Well, the title says it all really. Some people think it's time we pulled out of Iraq now and left them to it. Some people think we should stay in there for...well...however long it takes. It was said this week that the War on Terror could take another 50 years, how do you feel about that? Does Iraq even have anything to do with the War on Terror or do you think that's a separate issue, something that's been on the cards for a long time? Does it have anything to do with oil or is it a moral crusade? Do you think there were ever WMD there, or was that just an excuse?

Whatever your views, feel free to share them, just remember that this is another hot potato topic so relax, don't take things too seriously and just enjoy the debate

Well to start i'm British, so obviously our involvement in Iraq was not on as large a scale as the US's but still we support our allies and put troops into the country and now one hundred of them are dead. I can see the arguments for both sides very clearly and therefore i have always been a little hesitant to enter a debate about it, but anyway here goes. At the announcedment of war, i was very much against the idea. Maybe somewhere within me the Apocalypse Now timebomb was ticking, and so i was a little ashamed of Britains involvement, but i've got to remeber that the US are our most valuable allies. If George W Bush condemns Saddam Hussein and wages war, then we must oblidge to join them. We had a treaty with Belgium in World War One and we went to war for them, so i accepted that we should help the US out. Saddam Hussein is obviously an intelligent man and it's going to be extremely hard to prosecute him for war crimes against the Kurds, but the whole 45 minutes and WMD business was frankly out of order. In the UK we had The Hutton Inquiry following British Troops introduction into Iraq, and Tony Blair stood there and had to admit that Iraq would not have been able to arm thereselves in 45 minutes, and that there was very little Uranium purification going on. Now we still have troops in Basra, and a firm ddeadline has got to be set for there withdrawel. As a Liberal Democrat supporter, and the party searching to find a new leader, i would support Chris Huhne simply because he is setting forth a manifesto which includes the withdrawel of British Troops from Iraq before Christmas 2006. How can we expect Iraq to regain stability if all the time they walk to prayers there's a soldier with a rifle standing in the street? How can we expect the government to run properly if theres a convoy of marines on every street corner? We've introduced a government, we quashed most of the insurgents, it's time to pull out and consider Iran, and with Iran the course of action has to go alot differently. The UN Nucleur Watchdog has got to be informed the security council has got to grant that Iran is making weapons grade Uranium, this has to happen before George Bush goes to war. So in answer to the question, i can see the need to go to war to bring stability and safety to the peoples of Iraq and Kuwait, but i cannot see that the troops staying put in Iraq will help the situation out there

I'm holding fire on my own opinions about this for the moment, but just to throw something out there...

The reason that Iraq was invaded - that was because there was a perceived threat to world peace, correct? By overthrowing the regime there, that threat is now gone. But it's not - the threat is still there because of this Jihad business that led to the bombings in London. So how exactly has the invasion of Iraq done anything for world peace? Are we more safe now?

The resistance in Iraq still seems pretty strong - soldiers are still dying. Don't we have a modern day Vietnam going on out there?

I'll state this as I think of it: The war in Iraq is a load of Garbage.

Being that I don't really support our president (I'm from the U.S.) I don't like what he's doing. As I'm sure most everyone knows about the attacks on New York in September of 2001, you will recall that that was not done by anyone in Iraq, but those in from Afghanistan. I'm not saying it was all of them from there, I just don't know how to spell the organization's name. So why are we in Iraq?

Because they have weapons of mass destruction.... . So we have to blow them up. I personally don't think we have any business deciding which government Iraq should use. We caught Saddam Hussein so what are we still doing over there?? We shouldn't have been there in the first place. The U.S. always has to be so involved in everyone else's affairs, while we have things here at home that need to be addressed. Why is there always money for war, but not for education? Why aren't we helping our homeless people, instead of bombing Iraq and causing their homeless population to rise? Why are we killing innocent people because we are trying to "keep the country in control?"

To me, we haven't really made a lot of progress over there, and it is going to take longer to rebuild it than it would've. As this is not something I agree with, a lot of my opinion and personal feelings are in this. So please only take what I say as my opinion. I know that this may be one very little, small part of the whole War and stuff, but I think I should stop. We have started a War on Terrorism, but aren't we creating more terror?

The UN security watchdog considers the political organmisation Taliban to be a terrorist supplier. One of there main supplying units was Al Queda, Al Queda are responsible for September 11th. During the first Gulf War, a village of 200 hundred odd Kurds were wiped out by the Invading Iraqi's. This was deemed an act of terror, so in light of September 11th and the declaration of a war on terror, Team America set out to avenge Kuwait and the Kurds.

I too can see both sides of the coin on this issue, and all things considered I think that, for the most part, for the war. I think it's obvious that the initial reasons we (im American) were told we were invading Iraq are different from why we are there now, and Bush may or may not have known the original reasons were bogus (thats a different debate all to itself) but I can't help but think that our being there is going to be good in the long run and the ends will justify the means. Yes, I know that hundreds of thousands of people have lost their life because of the war but how many more people would have died if Iraq was left unchecked to habor terrorist groups and a corrupt goverment that does as it pleases? Also, I can't help but thinking that if we would pull out now, all that we've done would be in vain. It's like pushing a bolder up a hill, it's hard and tedious but if you stop before you reach the top it'll roll back down to where you started twice as fast. Only when you reach the top can you let stop and let the rock stand on its own.

corny analogy, I know, but that pretty much sums up how i feel.

I have always been a surporter of the War on Terriorism because I had family that didn't get out of the World Trade Centers, so I think that any action agains terriorist is a good one. I still can't see the War on Terrorism being over until Osama is killed. He still has a huge influence on all of the other terrorist groups all over the world and he always has a say on all of the major and minor incodents around the would. His group was the 'master-minds' behind 9-11 and the bombings in Britain.

As far as the War in Iraq, I think it is a completely different war. I am a Republican but that doesn't mean the I agree with everything that Bush has done so far. But when I think about it and I put myself in his shoes, I probably couldd't do as good of a job as he has done. He has pulled 50,000 troops out of Iraq since last summer and hasn't sent any new troops that aren't replacing those who have served over there for a long time.

I don't think that he War in Iraq should be called that. Bush attacked because his intelligence told him that Saddam was capable of creating WMD. Now the only reason of logic for attacking is that it sent a message to other countries such as Iran and North Korea that anything that messed with world peace would not be tollerated. Now I don't want to sound like a 'power-hungry, self-absorbant American', or what some people from other countries consider us sometimes, (not all people though) but we are the only Super-power left from the Cold War and we have to decide the out-come of such things like Saddam's regime. We wiped him out and are working slowly, but surely to fix that nation so they can be self-sufficent on their own.

I have read all your replies, and being an Iraqi I have a lot to say on this matter....i dont want to get you all confused which will lead to misunderstanding which we dont want so as some of you have been talking about Jihad I will explain a bit about it...
Jihad is the Arabic word for 'Struggle'. In Islamic terminology, Jihad takes two different forms:
1-Jihad of the self
2-Jihad of the Nation
It is a process that every Muslim undertakes to achieve closness to Allah...it is a struggle.
Fighting can be a consequence of Jihad
for example.. You are a Muslim.. you have to defend your religion and your land...this is your duty..In this case, fighting is a way to achieve Jihad...but fighting, or WAR in the name of Islam can only happen IF a member of the AhlulBayt gives permission...hence it is called 'defensive Jihad'.
well now we ask? Then arent the Ahlulbayt (Prophet Muhammad, The Imams and Sayida Fatima..the prophets daughter) arent they now dead? How do we take permission and isnt the war involving Muslims?
Because Iraq was under the rule of an oppressor (saddam), it was important to remove him from power and let the people live in peace
there is a hadith by the Prophet (as) which says:
"A good Kafir leader is better than a bad Muslim leader"
A Kafir in Islam is a Non Believer...basically not a Muslim...well the Prophet himself said that even these people who dont believe in the religion..they are better than a Muslim..who leads

I feel like the war in Iraq is unnecessary personally. I mean, did the whole country need to be torn apart to remove Saddam? It seems like things have gotten way out of control in my opinion.

I don't affliate myself with democrats, republicans or independents. I live in Michigan, and even though the majority of people from this state consider themselves democrats. I live in the western part where the majority is densely, and rather prejudicedly republican.

I know a lot of people who completely, wholeheartedly support Bush. In fact, and this is rather disgraceful, but it's been said about my church that: "My pastor is devoutly republican he wouldn't vote democrat is Jesus was running for president on the democratic ticket."

Thankfully, I no longer go to my old church for much different personal reasons. But that's an example of shockingly biased some people from my area are.

However, I know people who're of the other extreme, and are completely faithless in US government. I know people who've said: "They wouldn't be surprised if Bush helped plan the 9/11 attacks just to give Bush an excuse to wage the war on terror to begin with, and start searching the Middle East for weapons of mass destruction."

I'm not sure that isn't a possibility.

Dementor- Just me being curious, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but do you think that the way things are being run now in Iraq are for the good or are they just making it worse. Again you don't have to answer, I was just curious on how you stand with the American and Allied force's occupation of Iraq.

A few weeks back, maybe it was a few months, but the U.S. attacked a small villiage in Afganistan killing I think about 200 civilians but killing one of Osama's chain of command within him. Now I only looked over the artical in the paper but it seemed to have been an up-roar with the Afgan people and the Democrates. Now if you know about it, do you think that it was worth killing all of those civilians to get to that wanted man? I now have strong feelings towards the incodent, but I wanted to hear someone elses view of the matter.

It's obviously a difficult subject defining, terrorism as a jihad. As *dementtor* said there has been no foirmal jihad announced, and its minority organisations, which demand that it is a jihad, that they are freedom fighters not terrorists. All oppresive regimes are handled with caution, as as Saddam Hussein's, however much the country looks as though it can cope with a tyrant, it is a stable regimes duty al most to enhance that country, and make the citizens ale to live without fear or perseution and injury.

here is a brief answer to your question secretkeeper,and i hope i do not offend anyone but it os my opinion,
Most Iraqis have mixed feelings about the war, or shall i say conflict as Mr. Blair put it. On one hand, we, Iraqis, were oppressed, killed, tortured and suppressed for over 35 years by Mr. Saddam Hussain's tyrannical regime. Freedom of expression non-existent during Saddam's era, Saddam turned Iraq into a totalitarian state, where everything and everyone fell at the hands of Baathist ideology. Former Iraqi deputy foreign minister Tariq Aziz was once asked about the opposition movements in Iraq, he replied: "There is no opposition in Iraq, if there was we'll destroy it." And it does not strike anyone as a coincidence that Stalin, a former military mass murder, was one of Saddam's role models. Saddam often boasted about his attempts to imitate the mass killing of Stalin.

Many attempted revolutions failed in Iraq, many tried to topple Saddam's regime, but his army was extremely loyal and ruthless towards opposition movements. When the Shi'a Muslims in southern Iraq revolted back in 1991, Saddam's republican guards literally ERADICATED thousands of young men who put up guns. Saddam went a step further than Stalin, he punished his own people where as Stalin did not. Saddam abused every article in the Human rights charter, he believed in punishment as a way of directing his people towards prosperity.

The War on Iraq gave many Iraqis hope. Hope of a better future, hope for a change, hope for democracy, hope for progression and hope for education. We are not naive enough to believe that the US and its allies spent millions of dollars to 'liberate' a group of people they refer to as 'Sand [MOD EDITED]'. Yet, as a famous post-war slogan in Iraq reads: A thousand Americans are better that man from Tikrit(Saddam's home town).

Thankyou

I just have a quick question, Dementor, are you actually from Iraq? Because the "sand ****" remark seems very mis-guided. I have never heard anyone refer to anyone from the middle-east as a "sand ****" nor do I think that American's have the attitude towards middle-easterners that you seem to think we do.

I must say, I have unfortunately heard people make "sand ****" remark in my area. But it's mostly used by people just trying to sound racist.

The president doesn't decide to go to war, Midnight, Congress does...the president asked Congress to go. In cases like the Korean War, the president has the authority to send troops because at the time it wasn't labeled a war, it was a conflict...If Bush had all the power, then it would be a dictatorship. He ultimatley gives the go ahead, but only after Congress allows him to have the power to give the go ahead.

Now that that might be settled,

Yes, Nimbus i am from Iraq....and although i have some relations in Iraq most live in America, Europe or Iran
Well i dont exactly think George Bush was the actual reason for Iraq invasion but it isnt like he has done anything or took a step nearer to peace for us....
Why, today there was an Iraq Blast Damaging The Holy Shrine and the place looks a total disaster now....The Americans are here to help us but it isnt as if they have stopped the bombs or people being kidnapped and killed. I think if they want to prove themselves, that they can save this country, then do something..let them do something that will make people really think they are helping us...not roaming about hte streets of baghdad int hose cars doing nothing!
my mothers cousin was kidnapped for money....thats all people think about nowadays..and now he is dead.....my uncle was killed by Saddam because he fought for Islam...My Cousin was injured and taken to hospital but thankfully was restored to health....even my own dad spent days in prison for only one reason: he was a muslim.....now Saddam Hussein claims to be a Muslim..then why exactly was there a spy living next to my Mothers home in Iraq and why exactly that when my uncles went to pray in the mosque, Saddam was told and he threw my Mum and her family out of Iraq because they prayed? how doeas he call himself a muslim when he is against one of the most important things in Islam....it just doesnt hit me..

P.S: And thanks for editing it....orry for writing it but i was getting angryy I think i better not next time..well im really sorry!!

Inquisitorial Squad Note

I do not want to break up the debate but I wanted to throw out another item for discussion that is relevant right now. As most in the US are aware, we are getting ready to turn over control of six major US ports to the U.A.E. Is this wise in light of our War on Terror? Is this an insult to a friendly Arab country who has been a big help to the US in the war? Is it a good idea to give control of our ports to any foreign company?

What are your opinions of this and how does it affect our War on Terror?

-Greg

I think we can all say that every country involved there has experienced a soldier death (or thousands) and every country is responsible for killing someone from another country.

I could sit here and point fingers all day. The Americans don't seem to be doing much than roaming the streets and shooting anyone out of line. The Iraqis are doing the suicide bomb thing and getting a little riotous, only increasing the death count. The British troops were recently filmed beating a group of Iraqis. Doesn't sound productive at all does it?

But you have to remember that not all Americans, Iraqis, Britains, or any other countrymen are the same. Not all Americans see all Iraqis as the "enemy." (I only used that term because my aunt {by marriage} is from the middle east and she's gotten her fair share of nastiness) Not all Iraqis are into bringing down America. Not all Britains want to beat up the people in Iraq. Maybe these are bad analogies, but I don't think you can lump all Americans, Iraqis or whoever into one group.

I am all for taking care of Iraq now that we have destroyed it. We made the mess bigger than it was, and it is now our responsibility to pick up Iraq, brush it off, and help it to walk again. (that was cheesy.) I don't believe that we need to do so much destructice things though. All you hear about are deaths. No progression. Maybe if I could get a good headline other than some building was blown up, I would be more supportive.

As for Pres. Bush, being a democrat, I'm not really in favor of the guy. I think the War on Terrorism is needed more than the War in Iraq. I thought we were supposed to be hunting down the Al Quada people in Afghanistan, then all the sudden we're in Iraq. Maybe I'm just confused, but I think our priorities got mixed up somewhere.

*dementor*- I understand that you feel deeply about the subject and I can't imagine what you go through some days, but I must ask you to lower your tone. This is the reason all of the other Debating forums were locked. It is a priviledge to be allowed in here and it can be taken away. So please be a little more friendly and the debate will go smoothly.

JTD, you put that perfectly. Not all Iraqi's hate the troops over there and the troops love the people over there. It's only when things get serious is when the troops have to clear the area.

As for the suicide bombers, there is no way we can stop all of them. It is their unfortunate dicision to kill as many as they can while killing themselves in the process. I don't see an end in sight to those but I asure you that everything that we can to stop them.

I'm sure that the troops over there would rather be with their families at home but they are doing their job serving in Iraq. This is a bad analogy but, they don't want to be over there as much as the Iraqi people don't want them to be over there. It is a War and there will be deaths unfortunatly, but it is for a good cause.

so sorry! i didnt mean to be erm.like that! .

Here is my overly simplistic view on the war on terror:

The "preventative" measures implemented domestically to combat terror on the home front should not be such that they wind up abrogating the rights of those they seek to protect. If they do, and we all know that they do to some extent or other, then those who seek to terrorize us have succeeded in their effort to impact our way of life.

As I stated above, a very simple view of a very broad and complex topic. But one that is nonetheless accurate.

As to fighting terror internationally, as someone pointed out it is very difficult to go to a place like Iraq or Afghanistan and maintain order while there is a power vacuum there. Saddam Hussein was, undoubtedly, someone who had to be removed from power. However, his removal and the resulting power vacuum allowed all those groups who were kept in check by his brutal regime to come out in the open and fight it out. Haveing stepped into the vacuum, US and allied troops now find themselves in the middle of these hostilities and faced with a very challenging situation. I don't envy them one little bit!

Unfortunately, perception being what it is, they do appear to people locally as not doing much beyond patrolling the streets. In their eyes, having taken over power for the time being, these troops should be able to maintain order, as those in power should. This isn't easy when dealing with such a volatile situation, however...

All in all, a tough spot to be in to be sure!

These are just my opinions, so...

The War on Terror is a total joke.

It's not a war at all, and it's not winnable at all, not any more than the unending "War on Drugs." There is no war, because there is no concrete enemy. And what is a terrorist, anyway? Can it even be defined? Who decides who a terrorist is?

I can see a terrorist being defined as someone who hurts the innocent to try to sway a political or idealogical point. But, when both sides are behaving like that, who is the terrorist? Or, to certain leaders, is a terrorist simply anyone who disagrees with his point-of-view? Such an attitude is the mark of a dictator, and his first goal will be to silence all dissent. Anyone who complains about his choices will be considered a threat, and will be attacked. We've already seen it happen.

There were terrorists long before 9/11. The guys who dumped crates of tea in the Boston Harbour (the Boston Tea Party) were terrorists--attacking private businesses to make a political point. Yet we revere them and teach our kids about it in school, like these guys were heroes--what made them heroes? Because they were on 'our' side? Something to consider...

There will always be terrorists, because there will always be people who disagree with the way things are going. This "war" is nothing but a fancy term for something that will never be eradicated. It's just a way to make people feel like our leaders are doing something. It gives them an excuse to spy on private citizens, extract billions of dollars from us, and erode our civil rights. It's a joke.

OK, the UAE deal...the problem with that deal, as I see it, is that this is not really a company taking over America's six largest ports--it's another country. Therein lies the rub. People are saying, "Well, they were owned by a British company before, so what's the difference?" The difference is that Britain didn't own those ports--a private corporation did. When the UAE controls these ports, they can do whatever they like with them, give or take.

So far, the UAE, as a country, has officials who have associated with Osama bin Laden (as recently as 1999, according to reports), assisted in financing al Qaeda, by making their money-moving processes so private that funds sent there are virtually untraceable because of the hawala system (according to the Washington Post), and also, some of the 9/11 hijackers were associated with the UAE. The Coast Gaurd has already tried to tell the administration they have serious problems with this deal, but no one wants to listen. Does that make the Coast Guard 'terrorists?' Not quite yet...but we'll see.

Well, that's part of my take on it.

I consider myself patriotic, and that only means that I stand by what the president does, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. Lots of things he says, does, and orders I don't agree with.

However, when someone says that a war, whether it isn't really a war, is a joke...you're saying the people who died are a joke...on both sides...whether innocent civilians, political leaders, soldiers from either side, and yes...even terrorists.

Now, what defines a terrorist?

Chris, I was misunderstood here. I definitely did not say that people dying was a joke--it's unfair of you to claim I did, simply by association with another statement.

To me, the "War on Terror" is not the same thing as the War in Iraq. To me, the War in Iraq is real. The "War on Terror" is not.

And I didn't mean a joke as in ha, ha, funny joke. It's a joke because the whole idea "War on Terror" is ludicrous. There is no war on terror. It's just a jingle, it's meaningless. It's propaganda. It cannot, and will not be won, because it doesn't exist except as an idea. That's why I called it a joke.

The War in Iraq is a whole other ball of wax I haven't even got into yet. Since I don't consider the Iraq War to be a "War on Terror," I felt it would be off-topic.

The two have been so closely associated for so long now that people think they're the same thing. They're not.

Ok, I did misunderstand...but in fairness...you could have picked better wording

also...

'Better wording?' OK. I really don't know how I could be absolutely sure someone wouldn't interpret my words in a way other than what I meant, but...OK.

I think Bush likes to put the spin on things by touting the phrase "War on Terror," whenever he has something he wants to push through Congress. Iraq began as part of the "War on Terror" because of the supposed WMDs they had. When none were found, he changed the spin. It became 'Liberating the Iraqi People.' We did, but...then, we had to stay to establish 'Democracy in Iraq.' We did, but...now, we have to stay to ensure 'Stability in Iraq.' Somehow, as this 1,000-year-old feud between the Sunnis and the Shiites boils over, we're supposed to keep things stable. We're doing a great job.

The "War on Terror" is a very useful propaganda tool. It can be used in a variety of situations in which Bush wants to push an agenda.

Funny though, how the UAE ports deal, which is a real threat to our national security, is being blown off. Why? I don't know, when everything about it practically screams "This is a stupid move!" When even some of the most prominent Republicans in Congress are saying so, and Bush still insists on it, one can reasonably believe it's a bad idea. But then.... it could be a really good way to keep the "War on Terror" going....

Greg, I don't know if we could put the National Guard at the borders, because they're all in Iraq! Just kidding really, but a lot of them are over there. I never did understand why they got sent there. Aren't they supposed to stay in the States?

I am surprised we haven't yet heard of anyone infiltrating our country through the rather open Mexican borders. Maybe it's just a matter of time?

I was thinking when I first heard about it that the ports deal was no biggie, because we'd had a foreign company running them before. but when I realised that Dubai Ports is owned by the government of the UAE...sensors went off. Thinking of it as you do makes sense though--even more sense. Why should any foreign interest be running any of our ports?

This whole hawali system of money exchange that they have in the UAE is really spooky too. They handle it all by email or phone, and once the money is transferred, the records are destroyed. Any or all of those ports could easily be used to send money to terrorists within our country, or to sneak them in. There would be no paper trail. And with the UAE needing to secure Visas to hundreds, if not thousands of people, to come from the UAE to work here a the ports, how could we be certain none of them would not have questionable ties to terrorist cells? Especially when there are UAE government officials who have had dealings with Bin Laden in the past? The whole thing just stinks.

And then, we have John Snow--our Treasury Secretary, and also Head of the Committee for Foreign Investment. He's the one who pushed this deal through, then claimed he didn't know anything about it. Um...he used to be CEO of a company called CSX, which sold its international terminal business to Dubai Ports World in 2003, the same Dubai Ports World that's buying Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation (P&O) which is how they're going to end up managing all those U.S. Ports. So, CSX is part of the company buying the ports, the company owned by the UAE. And he says he knew nothing about it, despite still owning over $25 Million dollars of stock in CSX, and despite being on the committee that has to approve those deals. Uh-huh. Nothing fishy there.

Bush has always made a strong stance about protecting us from terrorists, yet he's pushing this particular, very dangerous deal, through. He's ruining his reputation as a guy who is willing to do anything to prevent terrorism in the US. But, I guess, it's more important for his friends to get richer than to keep us safe--a tune we've heard more than once.

It always seems to come down to money. And the politicians we have in place right now are in it for the money. I'm not saying the Dems are any better, I'm a centrist. But IMHO, the ports deal is rancid with greed and ill-judgment. It will not help the so-called "War on Terror"--just keep it going. And why not? The "War on Terror" is making some people very, very rich.

No, actually a debate is when two or more people state their opinions on an issue and give some reasoning (usually in the form of evidence or logic) to support their opinion in order to convince others of the opinion and/or if nothing else help the other person understand why they believe what they do.

You gave you opinion and stated why you believed what you believed and I responded by expressing the fact that I didn't belive your logic validated your opinion. You took it personal and, as I expressed, it was not my intention to make an attack on you but help to see how I view your opinion and why I don't agree with it.

However, I don't wish to continue this discussion on the forum as it takes away from the actual debate. I'll PM you or, if you beat me to it, you can PM me.

This is getting ridiculous!

Nimbus, sorry to say this, but I looked back at your posts on this thread, and the thing you've done the most of in it is to chew people out because you don't like their opinion. You ask for proof or reasoning, but offer none of your own, other than your own personal beliefs, which is the same thing these people have done! Sheesh.

People should have the right to offer an opinion on these boards without being chewed out for it, either here or on PM (which I have also been subjected to today, by one of the I.S. of all people).

I can offer some proof for the opinions Midnight holds. If you're actually interested in hearing it, that is.

But if what I've seen on this thread today is indicative of how things are done in the Great Hall, then I can only say I was justified in being hesitant to join it in the first place.

If we are going to have real debates here, and you want to argue--prove your point!

Inquisitorial Squad Note.

To clear things up:

Well then, I'll just make a public apology to everyone. The reason I havn't really presented my opinion on Iraq is because it isn't really a total all for or all against thing for me. I think there are a lot of good things comming out of it but I also think there are a lot of bad things so I have no one definitive position or platform on which I'm going to argue. What I do do is pick out things that other people say that I don't agree with and I think that because of my experience with debating I do it in a way that is different from most people in here.

You see I was in debate class in high-school and attorneys of tomorrow, and pre-law in college for awhile, and when debating in these settings you learn that even if you have proof for what you believe you don't present it...atleast not at first. You first present the reasons for why what your debater is saying doesn't make sense. Once you have done this then you have a base to build up your own beliefs. It's like in a courtroom. You don't come up right away saying my client is innocent because of this this and this. You let the opposing council bring forth their arguments and then you try to disprove them, only after you have prooved that their argument is flawed do you build up your own. From now on I'll try to do both at once, or just present my own argument without trying to expose flaws in other people's.

Anyway,I think I've held up the debate long enough. Just thought I would clarify that that's just how I learned to debate so I'm sorry if I have offended anyone or if I have given the wrong impression to anybody.

Well, I'm game. Thanks to both of you for explaining where you stand and how you do things. And Chris, I know it wasn't easy for you to write what you did, and I appreciate that too. I didn't really feel that the issue was resolved as much as I just didn't want to deal with it anymore. It seemed to be escalating into something far more than what it really was, so, I said it was OK. But if I was going to make a decision to let it go, I should have let it go, and not have brought it up again here while in a fit of temper. I apologise for that.

Midnight and I share many of the same ideas. I was upset because when I wrote to her, she sounded like she was just going to leave rather than go back and forth with this, and that would be too bad. There's not much discussion on a forum where people with a certain viewpoint feel they can't state it without being attacked. They leave, and you get a bunch of people staring at each other, saying "Uh-huh, that's how I feel too....yep." and there's no more to say.

My thoughts on internet debate, then I'll lay off about this.

To me, I guess, an internet debate isn't like debate in school, because it's not a contest--at least, it shouldn't be. On the internet, I have reasons why I feel the way I do about a certain issue, and I share them. If someone disagrees, they should be able to tell me why, and provide examples of evidence that helps me to understand their position. It isn't about winning, it's about learning. Maybe I can learn something from you about an issue that I didn't know before. Like that whole Dubai ports issue. I went from feeling one way about it to feeling another way about it because of something I learned. If someone disagrees with me, fine. But instead of just attacking my position, or accusing me of thinking a certain way that offends you, tell me why I may be mistaken. Otherwise, it's just he-said, she-said, and that's incredibly boring.

Now, I really would seriously like to let this go. No, seriously!

There was one issue I wondered if we could discuss.

Through a lot of the posts so far, people have said that things are better in Iraq now that Saddam Hussein is out. I've read that people think things are better for women, and the streets are safer since American and other troops arrived. I don't agree with that. Things are very dire in Iraq right now. I've read that even Christian women are forced to wear the veil, simply so they can go about their daily business without being harrasssed.

And then yesterday, I read a very alarming article. It's focus was on a man named John Pace, who until a month ago was director of the human rights office at the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq. He says that in Iraq, it's total chaos. Anyone can kill anyone and get away with it. The Shiite militia (Badr Brigade) that's supposed to protect the people are murdering them for any reason, then pressuring the morgue workers not to investigate, by intimidating and threatening them.

The article is here, if anyone wants to learn more.

It is clear, to me at least, that now that Saddam is gone, these religious sects are going to go after each other. I think that's the reason Saddam discouraged the practicing of religion. You get two kinds of Muslims who hate each other living in the same place, and now the one that's been repressed for three deacdes has a chance to strike back, you can bet they will.

We see the same thing in America. I know this guy in my state who is a full-blood Lakota Indian. Even though the Native Americans lost their power and land over a hundred years ago, this guy still doesn't like the Crow Indians--because they aren't Lakota! And even among the Lakota here, the Rosebud Lakota and the Pine Ridge Lakota are rivals. You'd think--they're all Indians, they should stick together!--but it hasn't happened. It's one reason it was so easy to subdue them. The whites gave one side weapons and let them wipe out the other tribe, then wiped out the winning tribe.

In Iraq though, civil unrest interferes with the flow of oil. If one tribe is always trying to wipe out the other tribe, it interferes with the making of money. So it's been repressed for a long, long time. The Shiites are angry--the Sunnis, which are the minority, have been running the show and enjoying the benefits of Saddam's regime. Now, in waltzes George Bush, thinking he can fix this? The only way it got 'fixed' before was by threats and torture. What's going to fix it this time? I'm clueless. And having our troops there only makes it worse, because I feel we cannot really stem this tide. Our troops will be swept into the fray and get killed too, and it will still be a mess.

What do other people think? It would be interesting to read your takes on this.

I have missed quite alot but i just caught up with it! Phew

Its very unfortunate how Muslims have been labeled that way because of what some extremist people have done, claiming it to be in the name of Islam. I don't think the general public feels, at least in my area of the world (Arizona, USA), that all Muslims are terrorists or hate America, or the West for that matter. It is a media thing...they know that many people will buy their newspapers when they see a headline of a Muslim bombing somebody, because its a conflict right now...where the US and her allies happen to be focusing a lot of their military efforts right now.

I'm not saying one shouldn't think this way, its your opinion...by all means think what you want, I'm just trying to say that a lot of it is spawned from the media, correct me if I'm wrong

About the border with Mexico. It has become a serious issue in Arizona because of farmers and others calling themselves the Minute Men (I think thats what its called---from the American Revolution I think). They're civilians going around patrolling the border, and once they see someone crossing the border, they either move to imprisson them or kill them, later saying they're hostile. I brought that up because, in that case, who's the terrorist? And a month ago they found this extensive tunnel starting in a border city of Mexico (I don't think it was Tijuana) and it ended in San Diego. Mainly built to transport drugs, though it could have easily been used or taken over by terrorist groups.

*dementor* I know the issue of prejudice against Muslims is very close to your heart, because we already discussed it on the "Cartoons" thread. And I don't blame you! But this phenomenon is not just reserved for Muslims. It happens in any instance of war.

What happens in war is that there will be two opposing sides. One side wants something from the other--maybe their land, or treasure, or just plain revenge. In order to sway the minds and hearts of the populace, those in power make every attempt to create hard feelings between the groups. This is what is happening between Muslims and the West.

If those in power can sway their people into thinking that the other group is too depraved, greedy, demented, or just plain too dangerous to live--they can get the approval they need to continue the fight. It's called "dehumanization." If you can make your own people think of the opposing side as less than human, it's easier to get your people to accept a war, and easier to get them to accept committing atrocities upon these people. This isn't just Americans picking on Muslims, or Muslims picking on the West. This is common to all wars. It is not new. It is all too human and has been done throughout history.

Back in World War I, America passed laws that discriminated against Germans. There were a lot of people in America who had come from Germany, but Germany was the enemy in that war. Most of them were just good, hard-working folks who wanted peace and a chance to make a living. But the American courts didn't trust any Germans. They passed laws making it illegal to preach a sermon in German in church. They made it a law that any German language newspaper or book published in America had to have a full English translation, and a copy of the English translation had to be sent with every German copy. This extra expense put many German-language papers out of business, which had been the plan all along. They closed the German-language departments of universities, so no one could learn to speak German.

My great-grandmother, who had been so busy raising her 13 children that she'd never really got around to learning English, was devastated--especially by not being able to hear her preacher say his sermon in a language she could understand. It would be like the British government saying that all Korans had to have an English translation, and the clerics could not preach in Arabic. Very unfair! But it was just the way things were. American propaganda had convinced the American people that no Germans were to be trusted. It was a cost of the war.

What is happening now is no different. It's like those cartoons. Radicals in the Islamic world used them to prove to angry Muslims that ALL Westerners are crass, insensitive people with no respect for Islam. Westerners used the images of angry, rampaging, embassy-burning Muslims to show the people in the West that ALL Muslims are just intolerant, violent, and don't care about anything but Islam. Neither image is correct, but it does help keep the war going.

But if enough people refuse to be fooled by these twisted media images, there would be no war. But people can be amazingly ignorant.

And I don't think our troops will be leaving Iraq anytime soon. Bush is afraid the Shiites will win if we leave. He thinks if the Shiites win, they will form an Alliance with Iran, and then Americans won't get that nice oil that Iraq pumps out everyday.

Well, haven't been in here a while...and maybe its good I wasn't...

I am extremely concerned with the lack of respect being shown in this thread for the members of the IS.

So, let me make it clear.

The IS are mods in these threads. If they poke you for whatever reason, take it like a man and quit complaining about it. If you have to complain, do it through PM and not in these threads - I thought I'd made that perfectly clear in the rules which you all reckon you've read, but apparently not.

We're supposed to all be reasonable, mature, intelligent people in here so let's show it, eh? You're not supposed to argue with each other or the IS in these threads. If you do, you'll get kicked out and you'll also find yourself on the receiving end of an official warning which brings you one step closer to being booted off the forums altogether.

Respect the IS. If you don't, then don't complain when you hear from one of the mods.

Don't answer this post and take it any more off topic than it's already gotten. It would be a pretty sorry state of affairs if this thread, supposedly for people capable of handling a debate, had to be closed because you've all proved that you can't.

Wow, I just read most of this thread, and I'm nearly too exhausted to comment! But here goes anyway!

Ok, the war in Iraq, as far as I can gather, has long lost it's initial purpose - to seek WMD. The problem I have with it, is that war can never be acceptible. Violence solves nothing anymore. In times gone by, nations could be swept out, taken over or the land occupied, and no-one would blink, if the opressing country was strong enough.

Like the colonisation of Africa, for instance. It was a wealth game for Europe - great new resources and cheap labour. Only until after WWII did people realise that racism and the opression of ethnic groups was despicable. Hitler taught us that, but not on purpose...

So that was the end of being able to declare a war based on race, culture or religion - at least officially. But racism is still with us, because humans fear what they don't understand. And violence is still an instinctive way to want to solve a problem - crush 'em, and you crush the problem.

My point is, that although humanity has reached a new moral ground, we are still not operating in that mode. So if Bush or whoever wants to declare a war that is conciously or sub-conciously because of cultural differences, they'd need another reason - WMD? My opinion of Mr Bush's understanding of different cultures isn't too hot. One remark he made shows how he just doesn't understand: he said that all this was a 'holy crusade'. My word, he obviously (and hopefully) didn't know what he was saying!

It just goes against my grain that people have to die in their hundreds so that a fair and democratic government could be set up. Wherever. Another thing is that I doubt that Western interference will actually solve the problem. It might change its face, but the ethnical conflict will have to be solved by the people themselves. Western influence might help, though. Democracy is, as far as I'm concerned, the fairest system known to us. If the ethnic groups could be persuaded, not forced, to talk about a free and fair democracy, progress can be made.

Sounds impossible? I think this is where good political and diplomatic skills and statesmanship come in. And sadly, this is where Bush falls miserably short. It's the only peaceful way...

crsdba, i agree with you word to word very very similiar to what i was thinking in mind!

Hmm....Well, most of you who know me can probably guess my thoughts on this.

I'm for Iraq, for several reason. A lot of people think that the WMD's was a hoax, there was no real evidence before the war, we haven't found any yet, etc.

First off, the President of the United States is priviledged to intelligence that for a number of reasons cannot be given to the public. Whether it's the protection of necessary spy networks, national security, or whatever, there are just some things that the general public cannot know. Obvioulsy if everyone can't know it, then we elect one or a few people to know the top secret stuff...maybe someone like a President and a Congress?

Second, Iraq is a pretty huge country, miles and miles of empty desert, and WMD's could be anywhere. All that is necessary is a decent sized hole covered in dirt, and bodabingbodabang, they've disappeared. Not having found any yet does not mean that they aren't there, or ever were there.

I also don't believe it was a seperate war from the War on Terror. Iraq was a supplier of weapons and training to Al Queda, who is one of the main enemies in the War on Terror. Classic strategy, if your opponant can't get reinforcements, weapons, or decent training, they can't effectively fight. Why do you think the North won the Civil War?

On an entirely seperate reasoning, the UN voted several resolutions/ultimatums for Iraq, who supposedly agreed to abide by the UN's decisions. Saddam basically said screw you all, I'll do what I want. What did the UN do? Nothing. They voted another resolution, and another. They could have talked til they were blue in the head, and Saddam would have just kept denying to uphold his end.

Now look, I don't like war any more than anyone else. I've been closer to this war than any of you know, it hurts everytime we hear of casualties. But a Nation has to be credible in front of the world. When you say you're going to do something, do it. When you say you won't, won't. Personally I agree with invading Iraq, but even if I didn't, I'd still believe it was necessary, if only because that was the 'either...or' in the resolutions. Saddams removal from power.

Have you heard the stories of Saddam's atrocities? Dying of nerve gas is a horrible way to go, painful, degrading, and despicable. This man was gassing entire villages full of woman and children; but we shouldn't get involved, maybe they wanted that. People were tortured for insignificant things. If you looked at someone in power the wrong way, you might find the skin on the bottom of your feet ripped off, fingers gone, eyes gouged, and thousands of other disgusting things done.

But hey, maybe they liked that. We should have just let them be, right?

As for setting in stone a date for leaving, what do you think the rebels and terrorists who are still trying to fight in Iraq would do? They would just wait for that day, and not an hour after we leave, they'd be back. Bullying people, and then all the deaths of our own people, our own families, would be for naught.

I hate the mainstream media for what they've done with this war. You turn on the TV, and all you hear about are the suicide bombings, the skirmishes, the casualties. All very important...but you never hear of the schools and hospitals being opened. The fact that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's are ecstatic to be free, for the first time in their lives.