If Ireland became its own country, the fields would be in their waters.

We have already been thanked for stepping in. You see on the news that Iraqi's are against us being there. Have you met any? I have, and I have been thanked for our actions there. I have not been to Iraq, please don't think I am saying that.
If you read about the situation that I started this thread about, you would know that a revolt is what cost 5000 civilians their lives in an hour. A few civilians attempted to revolt against the government, and thousands died because of it. Much the same as Russia under Stalin, those who were even thought to oppose the government were executed. There were other reasons for going to war, but the biggest reason I support the decision is because of Halabja. I would support a war against any genocidal government.

Would you support a draft if there came to be one?

No offense but you being thanked by a few Iraqis HERE is a bit different then the ones THERE.

In comparison to those thousand how many of them have we've killed? Revolution is a good thing and I repeat if we cared so much about stopping this sort of thing and those were our motivations for going in there why did we choose Iraq?

Too bad the United States government doesn't feel the same way.

I really doubt that they're profiting from the war if thats what you're saying.

9-11

Yep, having US control over a country with lots of oil isn't profiting the government at all...

Iraq was responsible for 9/11?

Well compared to how much its costing us, absolutely not.

Us, not them and I repeat Iraq is responsible for 9/11?

No but 9-11 was the instigator. Its not like we're at war with the Iraqi's we're at war with the violent sects within iraq and afghanistan that caused 9-11.

http://fundivision.net/wp-content/up...8/04/pol12.jpg
WOOF WOOF!

Al-Qaeda was supposedly responsible for 9/11 and Al-Qaeda isn't a nation. Nice try.

No, but they were supposedly located within iraq/afghanistan... Whether they actually were or not is another story.

Supposedly being the key word, some were Saudis you know.

Its way off the topic that I started, but no I would not support a draft. I believe in a voluntary fighting force.

No, I only spoke to Iraqi's here for defense training as well as some that were moved here for protection. I do however have many friends that are still in the military who tell me that the majority of Iraqi's support our actions there.

We have killed mainly insurgents. Of course there have been civilians killed as well, but most have been a result of the terrorist activity that don't consider how to minimalize collateral damage.


No, Al Qaeda is not a country, they are simply a loosely related organization that trains terrorists. Al-Qaeda took responsibility for the attacks on 9-11, but it was not direct action.

They actually were located in Iraq.

Think Progress

Yeah the Iraqi Death Count is like between 80,000 and 90,000. Quite a large number.

Uh okay? That's what I said, it was tkpb938 who implied otherwise.

Wrong.

When did i say that? I said they were located in Iraq/Afghanistan...

Wrong. They are flat out lying. Every single poll conducted in Iraq has the majority of Iraqis not supporting the invasion and they want the US out.
Wrong again. Most civilians killed bu US forces were from aerial bombardment. Also the US has targeted civilians.
There is some speculation as to whether or not Bin Laden is responsible for the 911 attacks. Even the FBI hasn't officially charged him.

Are you actually citing a poll that is a year and a half old on a baised web site? Do you have anything newer from a more reputable source?

It is a large number, but how many were killed direct result of U.S. action. You can say that a car bomb was caused by us for being there in the first place, but I want to know how many were lost to our troops. On top of that, I would also like to know how many were not involved in militant activities that were a direct threat to the soldiers that killed them.

You can't discount any death, but I would like to point out that it is estimated that over 80 million lives were lost in world war 2. A large percentage (more civilians than soldiers) were civilian. Take away the estimated 10 million Jews that died in the holocaust and the 17 million killed due to Japan's policies in Asia and you are still left with 53 million lives lost. Was WWII unjust? Should we have stayed out of that one to?

The invasion of Iraq and WW2 are not even close to the same thing. Do not compare them.

Opinion Polls in Iraq - UN Security Council - Global Policy Forum

Iraq Body Count

I really couldn't have said it any better than Zombeels said it.

Here are hundreds of other polls.
Iraqanalysis.org » Info»Opinion Polls in Iraq

I know I'm gonna get heat from this, but here it goes.


I believe it to be cruel and unjust what Saddam Hussein and his followers have done. I saw some of those pictures posted on that link, and I agree that nothing justified such deaths.

We have a strong military and everything needed to liberate countries under oppression, but what gives us that right? Sure, it's the good thing to do, but to put so much responsibility on ourselves? And along with weakening ourselves, we weaken the people we try to save, taking away life's challenges handed to them. Instead of trying to save every country being dictated, the people of those countries need to rise up and above the oppression, and they will benefit more from taking matters into their own hands rather than having us do it for them.

I'm sorry if this sounds cold, but that's just what I think. Every country for themselves. Unless Iraq had something to do with the attacks on 9/11, we should have stayed out.

" I have a very unpopular opinion in that I am for the war, but against the troops"
- Bill Hicks

RIP

Every single poll ever conducted? So you are telling me that the Iraqi's I spoke to were lying because your poll says so? I will admit that my friends dealt mostly with Iraqi's that were allowed within U.S. controlled ares so the opinions they got were slewed. Many polls are taken from specific groups achieving a slewed result.

The majority of civilians killed as a direct result of U.S. action were killed by splash damage from bombing. This does not change the fact that most civilian deaths in Iraq have been caused by insurgent actions. The last I checked car bombs and roadside bombs were not in the U.S. arsenal.

Explain why. How are they not the same. Because you choose to ignore the similar points? They are more alike than you seem to think.

Thank you for posting this link, I will be reading it for a while. I did notice that the front page is rather biased. When I dug a bit deeper, I found that the results were not as simple as it initially seemed.

Finally, after 7 pages, somebody actually address what I posted first. Somebody actually voiced an opinion about my first post.

Where was our right interfering in Europe during WW1 or WW2? We were attacked by Japan, our war was in the Pacific. What about Korea? The list goes on.

Turning a blind eye was what allowed Nazi Germany to gain so much ground before we stepped in to help. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Nazi Germany to murder 10 million Jews. Turning a blind eye is what allowed Japan to murder 17 million "lesser" Asians. History repeats itself when ignored.

Well you answered most of your question. Also if an armed US soldier asks an Iraqi asks them a question about the invasion/occupation the Iraqi will most likely give a positive response from fear of reprisal.
But this is not one or a few polls. This is many. I also have links to many more.
Where are your sources to show the deaths attributed to the actions of the insurgents have surpassed the deaths caused by the US forces? Also keep in mind the insurgency is a direct result of US policy.
Nazi Germany was a world power, Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. How are they alike?
Did you expect some pro-Bush or Pro-war site to post this. This is a site that posts all the data on polls with reference to Iraq. Where's the bias? They make no comments or opinions on them.
You need to decide whether you are going to discuss Iraq or WW2.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. However, had we not been attacked we still would've had no business fighting said war. It isn't our job to be the world's police.

Ok, in WWII, as Unfan just said, we were attacked by Japan. We were forced into the war when Pearl Harbor was bombed. What did Iraq do to us? Nothing.

If we go forward and help every nation under tyranny, we weaken the citizens of those country in the long run by taking away that challenge of overcoming oppression. What if we were to establish a government for the Iraqi's to use for themselves? We establish, then we pull out and let them do the job. Sounds good, right? But who's to say they will be able to do the job? They weren't strong enough to overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish their own government, and now they never will be.

The united states isn't every third world countries' mothering nation. We can only nurture so much before our tits are dried out and those nations have to walk on their own, and when they do, they will crumble, because we took away any challenges life had for them.

This is all the opinion of an individualist. Don't think I have no sympathy for the people who are suffering.

Let me share a story told to me by a friend. About 3 months into his first deployment he was hit by a roadside bomb. He took a lot of shrapnel to his face, neck and arms, his torso was protected. He was evacuated for treatment and returned to his unit 2 weeks later. He was of course angry about what happened, but not in the way you might think. He was talking to another soldier saying that it was bull**** that they were even there. If Iraqi's wanted us gone bad enough to attempt killing them, maybe they should just throw in the towel leave. He was approached by a civilian that was hired to work in the dining hall and told that he was wrong. He and most of the people he knew were thankful that we were there. He came to them to say thank you, he was being ignored while they were talking. He approached unarmed soldiers when he could have ignored them. But one person doesn't represent an entire country. He is simply a voice with a face, not a number on a poll.

When you read further into some of these polls, you get a different picture than the quick description. They didn't change any information, only show what would support the point they want seen. A few examples.

They chose to show things that would show U.S. soldiers to be heartless. Did they bother show the percentage of soldiers that are worried about their marriage? Or the number that have stood up to other soldiers doing the wrong thing? They are in the poll, just not shown in the quick blurb.

With as religiously divided as Iraq is, they would need to ensure that a true cross section is taken. 93% of Sunni Muslims agreeing with attacks on troops is not a shocking number. Of course you know that Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. Sunni's were living the good life with Saddam in charge. Shi'a of course don't see things the same. What about the results from the Kurdish population polled? They also didn't bother to show the trend of improved quality of life. In 3 years, the polls show mobile phone ownership increasing 14 times over. Of course why bother showing that.

Does this bother to mention that 81.9 percent of respondents were in Baghdad? How about the fact that most of Baghdad is Sunni Muslim?


Picking and choosing what to show is as unethical manipulating the results.


Nazi Germany was not a world power until they had already murdered at least 2 million Jews. Not until they had already invaded and secured other nations were they considered a threat.
Iraq was a threat to neighboring nations.
Iraq was guilty of genocide.
Iraq was attempting to secure nuclear weapons and had, at different points, chemical weapons. They had them in the past and would not allow inspectors to verify that they did not have them prior to the invasion. These made them a threat to the entire world.

I am bringing up points from past wars to show the similarities. I'll say it again; history repeats itself.

i hope america bombs your children.

Wow thats harsh and rather against a spirit of healthy debate.^ I think he brings up some solid points myself.

Who does?

Predator...

My bro is in Afghanistan, and he says the same things basically about afghani's and iraqi's being mostly greatful people.

And one person does not represent the majority. Can you show one poll that favours the US occupation?
We are talking about what Iraqis think, not the US servicemen.
Who's picking and choosing now. There are plenty of polls listed outside of Baghdad that represent the Shia and Kurd populations. Are you kidding me,the quality of life has fallen so much. Have you seen the unemployment rates, the level of poverty. Mobile phones over 3 years. Why not show over 6 years.
Wrong again. Germany became a world power in the early 30's. Any comparison to the strength and power of pre-war Iraq to Nazi era Germany is ridiculous.
No they weren't. Show me one neighbor that felt Iraq was a threat.
Now you are getting yourself into a grey area. The UN led sanctions against Iraq killed more and are also considered genocide. Bush's war on Iraq can also be considered genocide. Even the Gulf Invasion can be considered genocide. If you are going to look at the situation by the amount of numbers lost then the US takes most of th responsibility. Don't forget Saddam had the charges dropped against him for the Anfal Campaign.
No they weren't
Not prior to the invasion.The inspectors were on the ground when the US officially called for a war.
They were simply not a threat to anyone.
But there are no similarities or no correlation. History means nothing if you've been lied to about the present.

Here's the thing:

Bush and his cronies wanted revenge for 9/11 and rightfully so. We allegedly searched for Osama bin Laden in the ensuing year. Then, when the search for Osama began looking dire in the summer of 2002, he and his staff began kicking around the idea of going after Saddam.
1. He was one of the world's most brutal and fascist leaders.
2. He wanted to kill Bush Sr., and Bush Sr. was too lax in catching him during the first Iraq invasion in '91. Bush Jr. was hellbent on being more of a Reagan style conservative than a Bush Sr. moderate, so he wanted to look tough and in charge, by getting the job done this time.
3. They believed Saddam was an easier target to catch than Osama.
So, what it comes down to is: The U.S. doesn't want to get pushed around, and wanted to send the world a message after 9/11: You can't come into our country and commit acts of terror without there being hell to pay. Osama wasn't readily available to be made the target of our frustrations, so we go after another brutal dictator who we know our country can rally behind the ousting of.

The fact that Saddam made it look like Iraq might have nuclear weapons doesn't give Donald Rumsfeld the right to go in, and falsify the documents, saying "We will definitely find nuclear weapons." Granted, it looked like they did, but as it turned out, they didn't have them, and that doesn't detract from the fact that Rumsfeld is a big fat liar. Also, Rumsfeld and Perle, along with **** Cheney went to great lengths to create a tie between Saddam and 9/11. Granted, Saddam was a terrible leader, who deserved to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and doesn't detract from the fact that **** Cheney, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld are big, fat liars.

Bush, he's just off in another world, he's off in dream world. I don't even think he's really been present during his tenure. He justs loves sitting over this land with his executive gavel. He probably sits around all day playing G.I. Joes, not even fully realizing the power he wields. He's just on one big ego trip, he and his father. This is a family that is so worried about what other people think of them, that when Bush Sr. was in office, Newsweek wrote an article about him and called him a 'wimp' repeatedly and Bush described it as one of the worst moments in his life. These are people want to do all of the pushing, and never receive any resistance, and to most Americans that's 'strength' LOL.

We deserve whatever we've got coming to us. We allowed a criminal into the White House by almost electing him to back to back terms, and that ought to tell you that almost the majority of voters have such a screwed up moral compass that we don't even know when we're voting for a complete fraud with an I.Q. lower than most of the people on this website. Neocons want to sit around all day bashing Barack Obama because of who his pasteur was, and some guy he sat on a board with, but can't have one bad thing said about them, without getting all up in arms, meanwhile doomglooming over the apocalypse. We'll all sit around and believe their hype and all their little tidbits, because it's convenient. Obama says Americans cling to guns, and by November that will have turned into Democrats will take our guns away, and we're too godd*mned ignorant to investigate for ourselves.

You are right just as I said, one person does not reflect the population. No I can't find one that favors the occupation. The majority seem to show that the invasion was a good thing but they want to rebuild their own country.

Wrong, if you read the original post, you will see that this is now way off topic and we are discussing the genocidal acts of the Baath Party.

Do you understand why I posted what I did? It was not to say that the polls were wrong. If you read the polls, the answers are not as simple as the front page of the link you posted. The quick blurb as the introduction to the polls, which most people are not going to make it past, do not show the depth of the poll. They only show the answers that can slew to the opinion of the site. If you read the entire poll, you get the full picture. If you read the entire poll you see the demographic of those participating. If you have a general knowledge of Iraq you tell based on the demographic polled how accurately the poll represents the country.

Sorry, I couldn't find any statistics that cover mobile phones over 6 years. The numbers were pretty damn low at the start of this 3 year period so I'm not sure how much difference it would make.

No, we are both right. When the National Socialist German Workers Party, also known as the Nazi party, took control of Germany in 1933, the country began to rebuild its military. This signaled the beginning of the German rise as a world power after the end of WW1. At the same time the Third Reich began its campaign against Jews. Therefore, by the time the world realized that Germany was a major military power, it was to late and millions of Jews had already been murdered.

I'm sure that you know that the end of WW1, Germany was extremely limited in its in the ability to maintain a military. Of course they chose to violate the Treaty of Versailles and sneak around creating a military powerhouse. Had the world chose to ignore this, I'm sure that Iraq would have been ignored after Desert Storm and followed a similar path.

Kuwait. Why do you think they purchased Abrams tanks and maintained a U.S. presence after Desert Storm? Why did they allow the U.S. to stage the invasion from their soil?

There is no gray, genocide is genocide regardless of scale. Using your logic, any war would be considered genocide.
Having the charges dropped, which I will admit, I did not know about and have not followed up to determine the accuracy of, does not change the fact that it happened under the orders of the Baath Party.

Can you prove this? Intelligence documents tell another story.

See above.
I'm guessing that you see no way that anything could have left the country to a neighboring nation?

They were a threat or they would not have been invaded.

There are plenty of similarities. If you choose to not see them, that is your choice.


now to look over my original post.

I find it disturbing that the bulk of this thread has veered so far from the reason that I posted it. I understand that the subject matter is disturbing, but I don't find that as a valid excuse to ignore it.
To the ones that actually did address the original post, (Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 and The Unfan mainly) I can surely see your point. It is not the responsibility of the United States to police the entire world. Maybe we should have stayed out. I don't believe that, but I can see the point.


EDIT:
At this point, I choose to bow out of the argument unless someone sees a reason for me to continue. I never started this to convince anyone to agree with me. I started it to show the main reason that I support the invasion of Iraq. Most people have heard of the incident but did not know very much about it. I simply wanted to show another side that people may have not known. I chose to continue arguing even though I requested it to stay on topic and it did not. At this point, I think I have shown that I support the invasion and will continue to support it until such point as facts convince me otherwise. Thanks for a good argument.

lol^

So would you like to talk about Halabja? You did know Iran was first blamed for the massacre and the US even agreed with this. Then sometime later the blame shifted to Saddam. I don't know about you but when the US finally caught Saddam I was really hoping this event would come to trial. Guess what, it didn't. This was supposed to be Saddam's worst atrocity. Why wasn't he tried for this? Was somebody hiding something or protecting their own hide. Some don't even believe Saddam was responsible for the deaths at Halabja.
A War Crime Or an Act of War? - New York Times
Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense
The Hallabja Massacre

An editorial with no citations.

An article written about the first article.

WTF? Its the same thing again. It has a different font size and background color but is the exact same article.