The war in Iraq is pointless now.

[Elemental-Reign]

Now c'mon.

It's pointless now. Saddam is dead, and it still continous. That's shit.

[GothKid32]

So if we leave Iraq who is going to thake control............ The Terorists..

[altanese-mistress]

Wait, it's pointless NOW? And here I thought that it was always pointless. Go figure.

[NHT123]

wait it's pointless now? I always thought it was pointless

Seems like no one really cares if we liberate a huge population from a made dictator who was planning to build nukes. But go figure this is america.

We have to stay now, if we leave more people are going to die.

Think of it this way, without police there would be chaos, well if we pull out we are removing the police. The Iraq government doesn't have the strength yet to stabilize it.

[clixels]

yell ya see, it has been pointless since it started. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (may the victims rest in peace) and did not have weapons of mass destruction. And we came in and not only killed a bad dictator, but caused havok in iraq.

[Tancrisism]

At 6/14/07 12:05 AM, NHT123 wrote: Seems like no one really cares if we liberate a huge population from a made dictator who was planning to build nukes. But go figure this is america.

I can't believe you actually brought out that argument. Did you listen once in 2003 and then stop listening to the news all together? There never were any nukes, there never were going to be any nukes. Bush even admitted to faulty intelligence. And then you say "But go figure this is America". Irony?

We have to stay now, if we leave more people are going to die.

Sure, this is very likely should we leave soon. Though, and not that I condone us getting out, more people are going to die if we stay in too.

Think of it this way, without police there would be chaos, well if we pull out we are removing the police. The Iraq government doesn't have the strength yet to stabilize it.

Agreed.

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/14/07 12:05 AM, NHT123 wrote:

wait it's pointless now? I always thought it was pointless

You didn't even have the decency to correctly quote me

Seems like no one really cares if we liberate a huge population from a made dictator

One man's liberator is another man's terrorist, and that's true of both Al-Qaeda and America. Imagine if Soviet troops had sucessfully invaded America and told everyone that they were liberating us from our mad capitalist fascist government. To the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, they would be liberators. To us and the rest of the West, they would be invaders.

who was planning to build nukes.

Like it was already said; Saddam had no nukes and wasn't planning to build any.

We have to stay now, if we leave more people are going to die.

And if we say, more people are going to die anyways

Think of it this way, without police there would be chaos, well if we pull out we are removing the police. The Iraq government doesn't have the strength yet to stabilize it.

The place WAS stable under the Ba'th party. I agree that pulling out altogether immediatly is a bad idea, but so long as the new government relies on Western support it will never be stable. We have to wean them off of our support.

[Altarus]

At 6/14/07 12:38 AM, Tancrisism wrote: I can't believe you actually brought out that argument. Did you listen once in 2003 and then stop listening to the news all together? There never were any nukes, there never were going to be any nukes. Bush even admitted to faulty intelligence. And then you say "But go figure this is America". Irony?

Not quite...

<quote> "Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare capabilities." Duelfer said his searchers "discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi nuclear program but found that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. ...

"Senior Iraqis--several of them from the regime's inner circle--told [Duelfer's investigators] they assumed Saddam would restart a nuclear program once UN sanctions ended." </quote>

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ch i-051130roadtowar2,1,7057309.story

A lot of people believe he would have tried to obtain nukes if the sanctions had ended, which is a possibility.

At 6/14/07 01:44 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: One man's liberator is another man's terrorist, and that's true of both Al-Qaeda and America. Imagine if Soviet troops had sucessfully invaded America and told everyone that they were liberating us from our mad capitalist fascist government. To the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, they would be liberators. To us and the rest of the West, they would be invaders.

Except the Iraqis hate Saddam and are glad he is gone.

The place WAS stable under the Ba'th party. I agree that pulling out altogether immediatly is a bad idea, but so long as the new government relies on Western support it will never be stable. We have to wean them off of our support.

Not to be an ass here, but does that mean you withdraw your former statement? I thought you said the war had always been pointless, but now you say we should stay until we can wean them off our support.

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/14/07 02:06 AM, Altarus wrote: Except the Iraqis hate Saddam and are glad he is gone.

They hate American occupation way more. If they critisized Saddam they were sent to prisons as traitors. If they critisize the American occupational force, they're sent to prisons as terrorists.

Not to be an ass here, but does that mean you withdraw your former statement? I thought you said the war had always been pointless, but now you say we should stay until we can wean them off our support.

It is pointless. This whole war was a big mistake, but since we've destabilized the area we have the duty to help stabilize it again.

[EvilerBowser1001]

We have dug ourselves into a hole...
We need to help these people, because some powers that be really fucked up.
If all the cards were laid on the table, we would not have gone on this war in the 1st place.
There are far worse dictators in Iran and N. Korea (they both are getting nukes, dumbass), but they don't all have oil.
It is a shame that our troops have to clean up someone else's mess.
Worse than Viet-'fucking-nam'.

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/14/07 02:36 AM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote: but they don't all have oil.

Actually, Iran has vast reserves of oil. But Bush was only off by one letter.

[ssf]

Exactly HOW did the war break out anyway? Who started it, the U.S. or Iraq?

[altanese-mistress]

At 6/14/07 03:03 AM, ssf wrote: Exactly HOW did the war break out anyway? Who started it, the U.S. or Iraq?

Al-qaeda; a terrorist organization based in Afghanistan; attacked us on 9/11. We in turn invaded Afghaniztan to remove the terrorists, and then Bush decided to invade Iraq because he wanted to finish what his daddy couldn't do in the First Persian Gulf War.

[gijfef]

well as Borat would say......
let george bush drink the blood of every man, woman and child in iraq!
Let him destroy their country so that not even lizards will survive there for twenty years!
Or summit like that anyway
either that or the sabre toothed rabits will kill everyone. Or so my sabre toothed rabit says.
seriosely the teeth man, the teeth!
And they have shotguns.. its gunna be armegadon dudes

[animehater]

At 6/14/07 08:31 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: and then Bush decided to invade Iraq because he wanted to finish what his daddy couldn't do in the First Persian Gulf War.

Then Al-qaeda decided to take advantage of the situation and started killing people turning Iraq into what is currently the main conflict of the war on terror.

[CaptainChip]

At 6/13/07 02:45 PM, Elemental-Reign wrote: Now c'mon.

It's pointless now. Saddam is dead, and it still continous. That's shit.

Guess what? There are still terrorists in Iraq.
We are just trying to help stop terrorism.

[ianianian1111]

ok well its not really pointless. you guys need oil, DUH! and wen u guys get oil, canada gets oil lol:P so i say we need the "war on terror" so we can fuckin drive cars. DUH! so i guess it isnt pointless, but it is kinda bad that we have to kill to get oil :p lol

[bcdemon]

At 6/17/07 03:55 PM, CaptainChip wrote:

At 6/13/07 02:45 PM, Elemental-Reign wrote: Now c'mon.

It's pointless now. Saddam is dead, and it still continous. That's shit.

Guess what? There are still terrorists in Iraq.
We are just trying to help stop terrorism.

You mean you are just trying to clean up a horrendous mess you have created with your aggression against another sovereign nation.

[bob111unknown]

Ok- it sux we were ever there, We never should have been, while freeing a supressed population is nice, we arent the world poliece here in America- It is not our job to make them
'better countries'. However, now that we are there- STAY THERE!!!!
America needs to stop being lazy- when the war started a great majority of the population approved the war- you wanted it, you got it. Now commit to something for once. You decided to be there- now dont whimp out now because it is easier to give up!!!! NO!
If we leave, the government will be democracy for awile, maybe forever, but-either
A) The new governments allows terrorist training etc.
B) The corrupt political groups (NOT TERRORISTS BUT TERRORIST SUPPORTERS) are elected
C) These corrup groups take over by force and revolt the democratic govt.
D) Civil War between the two large religious groups

Now that we are there- if we pull out it will sacrifice all that we stand for- and will make all the money and lives spent in the war pointless..... stick to it till the job is done.

[bob111unknown]

At 6/17/07 03:59 PM, ianianian1111 wrote: ok well its not really pointless. you guys need oil, DUH! and wen u guys get oil, canada gets oil lol:P so i say we need the "war on terror" so we can fuckin drive cars. DUH! so i guess it isnt pointless, but it is kinda bad that we have to kill to get oil :p lol

Yup- that sums it up-
THAT IS THE WAR ON TERROR!
Look- the terrorists hate America because..... oh wit I forgot, no one even asks anymore!!!!!
They hate our involvment in the middle east! While 9/11 was a tragic event- It was their turn to punch us back. We have been in that region killing their people for quite along time!!!! They just want us out! we wont listen to words, so what option do they have? VIOLENCE! IT WORKS!
AND YOUR A HIPPOCRIT IF YOU DENY THIS BECAUSE VIOLECE WHEN WORDS DONT WORK IS WHAT MADE AMERICA A COUNTRY!!! (revolutionary war)

so now we know why they fight us, but why are we involved in the middle east? huh- oh wait... OIL..... it runs our country. It is the one thing completely out of our control that controls us....so we try to control it.... everyone knows there is oil in the mid-east. And we want it....

Now- lemmie get a little of track for a min.

Brazil, an South American country.... who needs no oil! They are 100% ethanol!
Now USA, we grow much much more corn.... why arent we biofuel? ask the govt and they will say its not economic, however there are countries running on it right as we speak.... ask brazil how to do it.... we have the corn to run our country- why dont we?

So really we dont even need the OIL!!!!!!!!!!!! SAD SAD SAD!!!!!!!!!!
but we need gas, and the oil companies have so much money- they can control governement.... where do you think campaign money comes from? its not free to get TV ads.... So the oil companies pich in- and they wont be happy if they made you president to get rid of them- so they just expect a few favors in return right?

-.-

Biofuel = no oil= no americns in mid east= no terrorists attacking USA= no people die for pointless causes= we our in control of our own country again= Biofuel

make it happen people....

[bob111unknown]

I also want to mention in case you couldnt tell- Im a democrat!!! Global Warming is real!!!

[Darkside-void]

Well it's a very good idea, I thought of it too. But corn ethanol makes for a very inefficient bio-fuel compared the the sugar ethanol they have in Brazil. We first need to work on increasing the efficiency of corn ethanol as a fuel source, or find a different crop to use.

This is the best option for us right now, in my opinion. With this we could screw over the terrorists in Iraq who are funded on oil money, get rid of our own dependency on oil, and work to stop Global Warming at the same time!

[troubles1]

At 6/13/07 02:45 PM, Elemental-Reign wrote: Now c'mon.

It's pointless now. Saddam is dead, and it still continous. That's shit.

Wow you are truly clueless aren't you! we can not leave. we need to have a force there to keep it from becoming a terrorist country, were they can gain money from oil, and then attack us here. if you can not understand all the various reasons why we are going to be in this for a very long time then you should do some actual research and not make a ignorant statement, for a topic, you gave no reasons why you feel way.

[CogSpin]

The point is to keep stealing Iraq's vast supplies of oil. Until all the oil runs out or USA has complete control of Iraq, USA remains in Iraq.

[Altarus]

At 6/19/07 04:53 PM, Mr-Money wrote: The point is to keep stealing Iraq's vast supplies of oil. Until all the oil runs out or USA has complete control of Iraq, USA remains in Iraq.

Actually Iraq controls its own oil resources and as been doing so for awhile now.

[CogSpin]

At 6/19/07 05:02 PM, Altarus wrote:

At 6/19/07 04:53 PM, Mr-Money wrote: The point is to keep stealing Iraq's vast supplies of oil. Until all the oil runs out or USA has complete control of Iraq, USA remains in Iraq.

Actually Iraq controls its own oil resources and as been doing so for awhile now.

Is that what you think, now?

[Memorize]

At 6/19/07 05:03 PM, Mr-Money wrote:

Is that what you think, now?

It's what we know, now.

[troubles1]

At 6/19/07 04:53 PM, Mr-Money wrote: The point is to keep stealing Iraq's vast supplies of oil. Until all the oil runs out or USA has complete control of Iraq, USA remains in Iraq.

LOL that is a joke right? I mean you are not stupid enough to really think that are you? never mind nobody is that brain damaged, I hope.

[AdamRice]

Obviously it's pointless. However there are still plenty of idiots out there that insist staying the course is worth economic ruin for the next fifty years.

[azn-vink]

It was pointless before saddam. But now it important because if the US pull out of Iraq, the islamist will take over the country.