War in Iraq.

" Apparently you do not CURRENTLY support the war in Iraq and you don't believe that Iraq was a direct threat to us. So why the war? ' Your confused it seems. I do not support the continuation of the war. But I support the fact of the war's existence. It's like if someone were debating the Civil War's validity (as I did recently). They don't have to support the continuation of the war into now (i.e. having Bush send troops to the Confederacy in 2008), to say they "support the war." The idea would be absurd. :D And direct threats are not the only kind, indirectly aiding threats is a problem in itself. " The Republicans don't want to pull out because that will show what a waste it was to go there. " They aren't really going to have much of a choice if they want a second term. " We killed more than half of the people Saddam had killed in his entire life. How long did it take us? Imagine we stay for 100 years. I'd say at least half a million Iraqis would die. For what? Answer that question." If we stayed for 100 years, we'd be doing it for the Iraqis' sake because we'd be stupid. The ones that died in the part of the war I support (2003 to about mid 2005 if I'm getting my timeline correct) died because Saddam and the Baathists wanted power and we were unwilling to let their holding of the population hostage provide that for them. They can blame Saddam and the Baathists. " So does the Bush administration and we're not dropping bombs over their heads. " The bush administration has "Direct" ties to al qaeda? I thought they had indirect ones via oil. Either way I'd be fine with killing a few members of the Bush administration if someone had a good plan for it (dropping bombs is hardly practical since most of the people in charge of bombing things in this country happen to live next door, so the campaign would be self-limiting.) " I would love to see your plan work, but what makes you think they'll spill over into other countries? Wouldn't they want to just stay in Iraq?" The Iraqis are at war with each other if you'll recall. Eventually one of them will have to retreat somewhere to one end of the border and the other will push them over. Parties at war with each other don't sit still when they're fairly evenly matched. "Even if they did, was it worth it having so many of our own killed?" Would it be worth emboldening Al Qaeda and other such parties to kill many of our own by leaving their base stable? Many American soldiers are going to die one way or another with groups like Al Qaeda thinking the way they do about us, the risk is part of what they're hired for. The question is how many, and how many American civilians who didn't volunteer for it are going to be added to be added to the butcher's bill? If you have enemies who are willing to initiate force (a la 9/11), you are at war, like it or not. The question is how you're going to handle it. If the plan succeeds and prevents greater future casualties, it is worth the soldiers' efforts. If they disagree, they need not join the military. " I would say that it's "a bit of a security risk" is a bit of an understatement, considering that due to this war hundreds of thousands have died. You can go and tell THEM the great shot at freedom they've got thanks to us! :)" The ones that are capable of realizing it mostly already do. And understatements keep things lively :D