 27th of this month, however that report, we should emphasize, is an update report, it is not a final report, it is work in progress, and this simply would register where we are on the 27th of January, but we obviously [will] continue our work afterward and we still have a lot of work to do.

This is from their report to the UN on 2/14/03:

Blix: 'Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming.'

Blix: 'we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that had never been declared or inspected, as well as to Presidential sites and private residences.'

Blix: 'The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items. This was welcomed. A second commission, we learnt, has now been appointed with the task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes. It is headed by the former Minister of Oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses.'

This was in response to Powells claims that WMD were being moved around Iraq:

Blix: 'intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found. Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items ­ conventional munitions. It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.'

Blix: 'The presentation of intelligence information by the US Secretary of State suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes. I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot. This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart. The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection.'

ElBaradei: 'The Government of Iraq reiterated last week its commitment to comply with its Security Council obligations and to provide full and active co-operation with the inspecting organizations. Subject to Iraq making good on this commitment, the above measures will contribute to the effectiveness of the inspection process.'

ElBaradei: 'The IAEA has continued to interview key Iraqi personnel. We have recently been able to conduct four interviews in private - that is, without the presence of an Iraqi observer.'

There is so much more. I suggest you do a little research.

The bottom line is this: Regardless of what saddam had done, he was posing absolutely no threat at the time we invaded. He had been in complete cooperation with UN inpsectors from Nov 2002 through Mar 2003. Bush made one last ultimatum just before the war began. One that was impossible for him to comply with. He wanted Saddam to show proof of the destruction of his WMDs. But as the inspection were showing (and as we found out later) there were no WMDs. So how could he provide proof of the destruction of something he didn't have. Bush did not care that Saddam may not have actually posed a threat, he was invading no matter what. And he did, and we never found a thing. How can you possibly justify the cost of this war to remove a powerless tin-pot dictator. A powerless dictator who just happened to be sitting on the world's second larget oil reserves.

The money spent alone is bad enough, but this war has killed more than 100,000 people. A truly horrible trajedy that falls on the heads of Bush, Cheney, and all the knuckle-draggers that goose-stepped behind them.

we shuld win the war before we bring them home. if we dont finish the mission then all the soildiers that died will have died in vain. also we cant just turn our back on the iraqis. they are still people and they deserve to have freedoms and not be threatend by terrorists. jeez people shuldnt be so selfish I respect what our troops are doing and I relize that they probably want to come home and see there familys but theres a job to be done. I didnt agree with the war but I understand that whatever we start we need to finish otherwise we will make a bad name for america. maybe we should blame this war on americans for allowing this president into office. imagine if we pulled out of WW2 because we were loosing troops all those jews in europe would have been torchured thats the horribe tragedy. you dont relize it but we are being selfish. we americans need to understand that our troops are making a great sacrifice by putting their lifes on the line to help other people in other parts of the world. Thats what americans need to do. thats just my point of view

*** 'if we dont finish the mission then all the soildiers that died will have died in vain. '

The mission was a lie. They already died in vain. Bush should be impeached and tried for treason for bringing the nation to war based on lies.

I don't see how letting even more soldiers get killed there somehow makes up for those already lost. That makes no sense at all - it sounds like something Bush would say.

I would rather save lives, than save face...

sk8furlife, first you say 'jeez people shuldnt be so selfish I respect what our troops are doing' and in the same sentence say 'and I relize that they probably want to come home and see there familys but theres a job to be done.'

Who exactly are you accusing of being selfish? People who want the war to end, or the soldiers who are risking their lives and want to come home? How are either of those things selfish? Sitting on your butt making making posts claiming support for a war in which OTHER people are dying, is the epitome of selfishnes.

Im not for the war or against it. I dont like bush. but if we dont complete the mission this war become like vietnam and I dont know about you but I dont want another vietnam. there is no safe war but sometimes to defeat evil you need to go to war and im calling people selfish that only care about themselves and what there country can do for them. un selfish people care a bout other people and other countrys with people dying every day, they will go to war to protect what we know as free and they will gladly put there life on the line to make sure our children will be safe from tyranical nations. go ahead demorilize me and call me selfish but it seems like im the talking about other countries being safe. im not selfish. im going to go into the millitary and fight for what I think is right. how is that selfish?

There is no mission. It was made up. We are there for the oil. So you think Nam was a good war?

I care about people not dying for no reason, or even worse, greed. And the only reason people are dying in this war is greed.

We are not helping anyone by staying in this war. And it is you who accused people of being selfish because they are against the war.

*** 'but if we dont complete the mission this war become like vietnam'

...you mean the world will not end after we pull out, and we will suffer no unacceptable consequences? That doesn't sound so bad.

jimahl, first off there is no good war. war is terrible but tyranity is more so evil. thats why we need to work to make sure people in other countrys have the same feeling of being free not just ourselves. like I've said for the third time IM NOT FOR THE WAR NOR DO I THINK ITS A GOOD WAR. how could you say that we are there for oil? because if we were it dosent look like its helping does it?you dont know if were there because of greed. you are just asuming things.

toadaly, I can see your thinking but this war is very simalar to vietnam in a lot of ways, corrupt politics, anti war protests and stuff of that sort. I relize that the world might not end but we will of left the middle east in chaos. we cant just turn our back on the iraqis they are still people that deserve a stable goverment that will take a stand against terrorism.