Do you agree with Bush that Iraq is not facing a civil war but it is the Alqueda which is doing this?
919198
IT IS AN AL QUEDA PLOT TO DESTABILIZE THE COUNTRY AND TO GET THE REST OF THE WORLD TO BLAME THE US FOR THE PROBLEMS. THE MAJORITY OF THE TROUBLE MAKERS ARE NOT EVEN FROM IRAQ. THE PROBLEMS IS THAT THE IRAQI FACTIONS ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE INSURGENTS TO KILL THEM WITH OUT A FIGHT. IT SEEM LIKE A CIVIL WAR BUT IT IS AN INTRICATE PLOT TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN PROCESS. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO STICK IT OUT. IF WE RUN WE WILL BE ASKING FOR FURTHER PROBLEMS ON OUR HOMELAND.
536984
Yes they are in civil war and until it is over and they decide who is going to lead them we won't know, it could be worse then Saddam before it is over. There is nothing that we can do to change it.
366513
he's the president but whatever he decides has to be passed by congress. like him declaring war had to be passed by congress.  \n\ni do not believe in this war with iraq but i suport the soldiers there.
180248
Please notice that it is Iraq with Q not K.\nI am sure that this war will be finished as soon as things get setteled.\nThere's one more thing, personally I don't consider it as war against Iraq, it is war against terrorism, which is a part of the battle for freedom and democracy.
557849
there has to be war sometime. but i do not like it at all. i think that we can settle things with communication and agreement. i think that the war in iraq is because the president is not thinking about how to solve it without war. he says he is a christian but we do not believe in violence. \n                          -peace child
730331
I really appreciate your sentiment for it is what we were all brought up to believe is good about this country.  But may  I suggest that this is not a war.  It is an occupation by the United States of another country.  We were told that the people of Iraq were being held in oppression by the horrible dictator Saddam Hussein, and that they would be throwing flowers at our troops for setting them free, we would be welcomed with open arms.  Why do you suppose we have had to stay for three years, fighting door to door with citizens who desperately wanted us to enter their country and set them free?  If our policy was so concerned about their human rights, why are they fighting us to the death?  I offer this thought for discussion, for it sounds to me like we were not told the truth about what we are doing there, and the Iraqi people have made it very clear with the sacrifice of the own blood, that they do not like what we are doing?  If we were oppressed by a dictator and someone came in to set us free out of the goodness of their heart, would we fight them door to door for doing so?  I think not.
193571
Iraq is slowly but surely turning into a self governing democracy that will in the near future be capable of defending itself and participating and working with nations worldwide economically and as an ally in the war against terror. the Iraqi people will be free to pursue the freedoms that we here in America have long taken for granted.Iraq does indeed have a bright future ahead and because they do our future here is America is brighter as well.~
1121515
I am totally against the war, however, people who join our military go in knowing that even if it's not necessarily a war they would back, they have comitted to doing their job.  I might also say that no matter what war or why - they have my absolute respect for being a part of a bigger picture that may cause them great harm or even death.  I salute all of them.  Bush, however, can kiss my flabbly butt.
257543
The Iraq war was obviously a mistake and will end with them having a civil war.\n\nBush is my president, but he is not a good president. I support my president, but hope he leaves soon and doesn't fuck anything else up.
985361
In light of Bush's insistence that we should stay the course it seems plausible that the USA also conducted sectarian bombings to drum up domestic support for a bogus 'war'.\n\nSaddam understood what some cannot  - that  democracy is almost impossible to achieve in 'tribal' nations.  Military rule is the most effective.  Something that Bush, as commander in chief,  should have known. \n\nI think he deliberated went in to cause civil strive but not a full blown war as a distraction from and justification of his true intent - control of the oil fields.  \n\nThen he tried to control the escalation of discord and with the cooperation of the media hide it from the American public. \n\nNow we know but we still don't grasp the full extent of what this man did to the Middle East and more importantly -  world stability.\n\nAnd no, I'm not paranoid - I'm analyzing.
1042789
The President went to Iraq in order to boost his poor ratings in the polls. I doubt the CIA is failing him. Bush is a decider of what is a fact and what is not. He has decided that the occupation is worth it no matter how much blood is spilled. He has decided to call the puppet government a democracy.
774290
Yes. That guy in the video has many good points. Bush just isn't a very bright man. \n\nI only hope that Iraq can live peacefully within itself in time.
842518
What it's basically saying is that Bush is trying to help Al-Maliki (the Prime Minister) govern Iraq and gain control over the Sunnis and the Shi'ites, but that nothing is going to stop the Sunnis and the Shi'ites from fighting.
957192
While I believe we are undermanned, I don't think of the Iraq war as a question of nationality.  This is a crooked war and we all know it.  I can speak for many by saying I am not eager to die for a war I don't believe in.
400998
I think you mean Bush does not want the Iraqis to be united in order to control them. This is right, but USA should not be blamed Iraq is made of two major ethnic groups and two major relgious groups and already divided.
932201
A civil war is when factions fight for control of the government.  Iraq isn't in a civil war because outside forces (Taliban, Al Queeda, Hammas, Iran) are instigating all of the turmoil.  Wipe Iran's pres. off the face of the earth and there will be more peace.
787657
There is definite humanitarian side to Iraq in the form of liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's' tyranny. It is not in the interest of liberals and media type to report it this way though because it does not fit the Bush bad agenda. However, it also cannot be denied that we are in Iraq because the country has oil. Protecting the world's oil supply definitely qualifies as a vital national interest due to the fact that our economy is so dependent on it. Just because Iraq has something to do with oil does not make the war a bad thing and protecting it doesn't mean we are there to steal it. You have to balance context though, if we were just interested in humanitarian relief we would also be taking action in places like Dafur, but we are not. Either way the justification talk is just mostly political and should be viewed with complete suspicion because political motives can never be trusted and the truth is often misrepresented in the ends justify the means mentality.\n\nHurricane Katrina response has also been misrepresented. There is ample evidence to show that President Bush was trying to get control of the situation early on, but his efforts were being resisted by state and local officials in Louisiana. The media has given these people a total pass while vociferously attacking the federal govenment. The question which results is why? People have a misconception about FEMA. They believe that FEMA has unlimited resources and people standing by and ready to go. This is not true. FEMA uses contractor companies for it's labor force, of which my wife's company is one. When there is a disaster they begin mobilizing these resources to act, but it not like flipping a switch and it does take time. There was nothing wrong with investigating the response with an eye towards making FEMA more responsive, but the majority of what happened was more of a political witchunt than anything else.