Why don’t you cry about it a little more.
No!
English in Ireland.
What Twisty said (BTW Halliburton are out of the main running, but do qualify for sub-contracting).
no, do not support it.
flemish in Ireland.
Your implication was that if Iraq was not attacked now, the chances are that we, the world in general, will end up suffering for it sometime down the line. But you don’t know that. Nobody knows that. It’s an assumption. Based on information that IMO is tenuous, at best. That’s all. It’s the same as saying, ‘what if we don’t attack him now? How bad will that be for all of us 10 years from now?’ Thats where I believe the ‘what if’ component of your post lies. However, if I’m wrong, then please accept my sincere apologies, and if you don’t mind, explain where I went wrong.
And the situation was never ‘out of control’. It was far from it. North Korea is still much closer to that line. But that’s a whole other argument.
As for my attempt to ‘retain credibility’, your ignorance about the situation between India and Pakistan as it stands today is just sad. There is no ‘what if’ component to that argument any more. India and Pakistan have already been to war 3 times - each time, Pakistan was defeated by the Indian armed forces. You’d think a country would give up after the first time, or even the second time, wouldn’t you? But noooo, there was a third time. And if that wasn’t confounding enough, there was another nasty conflict in Kargil just 3 years ago, when the Pakis were pushed out, again.
Meanwhile, civilians and military personnel are being massacared on a daily basis in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, by what the Pakistani government calls ‘freedom fighters’, and to whom it continues to give what they like to call ‘moral support’. However, it’s no secret that almost every terrorist organisation that has claimed responsibility for attacks on Indian soil is based in Pakistan. The US government has acknowledged this and banned a host of them recently (I have no cites now, but I can find them if anyone wishes to see news reports). On the other hand, bombs are exploding in buses, in buildings (one 500 meters from my school), in train stations, in local trains - and this is just Bombay, and all in the past 5 months alone. Each time, a Pakistan-based terrorist group claims responsibility for the attack. This goes on throughout the entire country. And after every attack, the West advises us to restrain ourselves! Please understand though, that my anger is directed at the West and the current US administration in particular, and not at you, TheLoadedDog. I’m sorry it came out the way it did. But I’d just love to see the US, or anyone else, living what we’re living and not do anything about it.
We are living the ‘what ifs’. We’ve been living them for 15 years now. And I think it’s enough. So yeah, I do want us to go to war and bomb Pakistan out of the planet. But nooo, when we wanna do it, pre-emption is wrong, and the world will be all over India, slapping a thousand sanctions before you can say ‘who’syourdaddy’!
To the OP and TheLoadedDog, I apologise again. I never meant my last post to come out as an attack, or to turn this into a debate, or for this post to be so long, and I’m sorry that I did.
No. I don’t believe there is proof enough to show that Iraq is a real threat to our nation. I also believe this invasion has ulterior motives, possibly oil, a chance for our president to get a legacy, or just to try and keep the whole “Can’t find Osama even though we vowed to take him in” pushed into a corner.
I’m against the war.
Hey there gouda. Thanks for your apology. That was cool. I’m happy to respond to your post, but I don’t feel up to doing the whole GD thing, and the Pit certainly would be overkill. Will give this thread back to the OP, and I’ll email you if that’s ok.
Yes.
California.
No political comment(s).
No.
North Carolina
No
Chicago
Looting:
“Beneath the dust, the imitation French Baroque furniture was painted gold. The palace had numerous swimming pools, and troops rifled through documents and helped themselves to ashtrays, pillows, gold-painted Arab glassware and other souvenirs of war.”
Murder:
“Americans have twice been victimized by suicide bombers, and among the newly dead was an old Iraqi man. Disoriented and alone, he moved ahead with aid of his cane despite three warning shots. “After you give the final warning shot, shoot them dead,” an officer ordered. The rifleman did.”
Define “support.”
Before it started, I totally opposed it.
Now that it’s on, stopping would be worse than continuing (assuming it’s finished in short order and hasn’t expanded to neighboring countries; ask me again if the shooting hasn’t stopped two months from now).
In short, I believe it’s the worst foreign policy mistake since the end of World War II. But we have no choice, at this point, but to continue and desperately hope for the best.
The pronouncements coming out of the Bush Administration strike me as dangerous groupthink fantasies, and I shudder to think of how they’re going to mishandle the aftermath. (Look at Afghanistan. Yes, that’s right, that country we invaded and promised not to forget. Remember them?)
So, again, define “support.”
Cervaise,
“Support” can best be seen in this instance as “advocate” or even “uphold.” Maybe “agree with this policy” could have been used in the question. I was not trying to make it difficult or to trick anyone.
It seems to me that you took the question as I intended and gave a full answer. Even if my opinion (that this invasion was and is a very bad move) was taken to heart by the powers that be, it would be horrible to remove our troops at this time, as you say. I hope for peace in all countries and in every person.
Stellablue
Yes.
Alabama.
Please do. I’d like to know your opinion! My email address is listed.
100% Yes
Texas
No.
California
…and, as I’m sure we all suspected, there seems to be a good deal of predictability as to whether we support the war or not. At least, for those of us in the United States…
No.
Scotland.
Obviously I want the war won, by us, as soon as possible now that it’s started. But there was no good reason not to wait that little bit longer to get far more support for the whole escapade. It’s a PR war, and Bush’s team don’t seem to care about how they’re perceived, in rather marked contrast to the somewhat hapless Blair.
Just curious, do you really think that by waiting we would have garnered more support?
I’m of the opinion that nearly all the nations that would support the cause (before it started) expressed their support by the time it began, and that the proportion of nations that would later offer their support decreases as time goes on - such that, by now, let’s say, pretty much everybody that’s going to be on “our” side already is.
Yes, I really do. There was a lot of whining about how long it was taking to get people onside. Well, tough titty, that’s international politics for you. France and Russia are eminently buyable (as are all governments). They just wanted a decent deal on the reconstruction rights IMO, which may turn out to be a small price to have paid if there is an alarming backlash to all this. China keep their heads down as always. With the veto members all on board only Syria would have been that fussed out of the Security Council. With a UN mandate the Western sympathetic Arab states would have felt much more comfortable about being on ‘our’ side. That’s how I see it anyway.