Survey: What is your position on the Iraq war?

Viper with Venom

Complicated Opposition.

Given the information at the time, America should NOT have entered Iraq.

We should immediately pull all American forces out of Iraq and let the country fall into the certain civil war that will result as soon as we pull out (whether tomorrow or five years from now).

All financial obligations should cease, and American citizens should be encouraged to donate money to third-party charitable organizations which will hopefully remain active in Iraq for the considerable future.

America should admit that it has an incompitent leader who made horribly bad mistakes, and although these are unfortunate, America will no longer be involved in any actions in Iraq. As a result of America's idiocy, America will throw its full support to the European Union and the United Nations in their attempt to bring stability back to the region, however America will not be involved in any such necessary operations.

America needs to humbly apologize to the Islamic community and the Middle East as a whole, and to show that it has effectively turned over a new leaf it will comply with some of the Middle East's major complaints about our entirely inadequate foriegn policy.

1) - America will further pull out all forces in Saudi Arabia and will there by show its respect for the Middle East and more importantly the Islamic religion. Finally removing troops from the religions holiest locations.

a) - If Iran decides to whoop up on Saudi Arabia after American forces have departed than Saudi Arabia acknowledges that America will laugh at them for insisting on withdrawl for decades.

b) - America will not defend Saudi Arabia from its enemies after the entire Middle East denounced Americas presence in the country.

2) - America will lift tarriffs and embargos on countries that are currently being held out of spite, directly impacting the financial stability and livilihood of the population. The removal of these trade levies will finally open up, what America claims it stands for, free trade in the Middle East and sorrounding areas.

One final note, America will honestly and sincerely search for a consistant foreign policy, one that is not backstabbing and self serving. A serious inquiry into the complaints of the modern world against the evil empire will be undertaken and the issues will be attempted to be resolved.

t.larae

OK, Here's my position. I think it's something that really never should have happened, but at the same time, I think that now that we're over there, it has to be finished. I think if we pulled out at this point, it will make us look like we're running away, or that we're weak.

The_Cricket: RIP Allecat

I like your question. It's very neutral, intelligent, and well thought-out. We don't see that here too often. So thank you.

On to my answer:
I would say 2 most closely fits me. I support our soldiers, I believe in them, and I believe that they will do what we sent them to do IF WE LET THEM. I also believe that we need to have more faith in the Iraqi people, and encourage them to have faith in themselves.
I don't think that we necessarily went in for the "wrong reasons" per se, but I do believe (and this is going to sound really stereotypical, but it's the truth in my experience) that the news media does not present an accurate picture of what's REALLY going on there.
I have friends who are down range right now, many of them GOOD friends, and we regularly receive reports on what exactly our troops are doing. One of their biggest accomplishments is handing over a police station to the Iraqis. They've trained over 500 law enforcement officers in just a couple months, and they have hundreds more who are lined up to be trained. Is this reported? No. The news media would rather report the violence.
I hate violence, and I hate war, but my position on the war in Iraq is mostly neutral. I simply believe in the Iraqis, and our soldiers, and I believe that we would be doing both a terrible disservice to just, as the conservatives say, "cut and run."
The last time we did that (Vietnam) the numerous repercussions still reverberate TO THIS DAY. We demonstrated that we had no faith in our military then, and because of that, we were crippled when dealing with terrorism in the early 80s. As a result of that, we had 9/11. As a result of 9/11, we have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't know if the Middle East region will ever be stabilized. I don't know how long we'll have to fight terrorism before we win. I shudder to think how many will have to give their lives before such a thing can happen. BUT I have hope. That's really all any of us can cling to.
I don't see how anyone can simply "support" or "protest" the war. It's infinitely more complicated than that.

Nat

2. Complicated Support. I've been in Iraq as a combatant for two years already. If you want my full answer, send me an email.

Good luck on your survey.

shevek_v

My position on the war started out as complicated opposition. It was right to remove Saddam. If you had met and talked to some of those Iraqis who suffered under his and his sons' tyranny you would understand why that particular "regime change" was a moral necessity for the world community. The same can be said of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

However, as the war has progressed I have gone beyond "simple opposition" to total opposition. We should pull all Allied troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan even if regimes which we do not like fill the vacuum. The principle of self-determination of nations should still hold good.

The "war on terror" cannot and will not be won by conventional military means, although, obviously terrorism must be fought, not only on the military level, but also as part of a struggle for hearts and minds. (That does not mean brainwashing or include torture.)

The world community must also address the problem of Israel and Palestine - even to the extent of considering using military means to impose a resolution of the conflict on the Israelis and the Palestinians.

desert_kats

Opposing the war in not opposing the troops, they are doing their duty. This war is illegal, immoral and we were lied to by Cheney's puppet Bush. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no reason to go into Iraq. What we should of done was used the troops and all our effort getting those responsible for 9/11. I hold Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld responsible for the death of every American over there.

Sherona B

Simple Opposition.

Katie

1 Baby....

Non-Compassionate Liberal

Julie W

Clearly stated here:

http://joshua-omvig.memory-of.com/

azimuth_nadir

Option 4 - Simple Opposition

There was no prima facie evidence that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. And regard to the other argument that he is the saviour of Iraqi people, why is bush maintaining silence when hundreds of innocents in darfur are being killed every moment. It was purely cowboy thinking which has taken america into this quagmire.

No one would dispute that Iraqis were better off during saddams regime. Most of the americans would not dispute the fact that the war was for oil and not about people of Iraq and democracy. I hope sense prevails and americans chose someone who thinks with his head and not with his biceps.

I Seek

Simple opposition...
It's NOT about a "war on terror" or "fighting for freedoms". Here's the REAL reason for bush's obsession with Iraq!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

mike b

none of those I think the U.S.A and its allies are doing the right think

Marty McFly

Simple opposition

David W

Simple opposition.

To me, no war makes sense.
I have researched past wars, and they are just the same as this one. A group of very rich people wanting to control the planet and become even richer, while lots of poor people die.
It only makes sense only to the rich folks, who are never seen on the battlefield.
In the past 100 years almost all wars have been financed, on both sides, by the same group of people. This war is being financed by those who own the Federal Reserve, a private bank.

only1noor

Simple Opposition.

can someone please hit something on that bush guys head.

blacksheep0685

bush is stupid war is bad, but nessassary in some cases. bush needs to join the war to make sure the country is being protected close up
but bush is working the wrong job.

backinbowl

#4...How would WE like it if another country that thinks Bush is a tyrant --- and right now there are plenty that think that --- attacked us to overthrow him in order to bring democracy back to the United States?

dingdong

None of the above. War is not a good policy, period. saddam may be a lot of things, stupid is not one of them. The international community have the means to monitor and to a certain degree, control, a tyrant such as himself without resorting to an illegal invasion. He new this. I just can`t see him doing anything threatening after the severe beating he took in the first Iraq war.The UN could have easily lifted the sanctions that had no effect on the hierarchy within his regime, but crippled the everyday Iraqi people. A subtle approach would have been more successful and humane. I believe greed to be the motivation not threat from ficticious WMD.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: