Hooray!
Not a day too soon. --Killing Vector (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I am happy that we are out, and yes not a day too soon. However, only 4,415 Americans have died in seven years, very wonderful.
What's more, according to BBC News, they're out a fortnight early :) They've been there seven and a half years, and yet they can say "We're out two weeks early", as if they had an inkling it'd go on for 7 years 6 months and 2 weeks! How very precise of them. Maybe next they can gague the exact length of time they've been in Afghanistan and see if they can get out of there early too :^)
The fact that "only" 4,415 of my brothers and sisters lost their lives is wonderful to you? Not one drop of American blood should have touched the soil of Iraq. Bush and Obama are murderers. One started this nonsense and the other kept it going. Where's the WMDs and what happened to Obama's promise of being out of Iraq within the first 6 months of his presidency? All of this bloodshed for one man to be hanged.
I think he was being sarcastic; making a comment on how the propaganda works. Let us not forget all the Iraqis that have died from the US involvement as well. Or the other nations that were in Iraq. None of these people should be dead.
"All of this bloodshed for one man to be hanged," indeed.
I'm glad no one cares that the impossible happen. Women voting in the heart of the middle east and Al-qaeda and Iran lost an other battle. That what I'm thankful for.
Al-Qaeda would not have been fighting (much) in Iraq if Saddam had remained. Rights, democracy; these are important, but at what cost?
And should they be arbitrarily imposed upon populaces who may never otherwise achieve it, even at great cost?
That is a question I don't have the answer to.
I would rather have a democracy in Iraq and the hope of it spreading then having that Socialist dictator. The human cost was very high (and in fact it could of been lower if Bush listen to the English advice of more troops and keeping the Iraqi army in place). But like i said; I would have a democratic Iraq then Saddam's Iraq. At least the men and women can choose their own future now.
Forgive me, but what has socialism got to do with it? Wouldn't a better argument against Hussein be that he was a war criminal?
Saddam was the leader of the Ba'ath party. Which believed in "Arab socialism". Not a jab at all socialist.
Arab Socialism == National Socialism != socialist
Hussein was essentially a fascist, not a socialist. Believe it or not, there is a clear and distinct difference.
"War criminal" and "socialist" are interchangable words. 206.74.178.104 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Iraq War helped Iran a lot, because it removed their main regional counterbalance. It'll take a long time for the Iraqi army to regain its pre-war strength, and even then, the Iraqi government will almost certainly be more pro-Iranian (or at least least less anti-Iranian) than the Hussein regime. So, good news, Iraq has a democratic government (assuming they work out the political standoff). Bad news, we just handed Iran a victory on a silver platter.
BTW, you do know that the Islamic Republic of Iran and Al Qaeda *hate* each other, don't you?