<p>According to the government website, our imported oil from Iraq has decreased by .1% since we invaded.</p>
<p>read "1984"</p>
<p>The Iraq War was just some bs that Bush made up to finish what his stupid father couldn't and it was a "war" to steal Iraq's oil. That is why right after the US invaded Iraq, the only place that was being kept guard was Iraq's numerous oil refineries, not their precious museums or other places.</p>
<p>I was against it from day -1.</p>
<p>As far as rebuilding goes, we're doing a half-assed job, so quit and let someone else handle it.</p>
<p>Bush has no exit plan, no contingency plan, and no PLAN period. As Trump says, when you take on such a massive project, you go in with a plan B, plan C, plan D.....all the way through plan Z. </p>
<p>I love the troops, which is why I want them home, with their families, RIGHT NOW.</p>
<p>A great book on Bush's failure to create a rebuilding/exit plan is Imperial Life in The Emerald City:Life Inside Iraq's Green Zone. It really opens your eyes to how little thought went into the war.</p>
<p>I supported the war when I was lied to by my own government...but i don't think that really counts.</p>
<p>When I was told that we were going there to stop a nation with WMD's I supported it.</p>
<p>When I was told that the war was going to be over in 6 weeks I supported it.</p>
<p>When I was told that it was going to protect Israel I suppported it.</p>
<p>When I was young I supported it.</p>
<p>Now do you think I support it?</p>
<p>I support the war. Sure, mistakes were made but the plan goes right out the window when the first shot is fired.</p>
<p>If any of you would quit listening to the MEDIA and listen to someone who has BEEN THERE you would know there is a lot of good that is going on there. But our media won't report that; it would actually support the Administration's stand.</p>
<p>FYI-- NOBODY has a plan to get out!</p>
<p>And yes, THERE WERE WMDS FOUND IN IRAQ!!!</p>
<p>This thread is the pride and joy of the Liberal Media.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If any of you would quit listening to the MEDIA and listen to someone who has BEEN THERE you would know there is a lot of good that is going on there.
[/quote]
I have talked to people who have been there. For every one soldier that says that we should be there, there are at least two that say we shouldn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This thread is the pride and joy of the Liberal Media.
[/quote]
You're the pride of FOX News. :)</p>
<p>I remember calling my senators and urging them not to vote to authorize the war a lot of good that did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
FYI-- NOBODY has a plan to get out!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is the reason I was against it from day 1. Exit plans and exit CONTINGENCY plans should have been created BEFORE we invaded. Not after. What Bush did was totally irresponsible. Admit it.</p>
<p>Before the US invades any country (or before any sovereign country invades another sovereign country), they should have a plan of attack, AT LEAST 5 different contingency plans of attack, a budget, a contingency budget that is AT LEAST twice the regular budget (IN CASH, not debt), a reconstruction plan and 5 different contingency reconstruction plans, an exit plan and at least 5 different contingency exit plans. Even so, I might oppose it if I feel it's unjustified.</p>
<p>THAT'S planning. There are so many things that can go wrong and they need to plan for it. Bush looked like an idiot when he said we'll get a hero's welcome. I don't care what he thinks in his twisted mind, when someone blows up your home, most people would want that someone dead.</p>
<p>"If any of you would quit listening to the MEDIA and listen to someone who has BEEN THERE you would know there is a lot of good that is going on there. But our media won't report that; it would actually support the Administration's stand."</p>
<p>Actually my father serves in Iraq. Don't judge me. Thank you. But i do believe that it was conclusively shown there weren't (unless you watch fox news). I also believe that my father has stated "yes the war is going better, but we are America, fighting an unorganized group of guerilla soldiers, this war should have been over 5 years ago." We are America, we can win the wars, we just can't win the peace. </p>
<p>If you can't win the peace what's the point in fighting the war?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sadam was a crazy, volatile, Islamo-facist extremist
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see that someone bought into the Bush/Cheney lies - hook, line and sinker.</p>
<p>Saddam was a SECULAR tyrant (one that the US had helped put into place and had allied with until he made the mistake of invading the country of an oil-rich Arab ruler who had close ties to Bush I - a mistake, btw, made upon remarks by the US ambassador to Iraq at the time).</p>
<p>Bush/Cheney even used the Kurdish group affiliated w/ al Qaeda, Ansar al Islam, as a pretext of Saddam's ties w/ Bin Laden.</p>
<p>The problem was that Ansar al Islam was under US protection at the time (under the no-fly zone) since both Ansar and al Qaeda were sworn enemies of Saddam.</p>
<p>
[quote]
one that the US had helped put into place and had allied with
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You do realize the United States also funded the start of the al Qaeda terrorist organization, right?</p>
<p>It depends on your point of view hops_scout. When a group fights your enemy unconventionaly (because it lacks the resources and strength to do so otherwise), they are considered "freedom fighters". At the time when the US funded them, those freedom fighters in Afghanistan were fighting the Soviets. To you, they were freedom fighters but to the commies, they were terrorists. Only after the fall of the Soviet Union did they become Al Qaeda. Now that this same group has turned its attention to fighting you (or your allies) in the same unconventional way (again, because it lacks the resources and strength to do otherwise), they are conveniently labled "terrorsits". </p>
<p>Oh well, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist I suppose. Only the most ignorant of people would really buy into those ridiculously simplistic, one-dimentional labels, more often than not used to influence the naive and uninformed.</p>
<p>Alexandre, while I emphatically agree with your statement "one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter," I believe there are limits to that ideal. One must look at their own country's values and then look at whether or not they fit into the friend or foe mold. To me, as a person of the jewish faith, Hezbollah could never be a freedom fighting orginazation. While it is idealistic to say that we can look at it from a third person's perspective, we are still in a war. Hitler could never have been seen as a freedom fighter, FDR wasn't a terrorist. Simple yes, but I think it makes my point.</p>
<p>Interelations, that was the point I was making. To some Israelis, Hezbollah are terrorists. To some Lebanese, Hezbollah are freedom fighters. I emphasize the word "some" because not all Lebanese view Hezbollah as freedom fighters. I certain don't.</p>
<p>As for Hitler and FDR, those men were the leaders of countries that had the means to fight conventional wars. As such, they did not have to resort to unconventional warfare.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Which is the reason I was against it from day 1. Exit plans and exit CONTINGENCY plans should have been created BEFORE we invaded. Not after. What Bush did was totally irresponsible. Admit it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't it also a bit irresponsible of congress to have ever approved a war without creating the proper plans? I mean, is the president in charge of setting budgets, where money comes from, and all those other things you mentioned in your post that congress is actually responsible for?</p>
<p>This is a condemnation of not only the president, but the military and congress, Hillary and Obama included.</p>
<p>They were all VERY irresponsible. We should never have been in there. The only reason we're in there is because of oil. There's no other reason. This was is illegal, it was fueled by greed, and it was without cause. Bush should be tried and sentenced to 3000+ life terms for the murder of those soldiers for what basically amounts to nothing. And get hit with 3000+ judgements for wrongful death.</p>
<p>I propose a constitutional amendment that says presidents and other elected officials can be SUED under tort law for actions that result in injury to their constituents without proper cause e.g. going to war without just cause or proper plans in place. Now THAT'S tort reform. You can sue a car manufacturer if your car blows up in your garage and burns your house down, you can sue Mattel if they sell lead-tainted toys, why shouldn't we be able to sue if our elected officials don't do their jobs, or worse, go to wars without just cause and end up wasting the lives of 3000+ soldiers plus the lives of countless other civilian contractors?</p>
<p>Oh, and I also propose a constitutional amendment stating that the MILITARY can be sued if they hold prisoners without just probable cause. Police departments, if they arrest you without probable cause, torture you for 2 years and then release you, they get sued. And they'll pay. Why shouldn't the military? Because it's effective? So is the NYPD. But if they dare to violate our civil rights, they get sued, and they'll pay.</p>
<p>I also propose they close gitmo immediately, and charge the detainees with something or release them immediately. I don't care if they're suspected terrorists, they're like "criminals" or enemy combatants which is their code for criminals. Criminals in this country have RIGHTS. They have the right to counsel (6th Amendment). They have the right to confront their accusers. They have the right to a fair and speedy trial and to be judged by a jury of their peers. They have the right to habeas corpus. They have the right NOT to incriminate themselves (5th amendment). They have the right to be presumed innocent (Coffin v. US, SCOTUS). They have the right to remain silent. (Miranda v. Arizona, SCOTUS).</p>
<p>If they're prisoners of war, they're also given specific rights under the Geneva Convention.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also propose they close gitmo immediately, and charge the detainees with something or release them immediately. I don't care if they're suspected terrorists, they're like "criminals" or enemy combatants which is their code for criminals. Criminals in this country have RIGHTS. They have the right to counsel (6th Amendment). They have the right to confront their accusers. They have the right to a fair and speedy trial and to be judged by a jury of their peers. They have the right to habeas corpus. They have the right NOT to incriminate themselves (5th amendment). They have the right to be presumed innocent (Coffin v. US, SCOTUS). They have the right to remain silent. (Miranda v. Arizona, SCOTUS).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you have the right to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG. They have NO RIGHTS under the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. They are NOT US citizens therefore they have NO RIGHTS!!</p>
<p>Sure, they might possibly have rights under the Geneva Convention (which apparently only the United States has to follow :confused: )</p>
<p>If your first proposal would become an amendment our country would be over. That simple. What would be considered "just".. is that not an OPINION?</p>
<p>Your second one you need to look above. They are enemy combatants if they are being held by the US military.</p>
<p>Also, and this is a nit-picky thing, but shouldn't President, and Congress be capitalized in that sense? Main reason I point it out is that everything else appears grammatically-correct so maybe you're choosing to disrespect them.. Oh, and thanks for point out Hillary and Obama are a part of Congress...wouldn't want to forget them. Maybe they'll actually do their jobs sometime!</p>