What is you opinion on Iraq?
444455
you can't just invade a country, blow up their infrastructure, destroy their government and military, and then leave when the situation gets too sticky. the US should have seen this coming from a mile away, and should never have invaded in the first place, but now that they have, they need to deal with the problem rather than turning tail and running. unfortunately, as always, it's the poor - the american soldiers and the iraqi civilians - who are paying the price, while those responsible for this mess are unscathed, and most are profiting from it. \n\nthere's just no easy answer to this one, and, though i hate to see more soldiers die for this, i think leaving now will only make the situation worse, and moreover would be the least moral thing to do to a country that the US is now responsible for. abandonment is not the answer. \n\nimpeaching bush would be a good start, though.
248741
depends on the person. i am against the war completely, but some of my friends are for it. A few of my best friends are Marines and one of them is in Iraq right now.  We all agree that we disagree with the war and some of the President's decisions, but that does not affect our relationship at all. They respect my views as I respect theirs, and I definately have respect for all of our troops overseas.
53241
Here we go, rualive84 =)\n\nParty affiliation: I vote the person, not the party.  Registered as an undecided.\n\nIn my humble opinion, I find that it is unfair for anyone to judge what they, themselves haven't done.  I would never want to be President.  I would never want to be exposed to sensitive information and have to make educated, long lasting decisions that place many person's lives at risk.  I will say this, however, today people certainly have ample reason to be pessimistic about Iraq, but they also need to understand the long-term positive consequences it could have on Middle Eastern reform. Although it's not possible to achieve consensus on whether we should have gone to war, there should be agreement about what's now at stake. \n\nUltimately, the United States' failure in Iraq is not good for anyone. It is not good for the Iraqi people. It doesn't help the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace. It won't help achieve better human rights in countries such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt. It won't stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons. And, of course, it won't give our troops the 'mission accomplished' homecoming they deserve.\n\nI have many friends in Iraq and they need support.  They don't all believe in the publicized reasons for going to war, but they are all better than we are because they follow the path of freedom and righteousness.  The Iraqi people deserve to be free.\n\n((As far as being judged by God.  Well, I don't really think that was your question, but I do know that it is not our right to speak for Him.  He will judge us all in His own way.))
181861
I am sorry for the above answer - while we know that things are difficult over there, it is difficult for us to remember the Iraqis when we have troops so far away from home getting injured or killed. Our government has already spent a significant amount of money, and I am certain that a portion of that money includes support for the Iraqi citizens.\n\nPLEASE do not take the above answer as the opinion of every U.S. Citizen!
457877
Dislike intensely. I do not think he is trustworthy at all. I think he has lined the pockets of his friends (Halliburton!) at the expense of the middle-class. I think he is a big international bully; if other countries did some of the things Bush as ordered done, like invade another country without the support of the UN, Bush would have invaded them, too.  I also find it offensive how Bush and the rest of the Administration think the public are a bunch of sheep--- really, a $100 gas check, but I have to say it is OK to drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve? What kind of deal is that? And how dumb do you think I am, if you think I would accept that?\n\n I think we need to break the Republican stranglehold on power in the upcoming elections.  And I voted, like I always do.  So I am allowed to complain!
45273
I guess it's real easy to judge since none of you have to be responsible for the entire country. I have a feeling you have trouble managing your own lives. Only the uninformed have a problem with the way he does things. LOOK honestly at the way Saddam treated his people and the say YOU wouldn't want somebody to help you.  REAL NICE
927556
Yes, I support our troops.\nI think the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake, but that certainly is not the fault of the troops.\nVery interesting points you make, although the rationing of resources I feel would be unnecessary.\nI would agree with your other two suggestions however.
194479
NO. I have friends and family who are in Iraq in the military and my father in law just got back from Iraq as a civilian bomb dog handler. Each of them has told me how saddened and sickened they are by the media portrayal of only negative things from the war. Each of them has told me about how they can see positive changes in Iraq and how much better the living conditions are over there now and how they have started schools and brought order back in many places. I don't think that is a waste of time. It is hard for us who have people we love over there and I am sure we would like to see them all come home safely and not have to be at war -- but the efforts made my our troops in Iraq are not a waste of time.
946444
I heard on the radio him say that the democrats have no agenda in Iraq, and I thought to my self "do you[Bush]?". so yes it is very difficult to stand it. Also people are in-titled to their own opinion of the situation, so there.
66960
Things that make you think a little about Iraq.\n> There were 39 combat related killings in January 2005. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January 2005. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.. \n> When some one says that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following: \n a. FDR led us into World War II. \n b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From \n 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ..an average of  112,500 per year. \n c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ..an \naverage of 18,334 per year. \n d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. \n e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From \n1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost an average of 5,800 per year. \n f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a  platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.  \n g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled; al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. \n> \nThe Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation. \n We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. \nIt took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick. \n It took less time to take Iraq than it took to ount the votes in Florida!!!! \n> If you can read this, thank a teacher. \n> If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran.
757890
You seem to be suffering from an unfortunate case of naievity. The war in Iraq was and remains an conflict to gain oil and distract public opinion from home problems. I'm an ex-British infantry officer (Afghanistan veteran) and I now work in the Oil industry so I'm fairly confident of my sources. The US (and incidentally us brits) went into Iraq in order to corner one of the largest oil reserves in the world and open it up for exploitation by their (and their political allies) coorporations and multinationals. If you look at the companies making billions out of the restructuring of the region and more importantly those who stand to make billions from their share in the now non-embargoed oil you will not find any French or German owned or based companies. You will however find companies who fund the election campaigns of the majority of the US Senate and pay huge ammounts of taxes to the British government. \n\nSchroeder and Chirac may have scored political points with the masses temporarily, but in the long run their disastorous right-wing policies on unemployment and immigration respectively will ensure they remain as negatively memorable as Bush and possibly Blair.\n\nFurthermore, what you call, the carnage in Iraq was not unimaginable four years ago. Senior Britsh military and independent analysts predicted that Iraq would turn into a bloody policing action in a similar manner to the explosion of violence in Northern Ireland in the 1950s. They were mocked in the newspapers when immediatedly after the 'liberation' there were no mass reprisals. Any occupying force in history, whether benign or not, has inevitably become the scapegoat for all local problems and has then been attacked, at the very least in the popular press and at the worst in the form of terrorism and or an armed uprising. International examples of this include Aden, Sierra Leone, Vietnam, etc.\n\nFinally the Iraqi's are not better off than they were before. However a basic understanding of the power dynamic in the Arab world and the disparate collection of races Iraq is made up of shows that widespread conflict in Iraq was inevitable. If and when Saddam died in power the same Sunni, Shiite, Criminal or potential Dictators would have formed their own cliques and siezed or recruited whatever weapons and branches of military they could and resumed the infighting. The proof of this is that this has occurred every time there has been a transition of power in Iraq since they deposed of their King just prior to World War 2.\n\nWars are never fought for the reasons claimed before or decided after the event.
1063744
The "poll" most often cited around here is that 80% would like to see us leave Iraq (iraqi citizens).  Mind you that poll was asked in a way to generate that answer.  I would like to know more about the poll saying 80% of the country are optimistic, but it doesn't suprise me as 75% of the country is living in relative peace...the problems are in a few areas.
232074
Has any one asked the Iraqis if they WANT the democracy or not? Ofcourse it's OIL, do you think Bush cares about how Iraqis feel?
568621
1) Saddam was in Iran not Iraq.  So to talk about him is a different topic.\n2) Don't you think that if the Iraqi radicals stopped trying to demolish Iraq and allowed a safe and stable government that the American military would be able to leave.\n3) Hey guys, do you like watching girls walk down the street in shorts and little bitty tops, do you like girls in bikinis?  Girls, do you like to dress the way you want?  Do you think that was happening in Iraq?\n4) Do you think you could have spoken out against either the governments of Iran or Iraq and been allowed to live a normal life.\n\nBefore you shoot your mouths off, think about what has been happening in Iraq, think about torturing of people under Sadam.  Better yet, go move to the middle east and then come back in a few years and run your mouth some more.
974553
This was a massive plunder operation under the guise of patriotism misplaced.  It is otherwise known as the big lie.  Iraq was ugly for many, but peaceful.  Now Iraq is a violent shambles,directly due to the intervention of GW Bush.  If there were no oil there, do you think we would be there?  Not a chance.
876408
Obviously, this is a very subjective question.\n\nIf I were an Iraqi who mysteriously lost a loved one who was subsequently dug up in a mass grave years later by American troops - the answer is a resounding, yes.\n\nIf I am a critic of the war and feel, despite the overall conditions of the country under Saddam, that it was more "stable" before we ousted him, I would answer, no.\n\nBoth answers would be honest and the truth - depending on ones perspective.
372709
I am US military stationed in Iraq right now also.  I don't think we came over here for the right reasons, but I think what we are doing for these people is righteous.  I get to go "outside the wire" quite a bit, and being a job that isn't really liked by the insurgents..ie they want to kill me bad, many of these people are happy to have us here.  To have lifted a tyrant out of power and giving them a chance to set up a democratic system of government for themselves.  Slowly but surely the Iraqi military and police are taking over our job, it is a slow process, but it is working.  I am glad to be a part of an operation that liberates a country and lets them choose their freedoms and laws.