The current all-mighty debate. After watching that episode of Scrubs, I just wanted to know y'all's ideas on the Iraq War.

Top Debates: Should we have gone to Iraq in the first place?
Is it our mission to turn the government more Democratic-friendly?
Was/Is the "surge" a good move?

Personal Simple Answers
1. We had no real right to, but no one else seems to stop the terrorism threat
2. Although I don't think we should've actually gone, we're already there, and we've done this much already, we might as well see this through.
3. The surge was nesscary, but we shouldn't force people who've already signed up, said they wanted to do it, gone, did their routines, and came back home, just to send them right back.

1. Hell yes
2. Hell yes
3. Hell yes

Because I don't feel like getting into it, spare you 'witty' comments. I wont read em.

If we leave, I will beg my parents to move out of this country. Because to be honest, in a week or so, we'll be dead.

I think going to Iraq in the first place was a good idea. However, I think it was carried out horribly. If we're going to go to war, we shouldn't be so gentle. We should have used more rockets, missiles and bombs to destroy them and make them economically dependent on us. We're not just going to make them democratic the way we are trying to now, they just won't accept it that easily.

I think that would actually hurt us, the main focus is that our top targets are hiding within the innocent civilians, and if we just bomb the civilians, they'll say that's what democrats do, just attack everything untill they get their way, and that'll cause Iraq to want to be democratic that much less

I have no idea about whether the war was a good thing. It's definitely good Saddam is out. But any conversation about WMDs in Iraq ultimately requires me to simply trust either Bush or his critics. Sure, they may have been moved out, they may have never existed, and neither side has presented enough evidence for me to believe em.

I don't really care too much, though, what matters is the now. The troop surge is not a happy move, but it's probably necessary if we want to get anything done. There are without a doubt weaknesses in the simple moving of troops into Iraq, but the weaknesses of not having that manpower are much greater. At the same time, I feel like its the only substantial move we're making with our new war plans, and that's a bad thing, because people alone will not get this done.

I think winning over a vast majority of Iraqis is the only way to win the conflict in Iraq. I honestly don't think we'll stop violence in Iraq for a good long time, but maybe there's some way to make them like us more than the more violent factions centered in their own countries?

Another thing I'm hoping for is that Iran might undergo change because of internal instability, but I have no idea if that would make them like us anymore. If the country pursues democracy on its own, I think it's more likely to succeed, but that doesn't mean they'll love america and throw flowers at us (like we were told the Iraqis would, Mr Rumsfeld. I WANT FLOWER SHOWERS!)

Karn, I'm still torn over whether rough stuff is a good idea or not. I think the argument can be made that the nuke in '45 was fair, and that the consequences of not using it were worse. At the same time, bombing North Vietnam "into the stone age" didn't help us at all, as they were fighting rather primitively already. I really feel like Iraq is prolly dependent on us now anyway, which is why we're there.

As to your answers:
1-Why Iraq, and not Iran, North Korea, or finishing off Afghanistan? Surely we coulda put together a better excuse for other nations. The only argument I can think of is that we thought Iraq would be an easy victory, which is troubling to contemplate because it suggests real stupidity on the part of our government (SURPRISE!).
2-As said before, I'm torn on motives. But I definitely agree with you. Logistical stuff aside, if America screws up another 'police action' we will be ranking along with the French in military ability.
3-Yup.

EDIT: I rescind my flower comments. About. Fucking. Time. For me to see this.

To comment on your why Iraq, they were given most, if not all the blame of 9-11, and I'm pretty sure we all know that's what caused all these new troops, and they wanted some revenge, and Iraq needed a change anyways.

At least, that's what I've been informed of >_<

This is how I describe the cause of the war in Iraq:

One day, you're walking around your house. Suddenly, from behind, your neighbor sneaks up on you and kicks you in the ass, then runs away. So, you want to go kick his ass. But, you can't find your neighbor, so instead, you go to your OTHER neighbor and kick HIS ass instead

It wasn't Iraq who chucked planes at us, it was a terrorist group. Its like killing a snake: you don't destroy the snake's habitat, because it'll adapt. You have to do what my dad does- catch it, throw it in a pot of boiling water, and eat it for a snack

Well, it was dumb from the beginning, and it got MUCH worse.

Bush's father was smart enough not to invade and "liberate" Iraq, even though he had the troops already inside, and Saddam's army in shambles. Hmmm....Can't a dad talk to his own son about making mistakes (an almost 700,000 live-costing one)?

There were sooooo many alternatives to starting, as well as soooo many chances to fix it, but now I truly believe like Bill Maher that we will be in there for the next century. And for this, I thank Mr President for completely screwing America.

The Iraq War sucks nuts. If I was president I'd just bomb the fuck out of it and be done.

You obviously have no clue why we're in there if thats your solution

Well, nobody really knows why we're in their, but their are clues..... you just have to realize that false facts are reasons too....

"ladybugs from Saitan"

Mr. President needed oil and he didn't like Saddam, so he attacked Iraq pretending it had nukes, which it obviously didn't because it's a poor Middle Eastern country. So he takes Saddam out of power and Iraq falls apart. Then everyones favorite President says that he has total control over the situation, and now we have hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens dying every day from car bombs from terrorists who ignored Iraq until the Americans came over. And Bush isn't doing shit about Global Warming, which is worse than terrorism or Iraq or freedom, or Bill Clinton having an affair with a young women, or even Anna Nicole Smith dying!

Thats what I think about the war.

Well, I have allot of national guilt for this conflict, as i'm sure Grondring understands (is he even still here?). But, I feel that the invasion was wrong. Not like in Afghanistan, that was deemed legal by the UN, and it was bringing some semblance of a government to a nation that was essentially bereft of one. I feel that what worked it the Balkans would have worked well in Iraq, if the 'rainbow alliance' or whatever it's bloody called had toned it down sooner, and that this 'surge' is just going to bugger it up more. In an ideal world, the Kurds would get their separate state, but without the co-operation of the Iranians (ha), Syrians (Haha) and the Turks (*rolls around laughing his guts out at the thought*) it won't happen.

Shame really, that the cradle of civilization is rather fucked.

Many things are funny because we don't expect them to happen. But if the Kurds get anything but fucked, I'll worry about whether the world is still spinning in the 'right' (normal) direction.

To be fair, with the out of proportion number of Kurds in high government in Iraq, they are probably going to get less of a raw deal, though probably still fucked over by everyone else.