Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, we've been in Iraq since 2002, right? What are your current thoughts on the current situation there?

While I am indeed very conservative in my views, I don't know that sending more troops in is the solution. Shouldn't we start planning to get our boys out of there? I've got friends over there and I know just how bad things are, believe me. But there comes a point where if the country wants a civil war, us staying there and prolonging it with the lives of our American citizens seems rather... un-logical to me. I'm not trying to offend anyone, just stating my point of view.

Your thoughts?

There was a time when I thought the Iraqi people saw themselves as Iraqis and not as Kurds, Shī‘a, and Sunni. I believed that those blue fingers actually meant something...not that they would throw down their weapons and group hug (I am not that naive), but that they would at least refrain from bombing weddings and funerals. My belief that the Iraqi people deserved freedom was one reason I supported the war in Iraq. I admit, however, that these presuppositions were wrong.

There is obviously some bad blood between these groups, otherwise the violence would seem more like the conflict in North Ireland. This feud seems to have been centuries, millenia in the making. They want their civil war, their deicide (I couldn't find a better term). I fear I've lost my ability to care.

If we really wanted to win this fight, it would take more then 20,000 people. We're sending in penny packet troop surges and thinking it will do anything. And as long as we allow things like al-Sadr's Mahdi Army to exist...as long as we allow al-Sadr to exist...the fighting will never end.

OoC: sorry for the edit, I had a second thought sweatdrop

I agree with what others have said. I believe that the Iraqis deserve a better life and to be free. However, the infighting between different groups has been happening for a long time. We cannot just go in there and kill everyone, that wouldn't work. If possible (and this could be a big if) everyone should get along. yes, it is a naive hope, but that is what would be ideal. However, to at least try to create democracy, stability and relative safety is a worthy goal. I think it will take a very long time before things are cleared up. As someoen else said, we also need more soldiers. We don't need to lesson our forces and impact now that there is a tiny bit of solidity there. We need to increase everything to see that any changes for the better that are made will stay changed and not revert back to how they were. As seen from history a change to democracy is tough and many countries have abandoned it because it seems futile. We need to stick with it and keep on thinking of how we can make things better.

The Americans have done their job. It's time for Iraqis to secure their own rights. I remember seeing an interview in which Bush concluded the Iraqis owed us "a debt of gratitude." I agree, and I would be for pulling out our troops and letting the country take its own course if it didn't have worldwide implications.

The problem is that it does, and we're tied up there until we can make Iraq safe. I do believe that spreading Democracy to the Iraqi people is essential, but more essential is securing our own safety. I am for the surge.

Whatever your opinion about the Iraq War, it was not an "invasion." We liberated them from a dictator as ruthless as Stalin or Hitler, and it's their turn to step up to the plate. That said, idealism must be tinged with realism--insurgents are preventing Iraq from being safe for anyone, and the only way to really grant the Iraqis freedom is to annihilate as many insurgents as possible.

After a long absense from Gaia, I guess this is a darn decent topic for me to jump back into:

The situation is not as grave as it appears, though given the current situation can only deteriote if we do not get our brain screw back right.

Chapel Willingham, I believe that the troop surge is the right thing, though it's only the first step.

Yes, Der Freischuetz, the key thing is what needs to be done with the troops instead of how many we have there. I'm not asking that the proverbial Kid Glove of Humaness be removed, but for the sake of all that's right in the world, at least remove the shackles that our troops are forced to move around with. Yeah, the militias need to go, but that's only a tentacle of corruption in that country! The extreamist muslim faith has long been a tool of those who lust for power in the Middle East.

Take away the stinking carrot that's dangling in front of the donkey then!

Patton, I'm by no means a naive man, in fact I've only become more jaded with my experience there and my subsequent employment in the general field. The religious distinction in Iraq is NOT as overblown as it appears in my view. It is by the public (the press, the politicians, etc) emphasis on such issue that people are begginning to see themselves in that light. I've seen friendships there amongst the sects, I've see partnerships, and heck, I've seen intermarriage. For a lot of people it is NOT a factor.

The ones who bomb the weddings and funerals are the ones that have something to gain by polarizing the situation like that! Looks like a page of the Al Sharpton playbook was lifted here.

I firmly believe that the people in Iraq wishes to be free. It's just too bad that the ones armed with AKs and RPGs want that freedom for themselves, along with political power and economic gains.

I don't see the conflict there as a religious one. The conflict is more akin to the Mafia/organized crime fights for territory and power. Family names, race, and religion is just a gimick, the ultimate motivation is in more earthly desires. As long as we are stuck in the "OMG! it's the religion stupid!" mindset, we'll never be fixing the true problem.

Seventh_Son, we have not done our job. We detroyed the previous regime, but we did not hold our position afterwards. The proverbial "All Clear!" never happened. We just skipped a step and went straight to rebuilding prematurely. To hand this mess back to the Iraqis without backpeddling a bit to do it right is just setting them up for failure. Freedom and democracy won't mean s**t to the Iraqis as long as the enforcers from the Sadr Mafia are sitting in the neighborhood with a small arsenal.

Just my two cents.

well i think it's sad that people think bush started the war. i think that clinton really started this war and he had so many chances to end it. but i'm glad that in this war we have a texan in the white house. if we voted kerry i think we'd all be speaking arabic. but that's just my thoughts.

I had to write Her Majesty Speaker it was an assignment....well my teacher is a flamming liberal....and I had to hold Some of my Beliefs back. Tell me what you think.

Dear, Ms. Pelosi:

I am writing to you in regards the way that you have voted against the recent troop escalation to Iraq. I know that nobody enjoys having to resort to using military force. However history has clearly demonstrated ways to preserve peace is through the use of military force, to combat those who do not have the respect for human life. When all other means of peaceful negotiations fail, it is a necessity to use military force against those who are bent on total destruction and annihilation of their enemies.

The recent troop escalation is appropriate to make sure this war does not turn into another Vietnam. We need to send in more troops for the time being to help out the newly formed government in Iraq. The Iraqi military did not progress to the point where they could reliably hold areas on their own, on territories that our troops had cleared. The Iraqi civilians in the Sunni Triangle knew if that if they had cooperated with American troops, and fought against the ruling insurgent thugs that it would only time until the insurgent thugs would retaliate. Most of Iraq is in cooperation with our troops except for Baghdad and Anbar Province area. Our troops cannot win this alone. The Iraqi Army and the Iraqi government need to want to keep their current government. Personally, I think that they do want their government to succeed because of their high voting rate for the new constitution. The results in their election had a higher turn out than the United States did in the 2004 election. To me it feels that most Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds want to live together in peace. It seems to me that the people of Iraq want to be about their ordinary lives; they want to be left alone. A democracy in Iraq would hopefully try to make reigns such as Saddam Hussein's look undesirable. What isn't to like about the new Iraqi government? The economy of Iraq is doing better than it ever did under the rule of Saddam, people of Iraq have more freedoms that under the rule of Saddam. The new plan requires full participation of the Iraqi people for this plan to work; the United States cannot give them this freedom.

Complete withdrawals from Iraq will in fact double the prestige, power, and recruiting ability of our enemies Al Qaeda on the Sunni side, Iran's ayatollahs on the Shiite side. Iraq would be a huge battleground as Iran, Turkey, and the Sunni alliance try to take control of the oil enriched fields of Baghdad. A complete withdrawal from Iraq, without leaving behind a strong and viable democratic government committed to fighting terrorism, will lead immediately to all the secular governments in the region making their peace with Islamofascists. All of our soldiers that had given their lives in this war would have died for nothing. How would the Iraqi government have the confidence to fight off terrorists or terrorist groups? Especially when the United States is revealed to having no will to resist the terrorists? A democracy in Iraq would truly serve as a beacon of freedom. Many countries in the Middle East may feel that they do not wish to be ruled by Islamofascists, but instead would rather live in a Democracy like Iraq where all three faiths in Islam function as one, and live together in peace and harmony.
Today in 2007 it is still debated whether or not we should have invaded Iraq in the first place. Whether or not we should have invaded Iraq is still a heated debate topic in both the House and the Senate, but it doesn't carry its weight in 2007 as it would have in 2003. This is because we have invaded Iraq. Regardless what is said in this debate it will not get the United States from doing its actions that it did in Iraq. What matters now is that the consequences of leaving Iraq with no set government, everything that our troops have fought and died for absolutely nothing. Not only that it would encourage more and more Islamofacsists in Iraq to try to do more accounts to terror on the world. Leaving Iraq would be devastating and global, while the cost of staying and pursuing victory is, compared to other wars at such a scale, amazing cheap in both life and money. So why would anybody be so foolish as to introduce, into the debate about what should we do now, opposed to arguments about what we should have done before?
History could tell us anything there was a similar situation back in pre-World War II. In the 1940 election, the United States was near into going into the World War II in Europe. Willkie as a politician who was running against Franklin D. Roosevelt; embodied a non-partisan spirit of co-operation during wartime, and praised his support of President Roosevelt's creation of a military draft. Although it was against his party Wilkie had supported Franklin D. Roosevelt. Eventually this trend moved on. The United States had Entered into World War II, and won both of the wars in Europe and the Pacific. What needs to be done is that congress needs to cut all of the non-partisan because nothing is getting done in the House or the Senate. The party ties need to come together and compromise. If there is no compromise then nothing will happen. If both parties were to come together with the issue of Iraq; the war in Iraq could lead in victory. That is when both parties come together.
The 110th Congress is full of promises and dreams. If you're fellow Democrats succeed in blocking President Bush now, instead of working with him. They may prevent him from succeeding in putting a beacon of democracy in Iraq, resulting in more terrorism and wars ahead. If the Congress wants to be recorded as honorable then it should be advised to try to cooperate. If there is no cooperation between parties then the Congress will be seeing as shameful because nothing will get passed. It is your chance to shine now to try to cut partisan ties.
Sincerely ,

Sith_Master_Steve