I think by staying in Iraq the US and Australia will benefit because our soldiers will be in Iraq, where all kinds of terrorist that hate the US and Australia come to fight us. They get all busy trying to fight us and end up never going over seas to do stupid stuff like 9/11. I mean if you were a Terrorist and had some dumb notion that attacking the US and Australia is a good thing to do because your priest says so.

( priest has no idea how great the US and Australian lifestyle is way to live and should adopt it. ) Why would you try so hard to go over to enemy territory when you could attack Americans and Australians on your own continent and not travel 2 far and there you have them. The same people would be going across the sea if they didn't have us in Iraq. Also, when the Democrats finally get there way and bring all our solders home, what exactly good are our soldiers doing us? Then they become just dead weight. The US have enough manpower and guns to fight off any enemy whom made it across the water past their navy, They don't need any solders period in the USA. Why not keep them in Iraq, where they can actually accomplish something and keep getting stronger. Yes stronger, They say the army is getting weaker due to the war going on. But lets take a real look at it, what's a stronger army? One that has been at war for many many years ongoing, with people whom have been fighting war for there hole career, and are complete professionals? Or how about the army that just stays at home siting on there hands doing nothing but drill. I say keep them soldiers there in Iraq, where we can do what we supported the US there to do and not dishonor the men and woman from all the nations whom have fought and died to establish a democracy there. We can do it. It just takes time.

Well i dont understand and never will why the USA even moved into Iraq ...

We thought they were supplying terrorists with WMD's

And the leaders of Al-Qaeda are in the area of the world.

Also, while we were in Iraq we were able to stop a ruthless dictator so it's not like we haven't done anything.

We're there for thick, black, hydrocarbon related reasons.

Interesting point about how people would be inclined to fight on their own soil, however as in the case of the Madrid train bombings (right before an election), it might be an effective way of implementing change and control over democratic countries by preying on the population's fear.

Which i believe is terrorism 101.

Which delves into fundamentalism and the cults that can emerge from it. Their spiritual leader has labelled the western way of life as an abhorrent one, and to destroy a portion of that is to die a martyr and to tread into Paradise. Fundamental Islam I believe (bear in mind I'm no scholar on the subject) is of the impression that non-islamic believers are all infidels and are a blotch on the world that will cause the entire race to go to hell.

I think I read somewhere that some of them are of the belief that scantily dressed women (such as the kinds we see here everyday, ie shorts, singlets and no major coverings) are a sign of the impending apocalypse.

Also... innocent civilians carry less firepower than military men. Well... excepting Texans.

I believe that is a very cynical way of looking at it. I think it would have been far cheaper, less bloody and easier to pass the public scrutiny to control the oil in Iraq through diplomatic ways - ie buying off Saddam. But I guess that's all redundant now... the country has seemingly descended into bedlam and the leader of the mess has no intention of leaving just yet.

I don't make a habit of talking politics in online forums, as I know it can be a sensitive subject. I'm open to discussion... in short... don't flame me.

Since when do terrorists travel to Iraq to do their attacks? this is very unlikely and probably hasn't happened at all or if it has, very few people
The hate is created IN Iraq, and is taken out IN Iraq, they can't and won't come to Australia and America to do their car bombs that kill and injure 30+ people, they will come to Australia and America to do something big (like 9/11)

If the majority of media are to be believed; quite some time. (Mostly from Iran apparentally)
Some say that the war is actually a benifit to Iran, and that their people are suppling troops and weapons to the war.

You should really try and keep up with current affairs if you're gonna comment on them. ;)

I agree with the author on this one. By fighting terrorism in Iraq, we do two things:

I: Keep the fight in their backyard.
II: Buffer Iran from Iraq and Israel.

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather see a roadside bomb go off in Baghdad then in Sydney or Los Angeles.

I'm all for the war in Iraq. Sure, we could've done alot of things better, but since when has a war been perfect? :S

It's war. People are going to die. You can't sign yourself up for the army and then complain about fighting. And with all the enviromental groups that have opened up over the last few years, and people taking freedom of speech to new levels, it's just erupted. I'm sure if this was 50 years ago, we'd have far less problems with people debating the cause.

Dont get me wrong, but as i live in the UK my point of view is different.

Sometimes i think Bush did this to gain more Power and popularity, by doing smething 'good' and benefiting from this.

If the USA was able to intefere and maintain power, the war would have strategic benefits. USA is a great power, but not great enough to rule the international community against the will of all nations. Doing moves of imposition, however succesful to some degree, but without having the power to maintain rule to the absolute degree, USA just inspires suspicion, mistrust and fear, preparing thus the forces that will resist and defeat the American dominance. Therefore, in the long run the war undermines the strategic interests of the USA.

The war is useless and deeply damaging to the USA even from the financial point of view, no matter what profits should ensure temporarily. You are not gaining nothing... So i doubt you did it for the wrong reasons.

But then again i understand were Bush is coming from and why he moved into iraq in the first place. ITs a very difficult subject for me. Because i personally think Bush did this to seem its good , and is actually helping while he is benefiting and telling everyone that USA is the strongest nation and has most domination over the world.

I dont agree with UK butting into the War though, now terrorists are targeting us. But then again its good too maintain good relations...

ARRGHHHH, my head hurts, i dont know what side im on... This subject will probably be the most confusing ever ...

~Sarunas

I hate that these terrorists fight under the banner of no country. Their only obligation is to their religion. Groups like Hezbollah are funded by Iran and Syria, yet they do not do anything to better those nations.

That's a primary reason they aren't consider PoWs on Guantanamo Bay.

The US obviously made the area worse, there's no contesting that. We came in, removed the leader, created a power void that will lead to more killing than with Saddam in power (most likely). US also gave Saddam his power. It's debatable who false it is, but by evening the playing field there's a lack of power which will lead to an even worse civil war.

Why would Iraq attack the US? Why would mass amounts of terrorists be in Iraq? Iraq was fairly secular under Saddam (liberal compared to Iran) and Usama bin Laden was hated by Saddam and vice-versa due to religious differences. (Saddam was a moderate Muslim who had tattoos and fought Iran, a theocratic regime, and Usama is a religious fanatic)

Quite frankly, terrorists now hate the US more. The Middle East is getting fed up with US aid to Israel and now an attack on a foreign country for no reason at all other than to play world police. If the US seeks to play world police, at least target the place that most Arabs hate. (this being Saudi Arabia)

The burdon falls on the US because they can. Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, that's pretty much globally accepted, but people patrionize the US for having the means and a gutsy enough leader to actually do it.

Why? If he needed to be removed, so does the monarchy in Saudi Arabia, so does the leader of Sudan. We should press the Brunei monarchy to give up its power and allow democracy, we should...

This goes on and on. Imperialism is not the answer and the burden falls on no one. Would you say the Soviet Union had the burden of fighting so-called dangerous régimes during the height of the Cold War?

The fact is, that if we leave, we forfeit the point we had in going in and overthrowing Saddam's regime. If we can see this through, have some stability in Iraq, and leave it more firm and able to resist future oppression, then all we paid towards this war was worth it.

Yeah, like they did in Chile, southern Vietnam, Cuba, Zaire, Liberia, the Philippines and Panama. Let us not forget the US firmly backed Saddam in the 1970s and 80s because Saddam was mostly on their side.

They will leave a US puppet whom I highly doubt will be a saint. This is assuming the insurgents will ever give up. Look at Pakistan, Musharraf has been in power for quite a bit, but it is still a place where a leader being overthrown is business as usual. I can easily imagine Iraq being like that.

Shouldn't of been there. No reason at all. Iraq wasn't even all that repressive.

Yeah, I'd hate to be more obligated to my religion than to my country too. <_<
Who wouldn't choose earthly things over religion if they believed in an eternal after-life? :thumbsup:

I'm not going to state whether or not I think keeping the soldiers in Iraq is a good idea or not, because I don't like to delve into politics, and know very little about the subject, but I also must agree with your point that peace sucks. :thumbsup:

Also, take the time to spell things correctly. :thumbsup:

I like how almost everyone here supporting the war happens to know nothing of the subject.

Uh, no, they are never dead weight. They will then do their job of defending the US. Just because they aren't going around playing world police does not in any way make them useless.

Exactly. In that statement it seems like he's supporting the idea of war in itself for no apparent reason.

Northern Iraq is pretty stable, there is little hostility, it's only Baghdad and surrounding areas that are the problem.

I feel this discussion should be revived. So here is a somewhat dated article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/22/...racy/index.html

Yes, clearly very stable.