# Is the war in Iraq really over?



## number1failure (Sep 1, 2010)

I sure hope it is. There have been several news stories on this topic, as well as Obama's speech about it. What are your views on this?


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Sep 1, 2010)

I don't care.


----------



## IamWEB (Sep 1, 2010)

No.
It's more like a progression in the plot as we press onward to the movie's ending.

Rest uneasy and assured that there will be sequels... :/


----------



## imaghost (Sep 1, 2010)

the terrorists will probably move back in, take over parts we are trying to control, but since the combat troops aren't there anymore, they will probably kill more Americans. That or it really is over.


----------



## VP7 (Sep 2, 2010)

This war will never be over.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 2, 2010)

It's not even a war anymore. The higher-ups in America believe that it's somehow the responsibility of our country (as a superpower, I suppose?) to turn Iraq into a nice happy developed country complete with a democratic government, competent police, and so on. We're trying to help and epic failing at it. Unfortunately the people in that country really don't want us to be there (and I can understand that!) so we of course have to keep a whole bunch of highly trained army dudes to make sure we don't get completely slaughtered. And then you end up with plenty of civilian casualties. It's a lose-lose situation, really, and it'd be really nice if we could just give up and let them develop on their own.


----------



## Joker (Sep 2, 2010)

qqwref said:


> It's not even a war anymore. The higher-ups in America believe that it's somehow the responsibility of our country (as a superpower, I suppose?) to turn Iraq into a nice happy developed country complete with a democratic government, competent police, and so on. We're trying to help and epic failing at it. Unfortunately the people in that country really don't want us to be there (and I can understand that!) so we of course have to keep a whole bunch of highly trained army dudes to make sure we don't get completely slaughtered. And then you end up with plenty of civilian casualties. It's a lose-lose situation, really, and it'd be really nice if *we could just give up and let them develop on their own*.



:tu


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 2, 2010)

imaghost said:


> *the terrorists will probably move back in*, take over parts we are trying to control, but since the combat troops aren't there anymore, they will probably kill more Americans. That or it really is over.


They weren't there before the US invaded, and they've never gone away since the invasion.


----------



## ElectricDoodie (Sep 2, 2010)

qqwref said:


> It's not even a war anymore. The higher-ups in America believe that it's somehow the responsibility of our country (as a superpower, I suppose?) to turn Iraq into a nice happy developed country complete with a democratic government, competent police, and so on. We're trying to help and epic failing at it. Unfortunately the people in that country really don't want us to be there (and I can understand that!) so we of course have to keep a whole bunch of highly trained army dudes to make sure we don't get completely slaughtered. And then you end up with plenty of civilian casualties. It's a lose-lose situation, really, and it'd be really nice if we could just give up and let them develop on their own.



This is the exact same view I have.
:tu


----------



## DT546 (Sep 2, 2010)

Did another oil rig just explode in the gulf of mexico?!?


----------



## Chapuunka (Sep 2, 2010)

I still don't understand how America became such a super power when we really do a bunch of stupid stuff.


----------



## Nestor (Sep 2, 2010)

ElectricDoodie said:


> qqwref said:
> 
> 
> > It's not even a war anymore. The higher-ups in America believe that it's somehow the responsibility of our country (as a superpower, I suppose?) to turn Iraq into a nice happy developed country complete with a democratic government, competent police, and so on. We're trying to help and epic failing at it. Unfortunately the people in that country really don't want us to be there (and I can understand that!) so we of course have to keep a whole bunch of highly trained army dudes to make sure we don't get completely slaughtered. And then you end up with plenty of civilian casualties. It's a lose-lose situation, really, and it'd be really nice if we could just give up and let them develop on their own.
> ...



I guess so.. but you need to ignore the moral issue about the US igniting the current situation by invading Irak "looking for wmd".


----------



## BigSams (Sep 2, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> I still don't understand how America became such a super power when we really do a bunch of stupid stuff.



Lots of natural resources and a gonna-get-what-I-want attitude (that's a compliment btw, not a condescending statement).


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 2, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't understand how America became such a super power when we really do a bunch of stupid stuff.
> ...


Some people would say it was a compliment. Lots wouldn't, though. Particularly the people who had the stuff the US wanted.


----------



## Lorenzo (Sep 2, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > I still don't understand how America became such a super power when we really do a bunch of stupid stuff.
> ...



I would still want to move to Canada.


----------



## dabmasta (Sep 2, 2010)

Lorenzo said:


> BigSams said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



Canada isn't just as pretty either though.


----------



## BigSams (Sep 2, 2010)

Lorenzo said:


> BigSams said:
> 
> 
> > Chapuunka said:
> ...



Well, I'm in Canada, and I guess the international reputation is better than that of US these days; we have all these labels like peacekeepers and great health system. But it's a system that is far from perfect. In my opinion, there could be a few more elements of capitalism. Too much equality leads to lack of motivation.


----------



## Tortin (Sep 2, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Lorenzo said:
> 
> 
> > BigSams said:
> ...



Oh no! Too much equality! Watch out!


----------



## BigSams (Sep 3, 2010)

Tortin said:


> Oh no! Too much equality! Watch out!



If you're got a point to make, sarcasm on its own won't convince anyone. All I'm saying is that equality is great but it is unfair to those who work harder (and subsequently earn more) to have so few options for greater rewards. For example, universal health care is a good concept, but why is there next to no option for those who don't want to wait for 5 months for an MRI?
Ugh, I just realized how off-topic this is, sorry to OP.


----------



## Tortin (Sep 3, 2010)

BigSams said:


> Tortin said:
> 
> 
> > Oh no! Too much equality! Watch out!
> ...



You're assuming that people who work hard earn more. Poor people aren't poor because they're lazy. And how can you have 'too much equality'? Are you implying that people aren't equal and don't deserve to be treated as equals?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 3, 2010)

dabmasta said:


> Canada isn't just as pretty either though.



I'd love to see the justification for this one.


----------



## imaghost (Sep 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> imaghost said:
> 
> 
> > *the terrorists will probably move back in*, take over parts we are trying to control, but since the combat troops aren't there anymore, they will probably kill more Americans. That or it really is over.
> ...


Really? then who killed all the Americans? 4000 Americans don't just die in a different country we just so happen to be fighting a war in. 
what about Al-Qaeda?


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 3, 2010)

imaghost said:


> Really? then who killed all the Americans? 4000 Americans don't just die in a different country we just so happen to be fighting a war in.
> what about Al-Qaeda?


Please read what I said carefully.
I never said that there were never any terrorists in Iraq.


----------



## imaghost (Sep 3, 2010)

"they weren't there before we invaded"
why were there car bombs
Saddam was still in power, which was the problem. They were happy when we caught him and took him from power. 

if we weren't there, he still would be, and he would still be threatening us with his weapons. 

We did not go in there and attack nothing and wait for them to appear. They were always there.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 3, 2010)

imaghost said:


> hawkmp4 said:
> 
> 
> > imaghost said:
> ...



You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that because someone revolts against a foreign invader who kills and tortures his countrymen while destroying his economy and way of life, he is a terrorist. Generally the proper term is militant or insurgent.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 3, 2010)

imaghost said:


> "they weren't there before we invaded"
> why were there car bombs
> Saddam was still in power, which was the problem. They were happy when we caught him and took him from power.
> 
> ...


People who became insurgents after the invasion were in Iraq before the invasion, yes. But Al-Qaeda was not present in Iraq till 2004 (That's when JTJ declared allegiance to Al-Qaeda). JTJ wasn't started until after the invasion.

EDIT: I agree with Ethan's above post as well. Mine has been edited.


----------



## imaghost (Sep 3, 2010)

either way, there were terrorists there. They were there before, they will still be there.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 3, 2010)

There are some "terrorists" sure, but a vast majority of people that you describe as terrorists are defending their communities. I'd do the same if I was in their shoes. You probably wold too.


----------



## dabmasta (Sep 3, 2010)

hawkmp4 said:


> dabmasta said:
> 
> 
> > Canada isn't just as pretty either though.
> ...



I'm just saying Canada isn't perfect. People seem to think, or at least some people seem to think, that Canada is the most peaceful country in the world, and nothing is wrong.


----------



## Tortin (Sep 3, 2010)

imaghost said:


> either way, there were terrorists there. They were there before, they will still be there.



Al-Qaeda was not there before the war started. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, despite what the Bush administration claimed.


----------



## imaghost (Sep 3, 2010)

the Bush administration never claimed that that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The reason why we are in Afghanistan is because of 9/11.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 3, 2010)

imaghost said:


> the Bush administration never claimed that that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. The reason why we are in Afghanistan is because of 9/11.



No, the Bush administration did say that. Repeatedly.


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 3, 2010)

Start citing sources instead of pulling crap out of your behind, all of you.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 3, 2010)

ExoCorsair said:


> Start citing sources instead of pulling crap out of your behind, all of you.



Sigh you can't just let me be happy and wait for him to be like, o yea you don't got no proof, so I can be like, O REALLY? WELL CHECK THIS OUT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

And this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

not to mention this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

Google is a fun tool, isn't it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/bush-continues-to-link-ir_n_92321.html


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 3, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> ExoCorsair said:
> 
> 
> > Start citing sources instead of pulling crap out of your behind, all of you.
> ...



Do you honestly think that my statement was directed only at you?


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 3, 2010)

no, I was just hoping that the situation I desired would be allowed to happen


----------



## ExoCorsair (Sep 3, 2010)

Ethan Rosen said:


> no, I was just hoping that the situation I desired would be allowed to happen



On the other hand, you turned into the most credible poster on this topic in a heartbeat.


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 3, 2010)

ExoCorsair said:


> Ethan Rosen said:
> 
> 
> > no, I was just hoping that the situation I desired would be allowed to happen
> ...



There goes my reputation


----------



## Ethan Rosen (Sep 3, 2010)

Double post

As long as were at it, this is relevant

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/03/ap-combat-operations-in-iraq-are-not-over/


----------



## imaghost (Sep 4, 2010)

"Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington"

it really doesn't matter if he associates them. It really does not. Al-Qaeda was in Iraq, they were the terrorist group that did the 9/11 attacks. They were in Iraq, and we were fighting them there. This does not mean that Saddam was part of it.


----------



## hawkmp4 (Sep 4, 2010)

imaghost said:


> "Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington"
> 
> it really doesn't matter if he associates them. It really does not. Al-Qaeda was in Iraq, they were the terrorist group that did the 9/11 attacks. They were in Iraq, and we were fighting them there. This does not mean that Saddam was part of it.


The group that was in Iraq that, in 2004 (AFTER the US invasion, declared allegiance to Osama bin-Laden had no ties to the WTC attacks.


----------

