What was the initial reason for being in Iraq, what's actually being fixed right now, was there anything for fixing in the first place, predictions on how much longer the U.S. will be there?
126244
We went to Iraq based on the belief that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and the belief that Saddam was a terrorist.\n\nSo far there has been no sign of weapons of Mass destruction.  Some believe there never were any, others believe they were mobile and were moved out of the country before the U.S. came in.\n\nCurrently the United States is rebuilding Iraq's government and entire infrastucture because they came in a tore it down.  They are training police, and military men.  They have helped the Iraqis write a constitution, and have had nation wide elections.  They are currently waiting for the elected officials to ratify the constitution.\n\nGeorge Bush and his followers try to focus most of the attention on the forward movement of Iraq and what progress is being made for the Iraqi people and how the world is better for it.  Others beleive we are waisting our time and our military men and women's lives over in Iraq.\n\nI tried to be as unbiased as I could be.  That is my belief of the current situation.
209319
we have an idiot in our white house that has no clue what he's doing. None of his "plan" is justifiable. Its a war for oil, not peace. A power hungry village idiot (Somewhere In Texas a Village is Missing It's Idiot, best bumper sticker i've seen about this cause) came up with the brilliant plan that we could dispose of WOMD in iraq. Which basically brings us to good and them to not. It was pointless from the point that we found no WOMD. Anyway, it proved to be damn near impossible so we turned it into a reformation mission. We tried to reform the government yadda yadda yadda. Well we went over there to find WOMD. We didnt. We found a guy in a hole. Big woo. So now there is absolutely no reason for us to be in iraq. We accomplished all the things bush set out in the beginning. Now its just ridiculous. We're over there fighting for some retarded cause that a texan oil junkie idiot decided we absolutely needed to work for. Jay Leno put it right when he said "We are now down to the final 4. I'm not talking about basketball, i'm talking about how many people still think george bush is doing a good job."
572489
As a soldier, I am getting sick of not seeing my spouse. We have been seperated for 14 months. We both serve - him in Afghanistan and myself to Iraq. That being said, being in Iraq and seeing it first hand, I know that we cannot pull troops out of Iraq until stability is reached and the Iraqi government can sustain themselves. Unfortunately this will take years.
144467
Can't see America losing the war in Iraq. Reason, we're there and now it's too late to back out. Most likely we're going to be in Iraq and the middle east for at least 20 years if not longer. The overall goal is to bring democracy to the region. Not an easy task, since most there don't know what democracy is. America will suffer a humilating defeat if it backs out now. It fought to a draw in Korea, lost in Vietnam. Now if it withdraws, that's another lose. It's not going to happen. America doesn't want to lose its international superpower status. And withdrawing from Iraq could led to that.
427253
The objective was two-fold. The removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a stable, free democracy.\n\n\nFinishing this war, staying until we have accomplished the goals in their entirety is a much smarter choice than many want to believe.\n\nIF...America pulls out of Iraq too soon, it will leave a power vacuum in the country that would more than likely be filled by the lunatics in Iran. First order of business...start lobbing nukes around like the drunken pirates throwing candy and beads at the Gasparilla Parade. Result..world war 3. We would have to go through all this again. We are there (like it or not) and it makes no sense to do this job half-a**ed.
561103
This is the first I've heard of this.  Two years is still a long time for the troops to be there, but without fighting?  That's very interesting, and it probably won't happen.  If the "insurgents" are talking to the Iraqi government, who is then relaying the information to the US, that's even more interesting.\n\nIt will be worth watching this unfold since Bush refuses to sit down and talk with terrorists while the left has always been for negotiating with them.  Quite interesting.
677099
well you know I have some friends that came back from Iraq not to long ago and they tell a different story then what i see on TV.  They talk about how its a vary small percent of the people that cause the problems, most of them are glad Saddam is gone and are working hard to make there country a better place.  He told me about a bombing were some one blew them self up in a line for the Iraq police recruiting, everyone helped the people that were hurt and killed in this attack, then when they were done, all of them just got back in line. they believe so much in making things better even the threat of being blown up didn't stop them.\n\nyou might also want to pick up a book by I believe the name is General Georgia Sada (at work or I would check and give you the ISBN#) Saddam's secrets.  Its about an Iraqi general and how he helped move the WMD's out of the country before the war, interesting book.
515831
The insertion of troops was a major mistake. The entire region under Islamic influence from Morocco to Indonesia is far less stable as a result. The U.S. is increasingly seen as dictatorial by increasing numbers of people around the world. Our economy has been vastly weakened. We do not have enough troops available should other emergencies develop. The Civil War, denied by the Bush administration but acknowledged as being fully underway by the rest of the world, deepens daily and leaves American troops there as sitting ducks. There can be no victory in Iraq. Just as the British learned after World War I, the Iraqis will not be conquered. There is too much value underground (oil) and too much division above-ground. The only result of continued occupation will be increasing governmental debt for the U.S. and more dead and injured American soldiers. Military contractors such as Halliburton are being enriched. The Bush administration has no idea of what they mean by "victory", nor does Tony Blair in England.
56133
Tosser: acts as a Moron, but refines its aim each turn\n \nHe seems to adjust his answers to fit the questions of the day.\n Why are we in Iraq:  1) wmd's.....................miss\n                      2) terrorist..................miss\n                      3) democracy in iraq..........miss\n                      4) we'll get out as soon as they ask us to leave.........................................miss
263702
One of the main reasons that we are having so much trouble now is that we pulled out of Iraq too soon the first time.  The same with Afghanistan.  Until the new government is up and running, with a military and police force, then we need to be there to help ensure that the new government has a start.  Right now the insurgents have learned their lessons.  They are targeting the Iraqi people right now, trying to show that the new government is ineffective.  Why?  Because the insurgents know that the new government will be friendly to the great Devil of the west.  They don't want that.  We NEED to have a stable, friendly gov't in Iraq.\n\nAs far as pulling them to watch the borders, no.  We have the NG that can do that mission, along with the Minute Men, Border Patrol, Customs Agents, INS personnel, and FBI that are already there.
222013
The Iraq war is a complete waste of time for the U.S.   I thought the objective was to catch Bin Laden and the terrorists after 9/11.  Apparently not.   Bin Laden still resides in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but certainly not in Iraq.\n\nBin Laden still runs free while we are left holding the bag to pay for nation rebuilding out of our own pockets.  While a noble thing, it's not the objective.  If we were all about creating democracy, we'd have invaded North Korea in the 50 years or so that it's been the most horrific dictatorship in the free world.  It was about protecting oil and going after Daddy's nemesis.\n\nMeanwhile, our poor troops patrol Iraq while lunatics take potshots at them, many on their 3RD tour of duty, ridiculous.  No, these aren't "insurgents", these are Iraqi's who don't want us there, and will never give in since they have lost power and are a minority.  Would you give up your guns if you knew you would be killed and/or put down into the dregs of society?  We are trying to "fix" a country that has thousands of years of issues that we cannot possibly be successful in curing.\n\nEven Bush's daddy knew Iraq should not have been occupied. Read it for yourself, like Karnac, Bush Sr. predicted what would happen if we invaded.  Jr. fell into the trap.  http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3019.htm\nThis is the time article extracted from Bush/Scowcroft book.\n\nSo there you have it, a useless war so far from the objective of catching the terrorists it might as well be in the wrong country, uh, oh yeah, it is.  I wonder how the families of the victims of 9/11 like Dubya?  \n\n"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - GW Bush, 9/13/01\n\nReal important.  Yeah, ok.
660973
Iraq will need us for a long time still. When we are finished there, though, North Korea is in need of an overhaul in a big, big way. For insight on that, rent the documentary "State of Mind". If we don't go to North Korea first, I'm sure we'll go to Iran. YIKES!
139882
Ok last time I do this. Afghanistan was already taken care of and a democratically elected government now holds power there. Granted its a gov based on Islamic Law BUT theyre learning AND it was elected by the PEOPLE. We did not go into Iraq for oil...how many tankers have arrived here from Iraq? NONE.  The main points the President and his admin cited were Saddam's alleged links to Al Queda which rather recently are starting to be CONFIRMED by siezed Iraqui documents as well as Saddam's refusal to cooperate with UN weapon inspectors and even going as far as covertly transporting most of its WMD programs to friendly neighbor nations. Evidence of this is also starting to come out of siezed regime documents. There is ALOT more but I only have a short space to make my main points. The rest of it IS out there, if you have the intelligence to look for it and the wisdom to see that ALL the "mainstream" press is biased...even the socalled "fair and balanced" Fox News.
165098
i was in iraq and i know it is better now. i have talked with hundreds of iraq's and they are much better off now. the only iraq's unhappy are the ones that have lost power and money because saddam is gone. It is better now, even though it may seem bad on tv, before with saddam things were much worse.
53868
It was necessary for us to create a stable govt. in Iraq to prevent it from becoming a host country for terrorism and to counter the very real threat they posed of producing WMDs.  (I feel we should have waited and taken on Iran or Syria first)\n\nBUT\n\nIt is apparent that democracy is beyond the capabilities of a factionalized and tribally minded Iraqi population.  Therefore, we should get out as soon as possible rather than continue this wastefull experiment in democracy.\n\nHOW we should do it is arguable.\nBut I suggest setting up a US friendly authoritarian government.  One that will have the determination to counter any insurgency using the most severe means.  Yes, I'm talking about a dictatorship.  This might offend some, but it is the only way to effectively govern a nation like Iraq.\n\nOur goal should be somewhat selfish.  We're trying to protect ourselves by establishing stability. We should do so in the way that's least harmful to us. \n\nIf you look at the alternative.  This idea really isnt' so bad:\nCivil war vs. our US led leadership OR\nIslamic dictatorship vs. US. led leadership.\n\nAlso, if you look at history, which was worse:\nShah of Iran or Ayatolah Komeni?\nBatista or Castro?\nChina before the revolution or China under Mao?\nCambodia before or after Pol Pot?\n\nSome countries are destined for dictatorship.  Those that are will be better off under our guiding hand.\n\nOf course this could not work over the long run.  We must have a strategy to totally exit from the region once it is stabilized.  Involvement in the mid-east does not work for us.  We must accept that fact.\n\n!!!---If I've answered your question.  Please remember to vote for my answer! ---!!!
41869
Nope, I think the goal with Iraq, is just to make it a stable government, and help the people there. From your picture your female right?  Well, if you lived in Iraq you wouldn't have even been able to post this question... Just because your female.  More than likely you wouldn't even be able to read, as only 25% of Iraqs female population can read.\n\nIn part of course its for oil aswell.  A warring nation in an area where we get over 31% of our oil from (the middle east nations).  If they wage war and take over kuwait again, or whatever country it could drastically effect the WORLD ecomomy, not just the us's.\n\nThis however, does not mean it's only about the oil.  There was the possible threat of a Womd.  Also,  per the amount of money Iraq has, it has one of the lowest quality of life ratings per individual of any country.  \n\nI work with someone from Iraq,  I had no idea about this before I met him, but apparently slavery still exists in Iraq.  He was a slave until he was 19, and managed to escape to Saudi arabia, and then move to the us.  When he was 8, there government was building a another new palace. his house was in the way, and his father refused to move.  There goverment offered no compensation, no lodging, no anything.  Also it was where his family had lived for 3 generations, so his father refused to move.  His father was killed, and dragged away, just because he refused to move.  \n\nWithout an Adult male at the head of a family, his mother and he were arrested, and then forced into indentured servitude,(Slavery) but not to learn a trade or a skill.... just because she was an adult female, without a husband, and because he was a child.  Though he escaped at 19, his mother is still over there, and still someones slave.  He is in the process of trying to buy her freedom, and I wish him the best in this.  Noone should have to worry about buying the freedom of their family, thats just not how life should be.\n\nPuerto Rico was different, Puerto Rico, was pretty much just the "prize" from the Spanish- American war.  \n\nI can't tell you if you would be happier if American influence was there or not, however I can tell you what would more than likely happen if all North American influence left Puerto Rico... \n\nFirst, the small port drug dealings from Colombia, would double and triple, then it would move inland.  Filling streets and buildings everywhere with drugs, and violence. Puerto rico, would soon be filled with all the drugs, murder, and corruption of colombia.\n\nShortly after the Colombian drug trade has sunk its claws in even further. While Puerto Ricans are stuggling just to stay alive, worrying if they should even send their kids to schoool or not, because of all the resent shootings... Then Cuba will step in, Promising to restore peace, and clean up the streets.  They will declare martial law,  and in true measure they will "clean up"  anyone breaking any laws will be shot,  many innocent people will die.\n\n5-10 years down the road, Puerto Ricans as a people will look at their life, and wonder what went wrong?  Where did their freedom go?\n\nWith the Us there, we are there as friends, and you get full citizenship.  If Cuba comes in, what will you have?  I'm not saying we should be there, it costs the US government quite a bit of money to aid Puerto Rico, and if you want the US out, I say lets leave, and I of course wish you the best in life.
338208
I have been thinking that way for a long time. there are some dodgy questions being asked. a couple i have seen, How Many Exactly US troops in Iraq.How do you get to a certain navel station. How many tanks has US got in Iraq. Do you know when a certain Division is about to be moved over to Iraq. these are just some of the ones i think are suspicious.