A Soldier Posted December 21, 2004 Report Posted December 21, 2004 My question is mostly aimed toward americans, but feel free to answer even though you're not. A poll was released yesterday showing the dissatisfaction of a majority of americans concerning war and Iraq and Bush's job.http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=347784 What about you? Let's say you were called, what would you have answered to their questions? As of right now:Is war in Iraq worth it?Is Bush handling the situation in Iraq?Is Rumsfeld doing a good job?What about the elections? Should they be held at the end of January?Bring troops home or wait until order is restored?Should Rumsfeld be replaced?Do you think there has been progress toward restoring peace?
Dr Brain Posted December 21, 2004 Report Posted December 21, 2004 YesYesYesYesRestored? What do you mean restored?NoRestoring? That implies that there isn't peace already. As a side note, I wouldn't trust that poll as far as I could throw it. It gives no details as to how it was conducted.
A Soldier Posted December 21, 2004 Author Report Posted December 21, 2004 Restored? What do you mean restored?Restoring? That implies that there isn't peace already.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>There is a slight difference between since the occupation started and today, no?
Dr Brain Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 Yah, a lot more terrorists were alive when it started.
Guest Recombo Posted December 22, 2004 Report Posted December 22, 2004 As of right now:Is war in Iraq worth it? Definitely. Hussein's action against Kuwait, his defiance to the UN, and his butchering of Northern Iraqi's are three reasons. Is Bush handling the situation in Iraq? Handling? I guess you would have to ask him personally. Is Rumsfeld doing a good job? Yes, because Rumsfeld tells it like it is. Oh, did you know that of 857 vehicles in the battalion of that soldier who asked about vehicle armor, only 20 were not armored. 20. What about the elections? Should they be held at the end of January? Yes, however just like Sudan, people will act like animals to get their way, or prevent change. Bring troops home or wait until order is restored? Unforatunately stay. Should Rumsfeld be replaced? No. Several senators who leaked informatoin about spy satellites should be however, such as McCain. Do you think there has been progress toward restoring peace? No because removing Hussein simply opened the killing fields to the Baath party. Now that they are free to kill as they please, they recruit hopeless imps to their cause thru the 'twisting' (loosely stated) of Islam laws.
A Soldier Posted December 22, 2004 Author Report Posted December 22, 2004 Yah, a lot more terrorists were alive when it started.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's not what the reports say US fears more terrorism after IraqBy Roy Eccleston' date=' Washington correspondentFebruary 04, 2003THE US faces a dramatically increased risk of terrorist attacks if it invades Iraq, American officials have calculated. The US is understood to estimate the prospect of terrorism will rise by about 75 per cent if it launches military action against the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Experts say it is likely Australia and other US allies would also see a rise in the terrorist threat against them, particularly if the attack on Iraq is not part of a broad United Nations-sanctioned coalition.[/quote'] Thinktank: invasion aided al-Qaida Richard Norton-TaylorWednesday October 20, 2004The Guardian Up to a thousand foreign jihadists have infiltrated Iraq, but this is a fraction of al-Qaida's potential strength, a respected military thinktank said yesterday. The foreign fighters are operating with the Sunni Ba'athists loyal to Saddam Hussein who began the insurgency, and possibly with Shia militias as well, according to the the London-based International Ins!@#$%^&*ute for Strategic Studies. Basing its findings on information from its specialist contacts, including sources in governments and intelligence agencies, the ins!@#$%^&*ute said the invasion of Iraq had "enhanced jihadist recruitment and intensified al-Qaida's motivation" to mount terrorist operations. The organisation estimated that al-Qaida had more than 18,000 potential terrorists in 60 countries, sympathetic, in varying degrees, to its cause.
MonteZuma Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 Yah, a lot more terrorists were alive when it started.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>There are as many or more terrorists now than ever before.
Yupa Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 Is war in Iraq worth it?· no (depends on what you're after, though)Is Bush handling the situation in Iraq?· no (depends on how you want it handled, though)Is Rumsfeld doing a good job?· no (but his job is stupid)What about the elections? Should they be held at the end of January?· don't careBring troops home or wait until order is restored?· don't careShould Rumsfeld be replaced?· doesn't matterDo you think there has been progress toward restoring peace?· ...what? You mean the peace that existed before we invaded? ...I s'pose...some
MonteZuma Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 If violence is your indicator, I think we can only conclude that Iraq was more peaceful before the invasion. Saddam might have been a butcher, but more innocent people are being killed in Iraq now than in the few years prior. The elections should only be held at the end of January if they will be *perceived* as free and fair by Iraqis. At this stage, I doubt that they will. Iraq is a !@#$%^&*-hole.
The Apache Posted December 26, 2004 Report Posted December 26, 2004 From the words of the AL MIGHTY (Eminem) "!@#$%^&* BUSH, VOTE ME"
»SD>Big Posted December 26, 2004 Report Posted December 26, 2004 From the words of the AL MIGHTY (Eminem) "!@#$%^&* BUSH, VOTE ME"<{POST_SNAPBACK}> shut the !@#$%^&* up already
Guest Recombo Posted December 28, 2004 Report Posted December 28, 2004 I'm attempting to laugh, but the egotistical nature of those comments above dull it away.
Dr.Worthless Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 Saddam might have been a butcher, but more innocent people are being killed in Iraq now than in the few years prior.We'll estimate that the US has been in Iraq for 15 months now. Acording to IRaq Body Count.net The current Max for Iraqi civilian deaths is 17158 17158/15 = 1143 deaths a month. Saddam gained power of Iraq in 1980, and kept power until 2003. Thats 23 years, or 276 months. According to Saddam Regime body count estimate a conservative estimate for the number of people killed as a direct result of Saddam's actions would be somewhere around 330040. 330040/276 = 1195 deaths a month. Very close, numbers wise. Iraq is a !@#$%^&*-hole. To be fair, montezuma, only a fraction of iraq's provinces are violent right now, somewhere along th elines of 5 out of 30 I think? The Sunni Triangle (Where the largest majority of Saddam supporters were, since the Sunni were Saddams Tribe) is where the majority of the dissent is, and rightfully so, these group of people face the prospect of falling from top dogs, to be ruled by the majority shiia. I believe many people either don't know or choose to ignore the real reasons behind the violence currently occuring there. News paints a picture of complete and total country wide dissent in iraq, when the fact is that just isn't the case.
themissinglink Posted February 21, 2005 Report Posted February 21, 2005 1.Of course2. define "good job"3. Already happened..4. Order will never be restored there is always going to be somebody bout something (oil freedo)m5. No he's alright 4 the time being6. Like I said no.. but.. I might be wrong. -post edited by Aileron.....don't type in all caps plz
Dav Posted February 24, 2005 Report Posted February 24, 2005 Is war in Iraq worth it? No, where are the WMDs?Where is the link wit al quieda?Have we forgotton bin laden and afganistan?the situation isnt much better now to what it was before, allowing a people revolt would have been the best option. Is Bush handling the situation in Iraq? its mayhem, terror and violance fail to be controlled effectivly so no. Is Rumsfeld doing a good job? is he capable of it, i doubt it. What about the elections? Should they be held at the end of January? Yes, or perhaps sooner is conditions permit. The sooner the better so america can get out and let things get bact to normal.Bring troops home or wait until order is restored? Should Rumsfeld be replaced? yes, somone that can add more balance to bushes rediculas decitions is needed so we dont end up in this mess again. Do you think there has been progress toward restoring peace? not enough.
Recommended Posts