Just want ot see the majority opinions
But you have 0 posts?
Posts in GD and P&WA are not counted in your post count.
I know, but I find it odd that someone signed up and went right to the politics section to ask such a question.
Sounds like a lurker or something just going around the internet looking for quick statistics. But in reality, you need to know more about the members here to understand where the statistics are coming from.
Yeah, I agree that we cant stay there forever and we desperately need to leave but if we just got up and left right now they would tear themselves apart. for now we've just gotta stay put until they are ready
are you taking a poll of the scientific community or something?
The Iraq war will be notable in history as the biggest military blunder by the US, may even eclipse the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan for the biggest military blunder in recorded history.
Unfortunately pulling out will not fix the mess that we have made, OTOH, staying will not fix the mess either. When in the future will be a good time to get out? Perhaps never. Therefore the conclusion must be we have to cut our losses and get out ASAP. There will NEVER be a GOOD time to leave. We are pouring money down a rat hole, while the US military is being trashed. This is a lose lose situation for the US.
What do I base my opinions on? Certainly not the evening news.. I don't watch it.
My opinions are based on my years of reading military history. I have read extensively of Napoleon's campaigns and battlefield tactics, I have read Oman, Clausewitz and many other solid military history's.
From all aspects the current situation was predicable, anyone with a bit of knowledge of our history in the middle east could see the current situation as the only possible result.
Even GWB in jail, as he so richly deserves, will not fix the mess he has got us into.
There may be no repair, a significantly possible outcome may be the end of the US era of supremacy and possibly even the end of civilization as we know it.
I believe our Iraq involvement after Sadam was a noble idea but, as my father once said, they aren't fighting for their freedom like we did. They won't appreciate something they didn't fight for. Democracy is not something that needs to be pushed, it's something that is available if the price is willing to be paid for it. So, yeah, we should leave and be available to aid them if that is something the people really show that they want.
^^another person who has no posts?^^
this war is only getting worse but we dont have enough options right now
seems suspicious to me, too.
seems like someone who wants to be able to say 'well, a poll on scientists says that the most educated people in our community think that this war is a (good/bad) idea' so he can look like he knows what hes talking about. just out to get a good arguement to make him seem good in front of his friends. you've also gotta notice the inaccuracies in the way this poll is taken. for a scientific community, this was a poorly conducted survey if you want accurate and reliable results. its in a thread of a sub-section of a section of a forum. the only people who will take this pole are the only people who want to talk about iraq, leaving out the members who just look over this topic and dismiss it without answering the poll.
Seems a reasonable way to test the waters of political opinion in a forum to me.
Hey, I've been on this board before more than a year ago. My login was deckart. I'm no lurk. I've since changed my legal name. That's the extent I will explain why I'm back with "no posts". Anyways, back to the topic. :)
That's a pretty strong statement considering the magnitude of the Soviet losses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
Perhaps if the Iraq war continues for another 40 years....
As with Vietnam, there is a pretty simple reason why that war was so bad - we heavily supported the insurrection. With the possible exception of Iran, Iraq today isn't getting much outside support and as a result, our losses are a good order of magnitude smaller than theirs.
Besides - worst in history? Napoleon may get the prize for that. Or how 'bout Saddam Hussein? He miscalculated pretty badly in 1990. Starting an agressive war that results in your own death would have to rank pretty high too. Hitler was crazy, but WWII was still a pretty big failure for him.
It depends on what you count as a "blunder". If you define it by the number of dead soldiers there are worse candidates. But in my eyes a "blunder" is a mistake, and what can beat going to war for the completely false reason (or really without reason), and then end up trapped in a loose-loose situation?
First of all I don't agree with the reason put for going to Iraq..If there were no nucs. I still have no idea why are we there. Both Sunis and ****tes want us out of there. majority says get out why are we still there. I don't think the politicians care.
Why don't we just bring Iraq here? That way we're not pulling out, and our troops get to come home.
Hey, I'm not saying it is a great situation, but certainly starting a war that gets you killed has to be worse.
I thought the War of 1812 was pretty bad. Actually, it was quite sad for the Americans.
I know you guys help Canadians a lot, but it was bad.
If you read the book Demon in the Freezer you'll see that they had reason to beleive that iraq was making weapons of mass destruction, and biological weapons of mass desruction can be made easily and are far too deadly for that matter. When people hear of WMDs they think of nukes, but it goes beyond that, to chemical and biological weapons. there was evidence at the time supporting that he had an antrhax (or even perhaps smallpox) cultivation project.
Well, I'll be a broken record on this one. We all know that the data was cooked, and that fear/revenge tactics sent the media and american public into this debacle. Much like most other wars. To have been a fly on the wall when this was being planned, priceless. Or during any of the recent administration's whose collective foreign policy seems more like keeping Iraq and Iran at war, than any other discernible objective. The most sane objective is still, oil, but the Neocons have been so adamant about protecting Israeli interests, I would see it as a kill two birds with one stone, brainchild. THE oil is now ours and BP's in a sweetheart deal that goes where none has before. Question, are things stable enuf to leave Iraq thinking that subsequent events won't unravel any such deals, making enforcement of said contracts thru military force, transparent as the emperor's new clothes.
Given that we are no closer to any stability than 4 years ago, get the hell out now. Britian has lost the zeal as has every other country. Its not a coalition anymore and the longer we stay the more angry the Islamic states get. But my one concern is that leaving will give the green light to more stupid misadventures such as in Iran. One of the major arguments about getting too reckless in the area is we are stretched too thin. My guess is the thinking re the escalation, is impose martial law, and get the hell out of dodge.
Lots of countries have operated this way in the past 50 years to the good of US corporations. The problem is as I understand it, knowing the difference from friend and foe, where you have few friends, but many willing to pretend to be. Like inviting everyone you know to your last supper.
Would anyone be on board with me on this:
We went into Iraq on the premise of WMDs but we really went in to kick Sadam down for breaking rules he was told to follow. Now, from the git-go I knew the WMD deal was a farce, but, I did believe we needed to go in and take care of Sadam. Now, we did that. We should of pulled out. Undoubtedly, a civil war and consequently another dictator would have sprouted up. So what. There are many dictators in the world. We were simply enforcing world-wide agreed upon policies that Sadam contiunually rsisted.
End of US involvement. Get out, sit back, and be available where needed.
I don't really care about the war either way, but I'm curious how you'd support that statement.
Is dying the worst thing? We'll all go that way sooner or later...For Saddam it was actually more than a decade later.
Point is, Saddam at least had a clear picture of what he was aiming for during the gulf war. Obviously he totaly failed, but at least he would have had something to win if he had succeeded...
Let us not make the same mistake with Iraq and Afghanistan as was made with Africa during the Imperialism, Vietnam or Korea.
It is udder madness to invade a country, tearing the old, dictatorial nation apart without aiding to form a new one. If the coalition forces just 'pull out' completely, there is no doubt that Iraq will become the next destroyed nation.
As the nation stabilizes its democratic ruling and start enforcing the law harder by themselves, insurgency will most likely drop. If the US deprives the Iraqi government of this aid, there is no question about it - Iraq will be destroyed and another dictator will take Saddam's place.
Just look at Afghanistan; the US have been there longer and it is calmer there than it is in Iraq.
Separate names with a comma.