Supporters of the war in Iraq

[Evil Chris]

Do you still support it as much as you did when it started?

Most people on the right say that the occupation/war should continue until there is a trained force in Iraq that can set up and maintain a democratic society, all the while flushing out insurgents. But is that really possible?

Meanwhile, the death toll of US troops rises past 2000.
I know I'm Canadian, but I too live in a free society where I'm allowed to ask questions and take the side I choose. So you that have always shown support, where do you stand now?

[Trev]

I refuse to disclose my current position on the grounds that it will make Nickatilynx laugh and taunt me.

[Timon]

Don't you think it's pretty weak to support something but then change your mind because it's tougher than expected?

"My name is Timon, I used to support the war but now some soldiers got killed and it cost a shitload of money so now I'm against it"

just doesn't sound right does it?

[MorganGrayson]

There is a certain horrific benefit in being both old and aware of history.

I was there for the "Vietnam era." We sent in "advisors." The French had spent 25 years with their "Vietnam war," and realized, there's no way this particular enemy could be beaten. So, the US took over, first with advisors, then a "conflict." 50,000+ American lives and countless billions of dollars later, we withdrew.

I stand where I always did. War sucks. People die. Take whatever number you *think* might die and keep exponentially increasing it. Same with the financial burden.

Support the troops. They didn't start this shit, they never do.

"2000" men and women died. If that number shocks people...they have absolutely no conception of "war."

[PornoDoggy]

When the "call to war" first began to sound, I was in favor of it. As it became clear that Bush was planning only for war, and not the ensuing peace, I began to oppose it.

The sad thing is that the people who advocate a unilateral withdrawal are just as ill advised as the folks who got us into this mess.

[OldJeff]

I supported at the very beginning, because I believed Colin Powell.

My support has not dwindled because of the cost, My support went away because all of the reasons our illustrious president gave us were all lies.

[Evil Chris]

W should have quoted LBJ last summer before the elections.

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."
(LBJ, White House, Washington, D.C., March 31, 1968)

Alas, those were different times.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

When the "call to war" first began to sound, I was in favor of it. As it became clear that Bush was planning only for war, and not the ensuing peace, I began to oppose it.

The sad thing is that the people who advocate a unilateral withdrawal are just as ill advised as the folks who got us into this mess.

You do have a point.

In my opinion the war wasn't the wrong thing to do, it's the war plan that was wrong. Rumsfeld is a moron experimenting with a new war concept rather than playing it safe.

As it stands now, US troops will have to stay until Iraq's forces can provide enough security and the insurgents are no longer a threat or things will become much worse than they were before the war. If people think Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists, imagine what Iraq will become when the insurgents take over the country.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by OldJeff

I supported at the very beginning, because I believed Colin Powell.

My support has not dwindled because of the cost, My support went away because all of the reasons our illustrious president gave us were all lies.

What did you believe? Iraq must be attacked NOW because their weapons of mass destruction are an imminent threat to the US?

nigga please

Have you figured out yet why it was really necessary?

[PornoDoggy]

I don't know what good that would have done.

LBJ just happened to be the guy in office when Vietnam came about, and he got there by following the logical path laid out by his predecessors going back to Ike.

In 68 there was a government in place for LBJ to negotiate with. In 04 there was no such thing for GW. There was nothing that GW could have done in the summer of 04 to overcome the mistakes he'd already made.

What developed in South Vietnam was a situation of perpetual combat. I don't believe that was ever the intent of anyone on the U.S. side.

What appears to have happened in Iraq is a state of perpetual combat. The difference is that it appears to be deliberate - described as "taking the war to the terrorists." The fact that there weren't any terrorists there until we allowed them in is evidence of either the most incompetent and insane policy since the anti-Roosevelt forces equated rearming with war, or the most cynical exercise in foreign policy since we delivered bioweapons in the form of blankets to the indigenous people of North America.

[Robin]

If Iraq is like Northern Ireland then the US will be policing the area for maybe 30 years. Convenient that considering what lies under the ground there...

[Timon]

Originally Posted by Robin

If Iraq is like Northern Ireland then the US will be policing the area for maybe 30 years. Convenient that considering what lies under the ground there...

Or what country neighbors it...

[Dale_Ryan]

Creating a trained force to set up and maintain a democratic gov't is possible but at what cost? That's something we can't just figure out. As what they say, 2000 aint the exact number at all.

[Timon]

Originally Posted by Dale_Ryan

Creating a trained force to set up and maintain a democratic gov't is possible but at what cost? That's something we can't just figure out. As what they say, 2000 aint the exact number at all.

You're a fuckwit and you don't get to have an opinion until you have 100 points.

[PornoDoggy]

Who'dhe fuckwit?

[Timon]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Who'dhe fuckwit?

n00b'dhe fuckwit!

[OldJeff]

Originally Posted by Timon

What did you believe? Iraq must be attacked NOW because their weapons of mass destruction are an imminent threat to the US?

nigga please

Have you figured out yet why it was really necessary?

I can see some strategic benifits, but still do not see the necessity.

As for WMD - there are none, never were. Of course the real motivation is pretty evident.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173683,00.html

[Timon]

Originally Posted by OldJeff

but still do not see the necessity.

And you probably never will either

[Mike AI]

2,000 deaths in 3 years of WAR, with about 1,400 from actual combat is a remarkable number. Our commanders should be praised.

I could list at least 100 single battles that caused more US Deaths.

More people are killed by car accidents in the US in a year then in WAR in Iraq so I guess we should ban all cars.

[SykkBoy]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

2,000 deaths in 3 years of WAR, with about 1,400 from actual combat is a remarkable number. Our commanders should be praised.

I could list at least 100 single battles that caused more US Deaths.

More people are killed by car accidents in the US in a year then in WAR in Iraq so I guess we should ban all cars.

2000 deaths in a war that wasn't necessary...
We didn't even finish with Afghanistan and we went full on into Iraq (had to chase away the Taliban boogeyman, don'tcha know)

[WebairGerard]

Against it from the start and still against it now.

Anyone in this thread or interested in what the hello is going on in Iraq and why it is this way check this link out for starters. Amazing read.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102805K.shtml

[Evil Chris]

Originally Posted by Mike AI

2,000 deaths in 3 years of WAR, with about 1,400 from actual combat is a remarkable number. Our commanders should be praised.

I could list at least 100 single battles that caused more US Deaths.

More people are killed by car accidents in the US in a year then in WAR in Iraq so I guess we should ban all cars.

Hard to fathom that you sluff off 2000+ unnecessary lives lost in a war hyped up by lies from an illegally elected president. But whatever.

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by Evil Chris

Hard to fathom that you sluff off 2000+ unnecessary lives lost in a war hyped up by lies from an illegally elected president. But whatever.

Chris...I didn't interpret that as Mike "sluffing off" the number of deaths. I believe he's made the most important distinction of all: separating the opinions regarding the "politicians" and the "troops." He is correct that given all the possibilities, the figure is low and a testament to the training and skill of the actual troops. We have, in fact, lost far many than 2000 in individual battles, some of which were held in Virginia.

We can't ever make the mistake that was made during Vietnam: blaming the troops for the war. Put the blame for the war where it belongs, but support the people that were sent to fight it.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

Chris...I didn't interpret that as Mike "sluffing off" the number of deaths. I believe he's made the most important distinction of all: separating the opinions regarding the "politicians" and the "troops." He is correct that given all the possibilities, the figure is low and a testament to the training and skill of the actual troops. We have, in fact, lost far many than 2000 in individual battles, some of which were held in Virginia.

We can't ever make the mistake that was made during Vietnam: blaming the troops for the war. Put the blame for the war where it belongs, but support the people that were sent to fight it.

I have to disagree with you here.

What Mike is doing is trying to channel the debate off to a numbers game. "We've 'only' lost 2,000 people, which is minor compared to other situations." By doing so, you avoid a discussion of anything remotely important.

BTW ... when you mention the battles in Virginia, are you only counting Americans or do you include the traitors too?

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

I have to disagree with you here.

What Mike is doing is trying to channel the debate off to a numbers game. "We've 'only' lost 2,000 people, which is minor compared to other situations." By doing so, you avoid a discussion of anything remotely important.

BTW ... when you mention the battles in Virginia, are you only counting Americans or do you include the traitors too?

You may be right, PD. I'm rather fierce on the "don't blame the troops" issue, which is a product of my own past. I'm like everyone else, my own personal opinions color my reactions.

And oh, I will so not be baited by that last question.