Zaphael

Alright, I know I'm gonna be stepping on a few toes here. My most sincere apologies in advance.

The purpose of this survey is to compare the views of Americans and Users from the rest of the world with regards to American involvement in Iraq.

In your most honest opinion, (feel free to justify your answers)

1. Was the American led invasion of Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom, LEGAL?

2. Do you FEEL that the invasion of Iraq is morally CORRECT?

3. Was the invasion of Iraq, NECESSARY, for whatever reasons?

4. Are you convinced that there were WMD in Iraq?

5. Do you believe it is possible for continued American involvement in Iraq, to restore the COUNTRY to a pre-war level of stability and peace?

5a. If YES, how long do you believe it will take? (eg. 1-2 years)
5b. If NO, should America begin to withdraw troops from Iraq?

6. Do you believe that Saddam was in anyway positively connected to Al Qaeda, or Osama Bin Laden, and could have supported/directed the 9-11 attacks?

7. Is your general opinion of the ongoing operations positive or negative?

8. Presence, and Operations by Private Military Contractors may in unintentionally increase or create tension. Do you support this statement?

9. Should Private Military Contractors be stopped from operating in Iraq?

Dreadnought

I have one.

1) Why would you ask these questions unless you are a Democrat or Left winged submissionist or looking for a soap box to stand upon and proclaim justice. Thus would explain the questions that you are seeking answers to. We have hashed these questions over and over again in the past and few here have much much more insight then most of the readers here on the WAB.

If your looking for those answers I suggest go and read the past threads based upon these subjects.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Feanor

Do you really want to know what I FEEL?

dalem

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Not a good question. Under Hussein's rule Iraq had the stability of a vicious police state - people were not allowed to be a problem, and if they were they were jailed or killed in wholesale lots.

Post-dictatorship the repressed friction will have to play out (and seems to have largely done so) and the normal characteristics of a young nation - chaotic and boistrous - will come to the fore. In ten years or so you might not be able to even tell that there was a war, it's now up to the Iraqis.

See above. At least 5 years, probably 10.

Many documents exist proving that al Qaeda and Hussein's intelligence services had a lot of contact and explorations of motive, but I'm not aware of anything that shows they actually had any working relationship. That said, Hussein did give aid and shelter to the guys who pulled off the first WTC bombings.

Highly positive.

Sure. Do you support the statement that Presence, and Operations by Private Military Contractors may un/intentionally decrease or eliminate tension?

No.

-dale

Dwarven Pirate

American

1. In USA, England, Poland, etc, yes it was legal. In Iraq, no it was illegal.

2. No. Were I living in Iraq at the time, I may have welcomed the invasion to rid myself of Hussein. But I do not believe this was done for any altruistic reasons, and I do not believe the end justifies the means in any question of morality.

3. Yes. Question is far to broad. It was certainly necessary in order to get American foot soldiers into Iraq, for instance, or in order for America's coffers to be opened up to friends of a friend.

EDIT: As to the 'War on Terror', invading Iraq was/is a detriment.

4. What does that mean? A machine-gun is a weapon of mass destruction. I dont care what kind of weapons they had.

5. Yes, eventually. Faster if we left, however. (A)Cannot say. Depends on when the citizenry become broken to our presence. (B)Yes.

6. Again too broad, but I'll say no, assuming what you are getting at.

7. Negative.

8. No.

9. If the Iraqis wish it.

gunnut

We've gone to war for far less. I don't see what's wrong with invading Iraq.

__________________
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Julie

I thought I smelled a dead horse.

smilingassassin

Thats because someone was beating it and stirring up the fly's.

__________________
Facts to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.

-- Larry Elder

Ray

[quote=Zaphael;438657]

Notwithstanding the popular opinion here, the Invasion of Iraq was not legal. The Security council resolution did not specify the use of force.

One just can't go about conducting war as if we were living in the era when wars were fought for regional supremacy.

The world has become much more civilised and more demanding on morality, more so it was demanded of by the US (decrying Communism, emphasising human rights et al) than it was then. Therefore, it was Immoral and surprisingly conducted by a nation that demanded high morality of others!


It was necessary from the US geostrategic and geopolitical standpoint.

Given the changed world situation with the waning away of USSR, it was essential to emasculate the successors of USSR wherein it would take decades if not centuries for her to challenge the global might of the US.

It was also essential to establish the US presence in the area where there was the strategic resource i.e. oil and Middle East has been an area of prolonged and undiminished turmoil. This led to the Arabs blackmailing the world with runaway oil prices. Therefore, the strangle hold of the OPEC had to be broken.

Iraq was the ideal target because:

(a) It was smack in the centre of Middle East and had its borders with the maximum number of Middle East countries. Therefore, occupying Iraq would give the flexibility to react militarily in all directions. It also had an access to the sea. Iraq also had the second largest oilfields in the world and it has sweet oil, which was easier to refine and was less expensive.

(b) Iran could be kept under check from Iraq and by having Balochistan nationalism up in arms it was easy to box in Iran from either side, the eastern part of Iran being Balochi in demography.

(c) In conjunction to Iraq having the various revolutions in East Europe and more importantly in Ukraine and Georgia, Russia could be boxed in. This went hand in hand with the fomenting of revolutions in the Central Asian Republic, but the latter went a wee bit sour. The need to have the CAR nations and more importantly Kazakhistan was because it would ensure the safety of the proposed TAP pipeline. Thus, if the revolutions in the CAR had worked out, Russia would have been boxed also from the South. It would also bring the US presence overlooking China through Kyrgyzstan, which adjoins the Uighur areas of China (Xinjiang). where there is unrest. This unrest could be controlled so as to keep China's attention away from Taiwan.

A fairy tale.

Stability and Peace is the last thing that would go in US interest. There has to be the cause alive to keep a large US presence in Iraq for strategic reasons. It can be clearly observed that the huge US presence in Iraq has made Syria, Iran and even the others very uncomfortable and hence less adventurous. Syria meekly vacated Lebanon. Iran is only vocally belligerent and the US is needling it wherein irresponsible statements are emanating from Iran leading to world being worried and Iran is getting isolated!

Be it a Republican govt or a Democratic govt, the US policy will not change. The decibel of the rhetoric will. There will be a drawdown to please domestic audience, but adequate troops shall remain to make the US presence cognisable.

NO chance.

The Moslems hated him since he projected himself to be secular. He thought he was the God himself! AQ hated him.

Controlled chaos would be the appropriate definition. Very essential though to keep the US presence moral.

Yes. They were a law to themselves. No country will accept foreign civilians being beyond law or morality.

They will operate like it or not, but then they should be accountable to the local laws!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Zaphael

Again, to clarify. I'm not here to create a ****-storm.

The objective of the questions is for me to gather data on the differences of opinion on the ongoing American operations in Iraq. Differences between views held by Americans, and views held by non-Americans.

Apologies in advance,

And thanks for the replies so far.

gunnut

Dale pretty much answered your questions the same I would have.

Most conservatives will give you the same answers. Liberals will give you the exact opposite answers.

You can pretty much take that to the bank.

FarSide

1. Yes

2. No, I do not.

3. No.

4. After Operation Desert Fox, almost all Iraqi WMD production halted, so while there may have been at one point, not in the run up to war. At least not in any meaningful way. Colonel Alan King, "The chairman of the Iraqi atomic industry surrendered to me and I found out that out reason for invading pretty much went away in 1998."

5. Yes. COIN is difficult but not impossible.


5a. Timetables are always bad ideas.

6. No.

7. Positive but the success if fragile, this is an important time for Iraq.

8. Not the mere presence of them would cause instability but they need to be reigned in.

9. No, but restrictions are needed. The last thing we need is another Blackwater shooting incident.

Julie

May I suggest you use your search forum/thread tool. You can find endless hours of personal views/data on this particular subject.

texacali

The real question you didn't ask is " do you Americans know what you are doing". The answer from here is: " We're in it now and we won't quit until we're done". God help us, we will get it right.

Julie

Maybe a year:

(AP) The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq for one year, a move that Iraq's prime minister said would be his nation's "final request" for help.

Authorization for the 160,000-strong multinational force was extended until the end of 2008 because "the threat in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security," according to the resolution.

Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Hamid Al Bayati called it a historic day for the country because the council renewed the mandate "for the last time." He expressed hope that the council would deal with Iraq without any military authorizations after 2008.

"This resolution is very important for Iraq because it shows that Iraq is capable now of maintaining security," he said, noting that Iraqi forces took responsibility for Basra two days ago and now control nine provinces.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad formally introduced the resolution Tuesday afternoon and soon after the council met to approve it.

After the vote, Khalilzad cited "positive developments in Iraq" including reduced violence. He welcomed the council's support for the Iraqi government's desire "to sustain this momentum" and keep the force in the country.

The resolution requires a review of the mandate at the request of the Iraqi government or by June 15, 2008. It reiterates a provision of past resolutions that the council "will terminate this mandate earlier" if Iraq requests that.

It also says the Security Council would have to consider Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's request, in a letter on Dec. 7 to the Security Council's president, that "this is to be the final request ... for the extension of the mandate" for the U.S.-led force.

Asked whether the United States wanted to keep the door open to keep its troops in Iraq, Khalilzad said the extension is at the request of the Iraqi government "representing the will of the Iraqi people."

"We hope that ... with progress in Iraqi security capabilities that Iraq's goal of self-reliance can be achieved as soon as possible," he said.

In Baghdad, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters Tuesday that "there has been a great deal of progress" thanks to the joint efforts of Iraqis and the multinational force."

"These gains are really very significant. We see them in the streets of Baghdad in many provinces. This needs to be pressed on," said Zebari, according to a transcript provided by the U.S. State Department in Washington.

A little over a year ago, the Security Council voted unanimously to extend the force's mandate through 2007.

The Bush administration attributes an overall reduction in violence in Iraq in recent months to the escalation of U.S. forces that Bush ordered a year ago. The military claims attacks in Iraq are at their lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion in 2003, providing a chance for reconciliation among rival sects.

UN Extends US-Led Force In Iraq , UN Extends US-Led Force In Iraq For Year; Al-Maliki Sees It As Final Renewal - CBS News