More complex Iraq poll

Tori <3

New member
...............

EDIT: Results:

At 18 votes

2 voters believes the situation in Iraq is "good".

4 voters believes the situation in Iraq is "mediocre".

11 voters believe the situation in Iraq is "poor".

5 voters believe the situation in Iraq is "improving".

5 voters believe the situation in Iraq is "unchanging".

7 voters believe the situation in Iraq is "disimproving".

The combined largest result is "poor (11 votes) and disimproving (7 votes)." A change from a tie between "impoving" and "unchanging".
 
I don't know how anyone watching the news can say that conditions in Iraq are good and improving beyond the obvious Bush sheeple.

I voted for bad and getting worse. The first thing to consider is, even if our mission there was fully justified, I agree with the retired generals that are free to speak. We do not have enough troops in Iraq to really do the job that neeRAB to be done, meaning taking the war to the insurgents and greeting the foreign suicide bombers at the border. The primary fact here is that the GOP desk warriors, none of whom have relatives on active duty in Iraq, none with any real military experience, are running the show.

Second, we have to consider the mission. The original mission was payback for 9/11 by apprehending everyone responsible, and all those that are planning future 9/11's. We are way of target playing Iraqi police. Weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's link with al Qaeda were boldface lies. No matter how many lives are lost, we are not going to change the essental flaw in the mission. The thinking behind the mission was flawed and is still flawed.
 
I think the current situation in Iraq is not only "poor and disimproving" as i just did vote at the pool, but it's in deed day by day worsening, so as long as the Americans themselves do not pull out their troops the situation over there won't improve any longer, even on my view once they themselves had withdrawn their forces from there, the reconstruction proyect as we know would take decades to be well underway, shall who pay for that?, i think the Americans and only they should be who ought to pay off for that, they were who by their ownership went there violating the UN's resolutions were not they?, so they must be who pay off for that, should the British as their solid allies also take some money out from their pocket to boon to accomplish some getting on to this compelled humanitarian cause?, well maybe it would also be fair to do, in all case this business would have to be spruced up to them (Americans and British) who clearly were the agresors at this strife, i do not see why another countries who did not take part at this "aggresion" should funding up to something that they did not spoil at all.
That people on my view the Arabs i mean should be left alone, they own a very different culture as for ours what the westerns represents, what that people neeRAB in all case is to be heard not to be bombed should in the future some glimmer of hope arise.
Saddam was toppled, the blight was wiped and rooted out from there, is there any other wise reason so that American troops stay there any longer?, it seems there isn't, isn't it?, so Yanks let's go home, leave that people coping with their lifes in peace, quite hard assigment it will already represent for them in itself to deal with.
Might have there whether someone who argues me, if we leave the Arabs alone then there will be two worlRAB the Arab and the Western world, well yes in deed it would be so actually it has ever been likewise and will be, do you want me to say the name of the truth conflict over there?, "oil" this is its name, there is no other, and that greed that you all Americans have has to be stoped or else...... :wow: :frazzled: :cry: :xangel:
 
Hi, just passing through I guess. Good site here.
I'd like to leave a link to an article that explained a lot to me.
Now, before the war started I believed it to be some form of American colonialism (with nothing really to do with WMD or terrorism) and have seen no evidence to the contrary. This article spelled some things out and made things a lot clearer. It makes it seem to me that the only reason Bush and company do not want to leave is because the insurgency will not allow the multinationals to carve up Iraq. I think Bush doesn't realize or fails to acknowlege that this is a lost cause. Iraqis will fight to the last man to prevent their country from becoming a global colony.

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
 
Why we would not believe the media :rolleyes:

I wish people would learn more about history and then maybe would have a different view. Iraq is fine (not great). Probably better to compare it to the rest of the middle east though as opposed to our selfish living here.
 
Back
Top