seattledave

I say no, because of islam.

Islam teaches "if your government's views are not inline with your religion, then it is not your government and you must fight to take it over, because you should not live in a land where your religion isn't the dominant one"

us americans don't like to acknowledge this about muslims, because we have so many that live here. The only way their religion works in a government, is by having an all powerful and suppressing government that forces it's will on it's people. Look at every single muslim majority country, what kind of government do you see?

in iraq you either have shi'ia and sunni denominations. both say the other is false. and both abide by the above statement of it's your government&religion or it's nothing. peace can not work in that atmosphere. But we'll spend billions more in tax payer money to pretend it can.

It's funny, I listen to npr & the bbc all the time where they have interviewed american muslims about the exact same thing. The muslims response "we're not trying to take over america, that's silly". Yeah, obviously no their not, but if they had the majority they would try. It's in their religion, they have to.

krustytheclown

One of the funny things Ive always thought about war, was that before it gets too bad, "peacekeepers" are sent in, armed with machine guns and tanks. How is it peace, when there is a foreigner with a machine gun on your street corner?

There will never be actual peace, in Iraq or any other country on earth. I know we have argued in the "other" topic, but I agree with you here 100%. I haven't seen peace in really any middle eastern country, at least when Ive been alive. Its either one group attacking another group in the same country, or one country getting bored and invading another country, or one who is supposebly developing wmds.

No Government, whether it be Democratic, a Dictatorship, or a communist government, will ever bring peace.

HeathenBrewing

Shia Muslims want revenge against Sunni Muslims. Sunni Muslims want their power back. Iraq has a serious problem. And this is just a recent development. The problem in Iraq isnt the general polulace, the new government or even the presence of coalition forces, although our occupation was found to be instigated under false pretenses and is not helping the situation regardless of the spin anyone puts on it. The problem is the same there as it is across the globe.

The problem in Iraq is religion.

More than $413 billion dollars. Imagine the good we could have done in this country with that kind of money. Easily could have put a big dent in our foreign oil addiction with alternatives to fossil fuels. Aid our schools. Who knows what else.

No, there will not be peace in the Mid-East. There hasnt been more than 2000 years. Why would it start now?

HeathenBrewing

FYI - Krusty, I prefer the term 'debated'

scionofPCFL

There will be peace in the middle east when there are no more humans there.

JDMJim

if the country is divided into four entities, maybe for a while it will be quiet. All that's going on now is the different groups fighting for control of the country. And us americans are driving into all the bogus they are putting out there to kill each other. We need to be more careful in Iraq.

Nick06tC

i deffintly agree with JDMJIM, there can be peace if the country is divided up into the religious sects that exist there. It would work temporarily, (maybe 50 Years), but then another would claim that the other is in their property.
The problem with this area is the amount of people claiming it as there own. But most of them fail to realize, it doesnt really belong to anyone.
This area has been run by so many civilizations and countries, that a return to its original routes is impossible. They need to face that fact and learn to live away from each other and set up a new society/country/governement, that realistically will work for their culture.

bB2NER

There are some Iraci"s that want it but I truely don't see it happening in my lifetime. They had it practically handed to them and they still can't make it work. A third world country is not able to sustain peace. I say the heck with them now. Just pull out and say bye bye!

Budsmoke

No direct correlation between the two, but there will be peace in Iraq when there is a Christian elected in their government…..

When religion runs the government and the government runs religion, there will never be peace within a nation. The government forces people to believe in their religion, and those who don’t believe fight back, hence the sectarian violence.

In the beginning of the war, I was hoping that we were doing what was right. We were “liberating” the people and giving them a chance. So far, those who we have “liberated” have since turned on each other, and the U.S. If they don’t “want” our help, and will not “take” our help, to hell with them. Let them figure it out themselves. Population control…..

tCtCtC

(this is from my dear cousin in iraq.... hes driving convoys (NOOO!!!!) and has 3 kids, 1 is only 4 months old.) The war IS right! They called us down there to help them, then they come around and kill us! (Please pray for him and put a yellow ribbon on ur car.)

b_adair87

There will never be peace in any country, for them its more of a religous war so they will do the most they can even til death for most. But for me being over here i agree with fighting for it regardless if we are right or wrong, war cost alot of money. We could debate this a lifetime. Theres a price for everything but at least we havent had another event like 911 since we have been here and to me if it takes decades and decades of us being over here to try to minimize terrorism then im all for doing several tours. I joined at 17 so i could be a part of defeanding our freedom and if being in the middle east helps that then thats where im gonna be, proudly.

krustytheclown

How is it going to help?

pinoy_TSX

And maybe about 10% went to Bush pocket! I can see why bush always want to send more troops to iraq. I can't wait to have our new president. And NO, not another clinton again!

BigMURR

Nothing would help the Middle East in general, with our help or without. These people are destined to fight forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

We would be better off spending the money somewhere else though exiting Iraq now would cause chaos not to mention the possibility of Iran to go move on over and take Iraq (they're crazy enough).

seattledave

the real problem with even going in there, was the shi'ia who ruled the country were only like 20% of the country. Sunni's held the majority, but where surpressed by the bathist regime. Having a real democracy in iraq, wuold have meant an entire overthrow of their government, because a simple majority vote would get sunni's in power.

the bad thing is, the shi'a religion(i don't say sect, there's too many differences) is ALOT more tolerant for women rights and equality of man. But we'd rather have a more oppressive democracy because that's what the majority of people want.

I want the U.N. to put a mandate on no religion in governments worldwide. But it'll probably spark a world war. I guess logic like that makes me sound like a communist.

citizen01

I'm not going to comment as I have enough trouble keeping up on "the other thread" but I would like to say that the lack of response nicely reflects how many young people are politically involved.

scionofPCFL

But you can't see the real price. There's something called "Opportunity Cost". It means if you spend a dollar on something, then you no longer have it to spend on something else. Example: You have a dollar and spend it on a coke/pop/soda on campus. But before you did that, somebody said, "hey, you know that dollar you're about to spend, you could buy 4 shares of Pfizer (pre-viagra)." You say, "Neah, i'm thirsty." Well, that coke/pop/soda didn't cost you a dollar, it cost you $400 bucks, because that's how much it would have been worth post-Viagra.

Same principal could be used with the Iraq war. We spent $400 billion so far. There hasn't been another 911, and that's great, but it did take 200+ years of our Nation's history for the first one, so it's kind of a null argument. However, what would have happened if we would have gone into Afghanistan (you know, the country where Osama was and still is, and in case everyone's forgotten, Osama was the mastermind behind 911...)? Would we still have the World's support (unlike now, and the loss of that is incalculable)? Would we still have our troops overseas? Would all this be behind us now so we could rededicate our resources to expanding our economy, improving our schools, and doing what we need to cement our foothold on maintaining millitary superiority (we may or may not be the most destructive military force in the world anymore, depends on who you ask)? Lot's of unanswered questions here, and that's ususally what happens when you rush into something half-cocked and fully jacked without thinking it through.

seattledave

I thought Osama Bin Laden was just a moniker for Saddam Hussein.

what we should have done, and still should do, is instead of offer some 25 million dollar bounty for osama, we should offer a 10 billion dollar bounty. then a country would get involved and get him, and then we wouldn't spend 10x that much playing cowboys and indians in afghanistan.

b_adair87

I do see the price and i see it everyday and its not in money. And yes there is alot of things we could be using the money for, other then supporting this war but im sure if you were over here you would be thankful for it. Regardless if i support this war or not i'm apart of it. But im not really trying to debate this cause we are going way off topic. But just so you know, which you probably already do but were fighting two wars (theres alot of military in fighting in Afghanistan too).

seattledave

can you please elaborate? we're not over there, you are.
why are you thankful for being there?