in the LONG RUN the war will have been good if we don't fuck it up from this point on. the country was in bad shape and the region was being destabilized. our military action disrupted their way of life in the SHORT RUN, in the hopes of establishing a better future for the country. in the LONG RUN. operations like this take well more than a year, even in our impatient ADD-inflicted information-age world.
leaving now would be disastrous, because we turned the country upside down, dismantled their government, and squished their military. until we're able to get them back on their feet in better conditions and under new leadership, we have to stay there. it's only been a year and everyone's fucking flipping their lids. this shit takes time. what did they expect, unseat saddam and then come home? they called it a "decapitation strike", for fucks sake. we don't just leave a headless body to fend for itself when we went in there with the stated mission of helping it.
that is all.
Sod said:how would less people dieing be disaterous???????????/ bush and his weird ways of thinkin, lets fuck him in the ass and show him how it feels
the war sucks and I've been against it since the start. I now have no oppinion of anything in iraq except for utter descust for the situation and mess that we americans have created over there.voiceofreason said:Yeah, like the pull-in was so good...
GT22,GoalTaylor22 said:In any event, a pull out of Iraq would be disasterous...the moment we move out Iran moves in and takes over. At the end of the day the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in a position of power, and if that's all the war accomplished, I'd still call it a victory. And also, if the United States accomplishes what it set out to do in Iraq, create a stable and fair government and create an economy that can stand on it's own, we've added another country that can help improve the world for our time on it.
So tell me exactly how that's a bad thing.
voiceofreason said:I never believed it - it's what Bush told us, if you can remember back to his "impassioned" speeches on TV...
I blame him completely for mis-leading the American people, mis-representing the threat and killing 100's of our good service people for no reason at all.GoalTaylor22 said:If he was lying, can you blame him? Bush was trying to oust a tyrant, but just the fact that he was a tyrant these days isn't enough to oust him from his high position. They needed a more imminent threat than the fact that he tortured and killed his own people, so I for one can't judge him too harshly for fabricating the whole "weapons of mass destruction" tale.