Why we are losing the war in Iraq...

[crimzy]

Bush declared in 2003 that we won the war in Iraq and, to an extent, he was right. Iraq had been defeated. However, now four years later, we are still there to try to "maintain security" and implement a democratic government while suicide bombers explode around our troops.
The reason that we are still fighting, (and suffering American losses at the highest rate since the war started), is because we are no longer fighting the Iraqis. We know that Al Queda is now in Iraq to fight, and it is commonly known that they were at odds with Saddam Hussein prior to the war starting. It also appears that we are fighting a united front of terrorist groups and arab nations together in Iraq. Recently, Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi expressed his sympathy for the Iraqis because they were "victimized by terror and the presence of foreign forces" on their territory. He further demanded the release of several Iranian's who were captured by Americans in Iraq. Can you believe this, Iran fighting in Iraq as an ally? What has the world come to?
This leads me to believe that we are fighting a unified conglomerate of arab nations in Iraq. If Iran is taking part in the war, then it is pretty logical that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Syria (known terrorist havens), are taking part in the war also. Now, this is impossible to corroborate, but if the information was publicly available, I'd love to see how many other non-Iraqi soldiers we have captured or killed in Iraq.
Looks like Bush has succeeded in a way that none of us imagined possible. He has brought unity to the middle east... he unified them against us!! So, lets rename the war from the "war in Iraq" to the "war against Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, UAE, Kuwait, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria". Am I forgetting anybody?

 

[sniper1974]

sudan , somalia, ethiopia, libia , algeria ? ? ?

 

[trippkid]

I guess that's what happens when a C- student at best, gets to run the country. The guy is a moron.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by trippkid
I guess that's what happens when a C- student at best, gets to run the country. The guy is a moron.
Bush had a slightly stronger C- than Kerry, what ya gonna do?

The reason we are still fighting in Iraq is because those twisted morons would rather blow each other up than allow someone to practice a religion different from their own.

 

[triviachamp]

Originally Posted by reefraff
The reason we are still fighting in Iraq is because those twisted morons would rather blow each other up than allow someone to practice a religion different from their own.
Except it's their country, and not ours. If theocracy is what they want, then it is theocracy they will impose. No amount of wasted American lives and dollars can change that.

 

[meleerock]

We are leaders of the world. It is our responsibility to protect others around the world because it ultimitly protects us.

 

[groupergenius]

So what your saying is...all the fundamentalist extremist, anti-civilized, suicide bomber, christian-hindu-taoist-jewish-etc. etc. haters, are gathered in one country and making it easier to fight them?? Friggin' genius if you ask me. Better to fight it there than here. We all regret the loss of our soldiers and their families. But to say nothing good is coming from what we are doing is foolish.
It amazes me that some folks think that just recently there has been a hatred of the USA/Israel/India/Europe/Australia/Japan. Like nothing happened before 9-11. Even more amazing is the ability to so quickly forget 9-11.

 

[trippkid]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Bush had a slightly stronger C- than Kerry, what ya gonna do?

The reason we are still fighting in Iraq is because those twisted morons would rather blow each other up than allow someone to practice a religion different from their own.
I agree, small minds do terrible things. That goes for both sides.

 

[ric maniac]

all i can say is i can't wait untill next election.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
So what your saying is...all the fundamentalist extremist, anti-civilized, suicide bomber, christian-hindu-taoist-jewish-etc. etc. haters, are gathered in one country and making it easier to fight them?? Friggin' genius if you ask me. Better to fight it there than here. We all regret the loss of our soldiers and their families. But to say nothing good is coming from what we are doing is foolish.
It amazes me that some folks think that just recently there has been a hatred of the USA/Israel/India/Europe/Australia/Japan. Like nothing happened before 9-11. Even more amazing is the ability to so quickly forget 9-11.
If you think that I said it's EASIER to fight them in one place then you clearly didn't read the title of this thread. And as to your last point, it's pretty ignorant to justify a war against the entire middle east by mentioning 9-11, (though Bush does it all the time). Can you remind me how many American ground troops were sent to Afghanistan in the months following 9-11? Let me remind you... zero!!! You are aware that those responsible for 9-11 were in Afghanistan at that time and not in Iraq, right? One more question... can you please identify a single act of terrorism committed against the US by Iraq before the war started? Want a hint? So please don't use the emotions from 9-11 as false justification for this bullsh-- war.

 

[mike22cha]

I agree that we shouldn't have the battlefield in America instead of Iraq, but as said earlier, there is evidence that Al Quida is in Iraq, so what if we were fighting them in the mountains of Afganistan and Pakistan instead of fighting them now in Iraq, after searching for them for how many years? It seems to me that if we devoted to the "enemy" that actually sent the hijackers instead of sending some/or most of our troops to a "threat", we wouldn't be worrying about Al Quida. I think even Bush can understand the difference between a "threat" and an "enemy". Just my 2 cents.

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by crimzy
If you think that I said it's EASIER to fight them in one place then you clearly didn't read the title of this thread. And as to your last point, it's pretty ignorant to justify a war against the entire middle east by mentioning 9-11, (though Bush does it all the time). Can you remind me how many American ground troops were sent to Afghanistan in the months following 9-11? Let me remind you... zero!!! You are aware that those responsible for 9-11 were in Afghanistan at that time and not in Iraq, right? One more question... can you please identify a single act of terrorism committed against the US by Iraq before the war started? Want a hint? So please don't use the emotions from 9-11 as false justification for this bullsh-- war.
Agreed.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by crimzy
If you think that I said it's EASIER to fight them in one place then you clearly didn't read the title of this thread. And as to your last point, it's pretty ignorant to justify a war against the entire middle east by mentioning 9-11, (though Bush does it all the time). Can you remind me how many American ground troops were sent to Afghanistan in the months following 9-11? Let me remind you... zero!!! You are aware that those responsible for 9-11 were in Afghanistan at that time and not in Iraq, right? One more question... can you please identify a single act of terrorism committed against the US by Iraq before the war started? Want a hint? So please don't use the emotions from 9-11 as false justification for this bullsh-- war.
No.... I said it is EASIER....9-11 was not the reason for going into Iraq. Failure to comply for 12 years of UN resolutions was the reason. BTW, Bush has never said 9-11 is the reason. It was WMD's or have you forgotten the jokes allready?? "Bush lied" yada yada.
Ground troops-Afghanistan... Do you think no troops were in Afghanistan before Iraq??
Maybe you should do a little research on your own to see who all DEMANDED we do something in Iraq. If you want me to do it for you...I will.
No-one likes war. Sometimes it is inevitable though.

 

[1journeyman]

Ahhh, revisionist history. Gotta love it.
We're fighting in Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait, was defeated, broke peace agreement literally thousands of times, broke over a dozen UN Resolutions, and refused weapon inspectors access to sensitive sites.

 

[mike22cha]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
No.... I said it is EASIER....9-11 was not the reason for going into Iraq. Failure to comply for 12 years of UN resolutions was the reason. BTW, Bush has never said 9-11 is the reason. It was WMD's or have you forgotten the jokes allready?? "Bush lied" yada yada.
Ground troops-Afghanistan... Do you think no troops were in Afghanistan before Iraq??
Maybe you should do a little research on your own to see who all DEMANDED we do something in Iraq. If you want me to do it for you...I will.
No-one likes war. Sometimes it is inevitable though.
There was troops in Afghanistan, but not as many as we got in Iraq. War can be inevitable, but Iraq wasn't one of them, IMO.
If we put most of our effort into taking care of Al Quida, then there wouldn't have to be as many troops in Iraq, plus there wouldn't be anybody for Iran and all those Middle Eastern countries to support. They wouldn't face us in open war, America+Britian+the rest of Europe+Isreal+other countries such as Australia=total domination. Let's face it, if it weren't for Iraq, then Bush may actualy have some support in America and the world. Nobody is going to challenge a country that has half the world supporting them.

 

[dw62]

Originally Posted by MeleeRock
We are leaders of the world. It is our responsibility to protect others around the world because it ultimitly protects us.
We are NOT the world police. I agree we should do our part to help protect a free world, but it is not our responsibility alone. Almost all of the other leading nations of the world disagreed with this war, and found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which became obvious to everyone later). Additionally, there has been NO evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected with Osama Bin Laden at all, in fact, intelligence report just the opposite, that Saddam hated Osama and wanted nothing to do with him.
The reason that Al Queda are now in Iraq is because we are there. If we weren't, neither would they be. We must also remember that most of the chemicals and weapons Saddam had for his warfare were provided to him by (gasp) DADDY BUSH!! Which brings me to the ONLY act of terrorism (if you could call it that) of Saddam against USA is that Saddam attempted to have Daddy Bush assassinated. President Bush's war against Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with WMD's, or oil, or freedom. It was revenge!
You should get a movie called "Bush's Brain". It's full of facts and interviews from credible individuals regarding George Bush and what he really stands for.
"I don't have a problem with a dictatorship, as long as I am the dictator"
-George Bush

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by crimzy
...Can you remind me how many American ground troops were sent to Afghanistan in the months following 9-11? Let me remind you... zero!!! ....
There are numerous military pics of special forces riding on horseback side by side with the Northern Alliance within two months of 9-11.
Your statement is nice rhetoric, but completely false.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by MIKE22cha
... Nobody is going to challenge a country that has half the world supporting them.
Fairly sure we had the support of the rest of the world on September 10th, 2001. Didn't stop us from getting hit the next day...

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ahhh, revisionist history. Gotta love it.
We're fighting in Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait, was defeated, broke peace agreement literally thousands of times, broke over a dozen UN Resolutions, and refused weapon inspectors access to sensitive sites.
Seems like the media driven political left would have rewarded him for such measures. It most obviously was our involvment in Iran-Contra affairs in the '80s that spurred him on...Dang, where is the sarcastic, smart a** emoticon???

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ahhh, revisionist history. Gotta love it.
We're fighting in Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait, was defeated, broke peace agreement literally thousands of times, broke over a dozen UN Resolutions, and refused weapon inspectors access to sensitive sites.
Weird, that's not what Bush says...
Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
Ground troops-Afghanistan... Do you think no troops were in Afghanistan before Iraq??
Actually the first ground troops weren't sent to Afghanistan until October 19, 2001.... only over a month after 9-11. Prior to this we provided only air support and hoped that the Northern Alliance would do the job for us. Is it any wonder why we did not catch Bin Laden?