Our troops are legos? :eek:

Crap, which channel am I watching then....

And people are being blown to smithereens by their fellow troops. Tell me, how is this helping our country?

War is not a pleasant experience. Although tragic, it's not even close to the first type of incedent like that. In fact during Vietnam "fragging" officers (tossing grenades into their tents) was a common practice. Hopefully this is a single isolated incedent.

No one said that the war would be without loss of human life or without error. Hopefully in the long run the cost of action is less than the cost of no action.

I think that's a pretty good calculation.

Again, more genius comments.

As for me not "wasting time", it was almost 2:00 am, and I wasn't going to read through 2 more pages of postings (browse, I did). Some of us, unlike others, have lives outside of GC. I don't forsee myself celebrating my 9,000,000th posting.


I am Pro- American

Hmm...
 

Rumsfeld has said that Iraq has NOT, as of yet, fired ANY scud missiles.

Lives that include being on GC at 2 am? Hmm...

Also, CONGRATS (as I guess that is what you were going for? I dunno).

Hey 9th grader, its called working the last of my 65th hour this week and checking my e-mail before going to bed.

It is funny to me to see reactions of people when someone actually grows some balls and tells it how it is. It pisses some of you off, and I kinda like that. We need that every now and then.

I am Pro- American

Hey, we still have troops in Afghanistan as well. If your country has troops there too, you are also FIGHTING YOUR WAR! If it was OUR WAR, you'd have NO TROOPS there.

As for the liberation of France two years before America was involved.....I applaud that, I really do. But without the help of the U.S. in that engagement, I don't think France would have been liberated....take that as you will....but think about it...deeply...

We sent our troops back into Afghanistan to help free up some American troops to go into Iraq...

I also have British citizenship, and like 85% of Brits and half of the British Parliament I don't supprt this war, so I guess I'm just going along with both my countries.

Canada was never against a war - all we wanted was UN approval and George W. knew that - hence why we are not involved in this war.

Canadians are simply practicing what has been inbedded in our Constitution and in hearts ... the POGG clause - PEACE, ORDER AND GOOD GOVERNEMENT.

Thanks for the explanation. :) I wish that the USA had waited for UN approval also as we had a dozen years ago. I think that the USA takes on the role of the world's police too frequently which is the job of the UN.

I too would have liked UN approval, but France took care of that one. Considering the UN never acted on Iraq during the last 12 years of violations, I don't see a credible purpose for the UN Security Council. Humanitarian Aid and a global forum, the U.N. has proven itself. The UN is ineffective in this area, that's why the U.S. has to do the job for them.

VirtuousErudite, actions speak louder than words.

PM Mama00, great analogy in your second paragraph!

You do have a point that the situation in Iraq is not a great one for some (a lot? how many hate the government and how many like it, I don't know) of the people, however:

The US's role is not akin to that of social services. It is not our job to keep all the other countries in the world under control.

Furthermore, there are a huge amount of Iraqis who are dependent on the government for food and water, among other things. One article I read said that 50 percent of Iraqis depend on the government for food supplies just so that they eat enough to stay alive. Assuming that is true, if we cut off their food supplies (as is the plan), that means that if the war goes on long enough, as much as 50 percent of the Iraqi population could starve to death. Many of them may not have clean water to drink either. Now probably (hopefully!) the war will not continue on that long, but even if it doesn't -- the US does not have concrete plans as to what they're doing with the Iraqis after we get rid of Saddam. They don't have concrete plans on what to do with the refugees (and there will be a massive number of refugees).

So using your analogy, that would be much like having one set of parents abusing the child, the neighbors coming along and tossing the child out onto the street where he has to fend for himself. A different situation, but not necessarily a better one.

The analogies used here make things altogether too simple. This is not a simple situation. That's why a simple answer can't possibly be the best one.

It definitely would have been nice to have the full support of the UN, but that just wasn't going to happen. We gave Hussein 12 years to disarm. Why did France and whomever else think that 30 more days would make a difference?