Nor was I saying so, but it's not like our government did it for no reason. They had their own reasons.

"Following the invasion, the U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical, and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion but that Iraq intended to resume production once sanctions were lifted.[53] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been the main argument to justify the invasion.[54] Some U.S. officials also accused Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of harboring and supporting al-Qaeda,[55] but no evidence of a meaningful connection was ever found.[56][57] Other reasons for the invasion given by the governments of the attacking countries included Iraq's financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers,[58] Iraqi government human rights abuse,[59] and an effort to spread democracy to the country.[60][61]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War


The reasons they had weren't that great. Going to war with a country and losing thousands, if not millions, of lives and countless amounts of money just to spread democracy really isn't worth the trouble. The only really justifiable reasons they had were to find weapons of mass destruction and find the tyrant leaders Osama and Sadam. I guess that was enough of a cause to go there and get into the whole fiasco, but honestly, the entire result of this war was NOTHING like we would have ever imagined.

Probably with a mixture of boats, ships, and hovercraft.

Manufactured outrage. If you're going to complain about how soldiers fighting in open combat aren't given a trial, you're going to have to condemn a whole lot more than the United States.

Except actually NOT stick to that promise, which you know, was easily an option. As the president he reaffirmed that promise and stuck to it.

Don't understand the implications of removing diplomatic immunity from soldiers who may be engaged in open combat with Iraqi civilians?
Also, your source is media speculation denied by the U.S. government.

It isn't, which is why he wanted more to stay.

Over 4/5 of the active military is still at home.

Despite their approach, the cause was just and necessary. Both Osama and Sadam were tyrants and needed to be stopped, it's a simple as that.

Personally I don't condone war in the first place, but I digress; invading a country and killing a man who you just woke up, still in pyjamas, who cowers behind his wife in his bedroom is hardly comparable to 'how soldiers fight in open combat'. From a moral standpoint I think you can at least appreciate that killing an unarmed man - no matter how much you don't like them - is unjustified. I am pretty sure a well trained elite team can overpower a 50 year old man in his pyjamas, so there is really no excuse for killing rather than detaining.

I think there would be quite an outrage if soldiers attacked sleeping enemies and slaughtered them.

However the worst part is when Americans refer to the killing of Osama as 'justice'. Actually, the really sickening part is when Americans go on about 'oh how weak Osama was, I heard he was huddled and crying and begging for his life and even cowering behind his wife, haha what a loser. I'm glad they killed him'. Whenever an American says something like that it makes me sick to my stomach.

This is the kind of behaviour which is an indicator of a psychopath... I guess the most troubling part of this situation is that the majority of USA are showing psychopathic tendencies.


I think you are really scraping the bottom when you say someone is wrong in saying;
'9 years' instead of '8 years and 270 days'
'4500' instead of '4483'
'800 billion' (obvious typo was made) instead of '757.8 billion' ignoring your other source
And 1,000,000 dead Iraqis vs 103,536 to 113,125 casualties as a a result of the war. Notice you are both talking about different things, the 1 million includes deaths from food shortages, infrastructure failure, in other words it is 'how many people died as a result of the war' as opposed to 'how many people were killed by the war'.

The current purpose of the war is to support stability and rebuilding of the nation, correct? In my opinion although the war should never have been started nor have gone this far, nor should USA have carpet bombed civilian targets, etc, in short there were a lot of mistakes and bad things, however it is irresponsible of the USA to pull out now.

But I guess if you consider that USA is the main target of the insurgents, and internal and international pressures, maybe it is the right move. Allied forces are less at risk and without the US presence the region stands a better chance of stabilizing.

IN my opinion, its sorta strange how the US Governement spent so many lives and so much money on a foriegn issue while in their actual land they dont. (or considerably less for that matter)

This message has been deleted

In my opinion this is great news. The war is finally over. I really felt bad for the citizens for Iraq. They are free!

But may be true but i don't think the US has heard the last of Al-Qleda(i don't know if i spelled that right)

Yah I know. The Al Qaeda are really bad people. They kill people like it's a game. I hope they get eliminated.