Iraqi War

United States
January 22, 2007 9:37pm CST
Needless to say their has been a lot of converse regarding the Iraqi War, among people and law makers. I have two questions on the subject: 1. Do you believe that the United States needs to pull out of Iraq? My answer is I believe the United States needs to stop meddling in the affairs of our countries. And concentrate on the people of the United States and their issues and needs. 2. Do you believe that if the United States pulls out of Iraq. Terriosm will follow to our borders? My answer is it is possible. However I believe that we will have additional resources to tighten security. Note: It was on the news a few weeks ago that we have limited resources to check every caro container that comes into our ports. What is your thinking?
3 people like this
5 responses
@few00cent (2183)
• India
25 Jan 07
yes i agree with you. USA acting as if he rules the entire global. uSA blamed that saddam hussain has killed 400+ people.what USA did ? nothing other than killing thousand of innocent people
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Jan 07
Unfortunately the United States thrives on war, it creates revenue for Corporate America who supplies the war. If it was up to me I would send the politicians who started the war to fight it. We live in some crazy times my friend.
1 person likes this
@Bd200789 (2994)
• United States
24 Mar 08
Yes, I agree. Why aren't people like bush, who are for the war over there? The USA has killed more people that Hussein ever did.
@the_vicar (1477)
• United States
25 Mar 08
We had no business going into Iraq. None of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. We need to get out of Iraq so that the country can heal. As far as the terrorists go, Timothy Mcveigh wasn't a Middle Eastern Terrorists and he killed alot of people in this country. The answer is to secure our own country and let the rest of the world secure theirs. Having our troops in Iraq weakens our own country. If Bush thinks it will keep the terrorists away, then he is sadly mistaken because there are plenty of goof balls already here. If we have good security at the borders, and we have taken adequate measures to keep future terrorists OUT of the country, then we should be okay. After all, they don't have weapons that they can fire and reach our shores.
• Indonesia
26 Mar 08
the_vicar wrote: "We had no business going into Iraq. None of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi. We need to get out of Iraq so that the country can heal." George W Bush absolutely has a big business in dealing with Iraq. Many prominent contractors rallies behind his campaign. Those contractors have special commitment with Pentagon or State Department. When White House introduced military-budget for Iraqi-war, then the biggest part of that amount will arrive into the hands of that contractors.We all here has realized that the contractors are companies that has special expertises in dealing with military projects, such as tank-supplies, combat aircraft, support-infrastructures, bullet-proof romz,personal-guards,bombs, combat shoes, weaponry-system, energy supply, and many more, including combat-helicopters... So the main benefcient from the iraqi-war is those contractor-companies.17.2 billion dollar that is allocated for Iraqi-war, is of course a big deal of money.The deal accomplised by White House, Pentagon and those military-contractors give the real-stimulus economically and financially for elite people there....
@AJ1952Chats (2335)
• Anderson, Indiana
22 Mar 08
Unlike many people, I believe that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction--and the only reason that the inspectors didn't find them was that they weren't assembled as well as being hidden in the mountains. The area over there can hide people well. Look at how long it took to finally find Saddam, and we still can't find Bin Laden. I think that this ability to hide people could also extend to parts of WMDs. If we hadn't gone in there and Saddam and his cohorts had remained in power, I believe there could very well have come a time (more sooner than later) when we would see those WMDs a little too clearly. I think that most of us of adult age remember how easily he hurled those SCUDs to places like Israel and Kuwait. Saddam hated the US, and he wouldn't blink twice before sending something powerful and unpleasant our way if he had it. If he actually didn't have it, he was calling our bluff by implying that he did. Even if there were nothing more powerful than a water pistol in his country, he was giving the impression otherwise, so he was asking for it. Our problem over there was that our attack was poorly planned. We thought that we could do it all with air strikes, but a strategic ground front should have been set up simultaneously or shortly afterwards instead of dragging things out. We didn't win points shooting at vehicles carrying families, either. Although the people were relieved to be free of Saddam's rule, we soon wore out our welcome with them. Part of this was because there were still extremists coming in and convincing them that, no matter how it appeared, we were still the real bad guys. People who haven't been used to a democracy can be easily distracted and misled, because they would be feeling dependency on whichever group presented itself as the most powerful. They were relieved to have been rescued by us--but they hadn't developed a trusting relationship with us to the extent that some of their own people could give them a different story and they'd believe it. Having said all of that, I'm not sure what we could have done differently. One of my friends suggested that we should have started pulling farther and farther out of town so that we would be available if really needed but that the natives would be more on their own to develop their means of survival. That way, we wouldn't have seemed like a big superpower meddling in the affairs of other nations. I'm not sure how to clean up this mess. Hindsight's 20/20--and our President has to have gone nuts in that area (pumped-up by the power of war) to even be thinking of continuing on some kind of campaign to attack countries that "might" be harboring terrorists in an endless war on terror, starting with Iran. We need to make serious plans to ease our way out of there until the time comes that, at the most, a few peacekeeping forces are left behind, and our military power is back to protect ther homefront.
• Anderson, Indiana
22 Mar 08
"ther homefront" should read "the homefront"
@clrumfelt (5451)
• United States
25 Mar 08
I don't think the USA should pull out of Iraq until the objective of helping them to be a self sustaining democaratic society has been achieved. The only way I think the USA can keep more terrorism from coming to its borders is to remain diligent to guard against it. A lot of security measures have been put into place since 9/11 and I think many terrorists attacks have alrealy been intercepted and stopped by those measures.
• India
31 Jan 07
true the iraq war can't be won, true the US would have been better advised not to have interfere, but now that it has, what is the way out? to answer the issues raised here: 1) yes i think the US should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries but being the world's only super power it has to shoulder some responsibilty. but with that i do not condone the indiscrete acts of vendetta of one country, but the US has to be practical enough and sagacious enough to decide when a situation merits outside interference. viz. the war in afghanistan could be justified but the wars in vietnam and iraq cannot be. 2)no i don't think pulling out of iraq will incense terrorism. i think not concentrating on real rogue nations of middle east, africa and some other countries would indeed encourage the terrorists.