Changes

Jan-06 779,

Jan-06 779,

This is from your site, and since this year is going to be the 'worst' iraqi year yet, how come it's so much better? just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it's not right. Maybe some of those people should do some research before they start voicing ignorant opinions like yours. --[[User:theLeak|theLeak]] 16:18, 6 May 2008

This is from your site, and since this year is going to be the 'worst' Iraqi year yet, how come it's so much better? just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it's not right. Maybe some of those people should do some research before they start voicing ignorant opinions like yours. --[[User:theLeak|theLeak]] 16:18, 6 May 2008

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:It was never going to be a successful war. I doubt even calling it a war. The US is a utter failure when it comes to nation building. Always remember that a government never goes to war for the reasons that they state. "Liberating the people of Iraq" is just a philanthropy. There are more '''real''' reasons to go to war with Iraq. A US controlled Iraq provides a stable source of oil for the US and more importantly, can act as a valuable staging point for a bigger war with Iran. Its much easier to keep the supply lines from Iraq to Iran than from the US to Iran.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:12, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certian people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

Rebiu's response has been removed because it was an attack on certain people group. We must remember to exhibit tolerance in all situations. If Rebiu would like to offer logical examples to prove a point, then he should feel welcome to do so. [[User: Ruchki|Ruchki]]

:Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples.  The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here it is again Ruchki and with the logical examples.  The entire "War on Terror" is a farce meant to advance the conservative agenda and enrich the political leaders who started it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''': American troops are dying at a rate of 900 per year.  Monthly expeditures have risen from $4.4 billion to $8.4 billion without a corresponding decrease in the overall rate of violence (even if there are temporary local successes following tactical shifts in emphasis).  Cities that are pacified to much fanfare must be retaken, sometimes several times.  The Bush Administration has resorted to a policy of "kill the messenger", sacking any general who admits we cannot win another country's civil war and putting in place the lone general who thinks we can win this civil war, General Petraeus.  One by one, our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" have dropped out, and we are even witnessing the gradual departure of the United Kingdom from the southern theater.  Bush got congressional authority to wage war on Iraq by certifying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed an existential threat to the United States, yet the WMDs were revealed to be a chimera and the only existential threat is to the Republican Party itself, as more and more Americans grow weary of the war. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''': American troops are dying at a rate of 900 per year.  Monthly expeditures have risen from $4.4 billion to $8.4 billion without a corresponding decrease in the overall rate of violence (even if there are temporary local successes following tactical shifts in emphasis).  Cities that are pacified to much fanfare must be retaken, sometimes several times.  The Bush Administration has resorted to a policy of "kill the messenger", sacking any general who admits we cannot win another country's civil war and putting in place the lone general who thinks we can win this civil war, General Petraeus.  One by one, our allies in the "Coalition of the Willing" have dropped out, and we are even witnessing the gradual departure of the United Kingdom from the southern theater.  Bush got congressional authority to wage war on Iraq by certifying that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and posed an existential threat to the United States, yet the WMDs were revealed to be a chimera and the only existential threat is to the Republican Party itself, as more and more Americans grow weary of the war. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No:''' It's not a question that the stated objective of the invasion was to find and destroy WMD's, which we were ''positive'' existed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of WMD's found in Iraq is exactly...0. IN that sense, we failed miserably. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font>^{<font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font>} 18:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No:''' It's not a question that the stated objective of the invasion was to find and destroy WMD's, which we were ''positive'' existed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of WMD's found in Iraq is exactly...0. IN that sense, we failed miserably. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font>^{<font color="00FFAA">[[User Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font>} 18:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That is twisted liberal thought. The fact that no WMD was found is irrelevent. The only reason it is relevent is because it was used as final justification for invasion. Like icing on the cake. All we ended up with is cake, no icing. Saddam has a long history of playing games with inspectors. If Saddam had never used WMD in the past, then it was all a mistake. To wait until he acquired again, then use it, then decide to invade is just backwards logic. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That is twisted liberal thought. The fact that no WMD was found is irrelevent. The only reason it is relevent is because it was used as final justification for invasion. Like icing on the cake. All we ended up with is cake, no icing. Saddam has a long history of playing games with inspectors. If Saddam had never used WMD in the past, then it was all a mistake. To wait until he acquired again, then use it, then decide to invade is just backwards logic. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"Willpower" isn't the problem here.  President Bush '''wanted''' this war, and has been its single biggest booster since day one. Lack of SMARTS is the problem. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"Willpower" isn't the problem here.  President Bush '''wanted''' this war, and has been its single biggest booster since day one. Lack of SMARTS is the problem. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 00:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHA The iraq war! a success!! wow, that's sad. Why would you have to ask that. Here are the statistics: over 3000 American soldiers dead. over 300,000 iraq civilians dead. NO weapons of mass destruction. NO ties to Osama bin ladin. NO ties to Al Quaeda. And a country in a civil war in complete ruin. Figure it out yourself. My source, CIA 9,11/iraq comission report, UN iraq overview. a success? not in a million years.--[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:10, 31 Juner 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHA The Iraq war! a success!! wow, that's sad. Why would you have to ask that. Here are the statistics: over 3000 American soldiers dead. over 300,000 Iraq civilians dead. NO weapons of mass destruction. NO ties to Osama bin ladin. NO ties to Al Quaeda. And a country in a civil war in complete ruin. Figure it out yourself. My source, CIA 9,11/Iraq commission report, UN Iraq overview. a success? not in a million years.--[[User:FDRismyhero|FDRismyhero]] 7:10, 31 Juner 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

Way, way, way, way, back, before we invaded, the given objectives of the Iraq War was to 'find and make safe all WMD in Iraq', which would enforce a variety of UN Resolutions against Iraq making or possessing WMD.  That was what was told to the UN, the people of the US, and the people of the UK.  How many have we actually 'found and made safe'?  ZERO.  It's an unmitigated failure.  The changing of the reason to 'removing dictators' only came about AFTER it became so clear that Iraq had no WMD to 'find and make safe' that even Bush and Blair could see it.  [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Way, way, way, way, back, before we invaded, the given objectives of the Iraq War was to 'find and make safe all WMD in Iraq', which would enforce a variety of UN Resolutions against Iraq making or possessing WMD.  That was what was told to the UN, the people of the US, and the people of the UK.  How many have we actually 'found and made safe'?  ZERO.  It's an unmitigated failure.  The changing of the reason to 'removing dictators' only came about AFTER it became so clear that Iraq had no WMD to 'find and make safe' that even Bush and Blair could see it.  [[User:Zmidponk|Zmidponk]] 20:59, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Everyone here is kidding themselves. The Iraq war was a complete success because it was a mission to earn cash for the corporations in bed with the Bush Administration. The idea is to inhale billions for the powers that be while the economy goes into a second depression. Everytime the 'terrorists' destroy something filled with oil some rich white man makes a bundle off of fixing it up. Besides that, it's never going to end, as they've successfully created police forces out of two conflicting religions who are now killing each other and our solders. Now if you take nothing else from this paragraph, please just look at the lives you're leading. Due to your fear, paranoia, and anger you've killed millions worldwide, including every single soul lost on 9-11. Everyone knows the connections our contry has to Bin Ladan, even you guys. It's just so sad that you can be so deliberately blinded by propaganda and lies... if not for you those buildings would still be standing, those levys would never have collapsed, and Iraqi children would be free to play outside their homes. I'm almost speachless, really. Mayhaps you should take something from the fact that Wikipedia has such a liberal bias, and that every really intellegant person in politics or entertainment hates your values. By the way, that picture put up in the yes section is racist and should be taken down.  

Everyone here is kidding themselves. The Iraq war was a complete success because it was a mission to earn cash for the corporations in bed with the Bush Administration. The idea is to inhale billions for the powers that be while the economy goes into a second depression. Everytime the 'terrorists' destroy something filled with oil some rich white man makes a bundle off of fixing it up. Besides that, it's never going to end, as they've successfully created police forces out of two conflicting religions who are now killing each other and our solders. Now if you take nothing else from this paragraph, please just look at the lives you're leading. Due to your fear, paranoia, and anger you've killed millions worldwide, including every single soul lost on 9-11. Everyone knows the connections our country has to Bin Ladan, even you guys. It's just so sad that you can be so deliberately blinded by propaganda and lies... if not for you those buildings would still be standing, those levys would never have collapsed, and Iraqi children would be free to play outside their homes. I'm almost speachless, really. Mayhaps you should take something from the fact that Wikipedia has such a liberal bias, and that every really intellegant person in politics or entertainment hates your values. By the way, that picture put up in the yes section is racist and should be taken down.  

--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 18:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

--[[User:YoungConservative|YoungConservative]] 18:44, 7 February 2008 (EST)YoungConservative

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Is the Iraq War a success? The perception presented to us is biased. Mission accompished? YES YES YES. Saddam was defeated, his military defeated. End of combat operations? Ah, not quite. If you listen to the lamestream media, the bias is incredible toward declaring defeat. Much of this perception is not to give Bush credit. I heard Rupert Murdoch say that history will show that this was just a blip on the radar. While every soldiers death is a tragedy, 3,000 plus killed is nothing in the scheme of things. America lost 3,000 soldiers in one week in Imo Jima during WWII. It's how it is perceived. The left wants to compare Iraq to Vietnam. There is no comparison. Disagree? I'll compare it then- Ho Chi Mihn has been captured and executed for crimes against humanity. The communist Vietnam government has been replaced by a democratic government. The war we fight now, the Iraq war, has become an insurgent campaign against Democracy. There is no way America and Iraq can lose to 25,000 bandits. If we stick it out, eventually the Iraqi army will be powerful enough to take over. How long have we been in Korea? Do you think if we left there after 4 years they would still be a Democracy? America, 9/11 was a warning which our President understood, which many Americans do not want to believe or have been misled. We can debate the past like Democrats want or we can stand and fight FOR Democracy.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:32, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::WHAT? Ho Chi Minh died of heart failure, not an American GI. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font>^{<font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font>} 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::WHAT? Ho Chi Minh died of heart failure, not an American GI. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font>^{<font color="00FFAA">[[User Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font>} 18:52, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;)  --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

:You mean fight FOR Democracy right? ;)  --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT) Thank you, corrected!

:Rebiu, Ho- and BobD, If Bush had NOT liberated Iraq, WHAT?

:Rebiu, Ho- and BobD, If Bush had NOT liberated Iraq, WHAT?

Serendipity!  If alQaeda had not been busy there, it stated intent to be HERE - using Saddam's sarin (Christian Gen. Georges Sada) or gathering A-bomb knowlege and materials (Duelfer Commission ). Nothing other than the Iraq invasion could have better accomplished the President's first responsibility - protecting us. [User:HowardLong]

Serendipity!  If alQaeda had not been busy there, it stated intent to be HERE - using Saddam's sarin (Christian Gen. Georges Sada) or gathering A-bomb knowledge and materials (Duelfer Commission ). Nothing other than the Iraq invasion could have better accomplished the President's first responsibility - protecting us. [User:HowardLong]

Yes.  We have won the war in Iraq.  Everything has worked out exactly as President Bush has expected.  There have been no flaws in his War Plan, and the Democrats should be imprissoned for treason for saying otherwise.

Yes.  We have won the war in Iraq.  Everything has worked out exactly as President Bush has expected.  There have been no flaws in his War Plan, and the Democrats should be imprissoned for treason for saying otherwise.

"How does this relate to the Iraqi government and coalition forces? Can these clerics achieve anything concrete? If so how soon? And will it be enforceable?

"How does this relate to the Iraqi government and coalition forces? Can these clerics achieve anything concrete? If so how soon? And will it be enforceable?

"Simply stated, these men -- all self-interested stewards of their separate Sunni and Shia constituencies -- have seen that their government's failure to act could lead Iraq into an irretrievable situation. They feel a moral imperative to fill the power vacuum. As for whether their actions will be taken seriously and be enforceable, the affirmative answer lies in the acknowledged role of the mosque, and of the grand ayatollahs and imams of the seniority represented here in Arab societies.

"Simply stated, these men—all self-interested stewards of their separate Sunni and Shia constituencies—have seen that their government's failure to act could lead Iraq into an irretrievable situation. They feel a moral imperative to fill the power vacuum. As for whether their actions will be taken seriously and be enforceable, the affirmative answer lies in the acknowledged role of the mosque, and of the grand ayatollahs and imams of the seniority represented here in Arab societies.

"As additional evidence that Iraq's most senior religious leaders see the potential for catastrophe in prolonged violence unabated by government action, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has reached out to the most senior Sunni Imams and asked that they meet with him as soon as possible in Najaf, Iraq, to focus on peacemaking. Such an invitation by the most senior Shia for a meeting with the most senior Sunni is unprecedented in Iraq's history.

"As additional evidence that Iraq's most senior religious leaders see the potential for catastrophe in prolonged violence unabated by government action, Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani has reached out to the most senior Sunni Imams and asked that they meet with him as soon as possible in Najaf, Iraq, to focus on peacemaking. Such an invitation by the most senior Shia for a meeting with the most senior Sunni is unprecedented in Iraq's history.

"It was also noteworthy that these leaders included Sheikh Abdul Lateef Humayeem, the former personal iman to Saddam Hussein. Welcoming Mr. Humayeem to this very elite circle -- a religious board of directors in Iraq -- is a clear signal to former Baath civil servants and military officers that they will be welcome in the new Iraq.

"It was also noteworthy that these leaders included Sheikh Abdul Lateef Humayeem, the former personal iman to Saddam Hussein. Welcoming Mr. Humayeem to this very elite circle—a religious board of directors in Iraq—is a clear signal to former Baath civil servants and military officers that they will be welcome in the new Iraq.

"Here in the West we tend to discount the role of religion in resolving disputes. Indeed our diplomatic tradition eschews involving religion -- or even mentioning it -- in diplomatic discourse. Clearly, however, its role is central in underpinning the sectarian violence in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, understands that, as well as the powerful role that religious leaders could play if they chose to do so. He has been a strong supporter -- as has the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus -- of the painstaking process that preceded this meeting in Cairo. Nothing like this has ever occurred in Iraq's history -- and yet it is happening.

"Here in the West we tend to discount the role of religion in resolving disputes. Indeed, our diplomatic tradition eschews involving religion—or even mentioning it—in diplomatic discourse. Clearly, however, its role is central in underpinning the sectarian violence in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, understands that, as well as the powerful role that religious leaders could play if they chose to do so. He has been a strong supporter—as has the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus—of the painstaking process that preceded this meeting in Cairo. Nothing like this has ever occurred in Iraq's history—and yet it is happening.

"Going forward, the key leaders have agreed to a calendar of concrete actions starting with the unprecedented meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani in Najaf within two weeks. If that meeting goes well, it could lend momentum to the early development of the planned joint Sunni-Shia fatwa. Such a fatwa would stand as a historic milestone with profound meaning and effect on the Iraqi people.

"Going forward, the key leaders have agreed to a calendar of concrete actions starting with the unprecedented meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani in Najaf within two weeks. If that meeting goes well, it could lend momentum to the early development of the planned joint Sunni-Shia fatwa. Such a fatwa would stand as a historic milestone with profound meaning and effect on the Iraqi people.

[user Howard Long]

[user Howard Long]

When approaching a matter of international relations, you must have an open mind, and drop everything that is moral, or left up to conscience.  That way you are left with the nature of how states act.  International relations are not at all powered by moral, but powered by nature.  It is the nature of the state to act in a certain way. That nature is determined by several factors including the make up of the governmental entity, the type of government it is, and the power of the government.  People usually do not factor into how a state behaves with other states. That being said, the state that is most powerful has the control. They can, and do, act not as a police force per se, but more like the dictator.  Does this mean that the post powerful state is going to go raveging through the other states raping the women, and stealing the gold. Not necesarily. Although this is entirely possible those of you familiar with world war II, which was to put it basically, a state carrying out it's job according to international relations.  All it means is that the most powerful state is free to take uncontested liberties that other states cannot.  Such is the case in the IRaq war. We had a mission to overthrow Suddam and impose capitalism and democracy on the nation of Iraq, also they have oil.  Not that we don't have oil, it's just that we can force it out of them easier than we can get it from ourselves. This is not cruel or wrong by any means when talking about international relations.  It is the right of the powering state to do these things. And America is the powering state. Believe it or not, America is not the stand-alone good samaritan, superman, hero everyone makes it out to be.  As a state, we have needs.  Also, we have wants.  And we fulfil these wants and needs by going to other nations and putting military bases in them, and getting involved with conflicts that don't endanger American freedom.  We always have something to gain out of the deal. the Vietnam war is a perfcet example of this. Russia was trying to take over the world, and they wer trying to take control of vietnam.  Well America came it and over took South Vietnam in order to combat the Russians.  We didn't give a damn as to what happened to the villagers of Vietnam.  That's not why we were there.  That's also why there are so many horrible stories of rape and mass murder committed by american soldiers.  Our mission was to stop Russia through the Vietnamese. This is called realism.  Realism states that there is one state in control and all of the other states want to be in control.  It turns into the survival of the fittest and who can out military the other.  Wars are going to happen, and that's the nature of the beast.  Getting back to the part of the state having something to gain from being in certain places, allies will form also as another way for a state to get what it wants or needs.  To stop Hitler, America had to join forces with England and France, and Russia(Although France had it's own problems with the Maginot line.) We had something to gain from allying with them, obviously. But what happened immediatley after the war ended? the Cold War began with Russia and America and 2 wars resulted form it: Korea and Vietnam. We broke our alliance with Russia so fast, it made everyone's head swim.  But why do we remain "close" with places like Australia, and England.  Mostly because we have something to gain by being allies with them and allowing them to conduct their business as they wish, rather than conrtolling them and forcing what we want out of them.  In Australia's case they absolutely love us because if it wasn't for us coming to their rescue, they would all be speaking Japanese right now, and they are pretty much eternally greatful to us.  But what did we have to gain from saiving some Ausies, dingos, and roos? A stepping stone to the stopping of Japanese island hoppers from taking over the West.  So what does this have to do with present times? We have something to gain from being in Iraq.  It gives us a shoe in to being a controlling state over a large resource.  As for Afghanistan, I see no need to be in there.  In fact.  We will lose if we continue this pursuit.  No nation has ever in the the history of ever and forever won in the land that is currently known as Afghanistan.  Russia lost and they were just about as powerful as us.  We are in there now and we are gettingn our asses handed to us.  Obama doesn't want to put forth the effort needed to actually make and impact on the war and we are losing because of it.  Not that we would win anyway, but this is sort of speeding up the process.  Now will we be left in ruins like Russia is? Probably not.  We are smart enough to keep our nukes at home and I don't think it'll make to big of an impact on our armed forced.  But that being said it is a fruitless adventure.  One that should be stopped immediatley.  The reason for being in there given by the government is that we are getting back at the terrorists.  One steadfast rule in international relations is that you don't acknowledge a terrorist attack.  You sort of turn the other cheek.  It's like the bully on the school yard.  If you ignore him he'll go away.  Notice how after 9/11 we didn't run right over to afghanistan where Bin Laden was adn drop a nuke on the whole nation? Instead we went into Iraq to do what Bush's mission was, even before 9/11 which was to pick up where Senior left off.  Had 9/11 not happened, we would still be in Iraq.  We didn't go after the terrorists at all.  But it make for great media coverage to go along with our sterling save the day hero reputation.  Now that that is all said and done, was there anything wrong with going into Afghanistan in the first place.  No.  We were mearly acting as the controlling power and doing exactly what we were supposed to do according to international relations.  mattfelton 9:20 11/116/09

When approaching a matter of international relations, you must have an open mind, and drop everything that is moral, or left up to conscience.  That way you are left with the nature of how states act.  International relations are not at all powered by moral, but powered by nature.  It is the nature of the state to act in a certain way. That nature is determined by several factors including the make up of the governmental entity, the type of government it is, and the power of the government.  People usually do not factor into how a state behaves with other states. That being said, the state that is most powerful has the control. They can, and do, act not as a police force per se, but more like the dictator.  Does this mean that the post powerful state is going to go raveging through the other states raping the women, and stealing the gold. Not necessarily. Although this is entirely possible those of you familiar with world war II, which was to put it basically, a state carrying out it's job according to international relations.  All it means is that the most powerful state is free to take uncontested liberties that other states cannot.  Such is the case in the IRaq war. We had a mission to overthrow Suddam and impose capitalism and democracy on the nation of Iraq, also they have oil.  Not that we don't have oil, it's just that we can force it out of them easier than we can get it from ourselves. This is not cruel or wrong by any means when talking about international relations.  It is the right of the powering state to do these things. And America is the powering state. Believe it or not, America is not the stand-alone good samaritan, superman, hero everyone makes it out to be.  As a state, we have needs.  Also, we have wants.  And we fulfil these wants and needs by going to other nations and putting military bases in them, and getting involved with conflicts that don't endanger American freedom.  We always have something to gain out of the deal. the Vietnam war is a perfcet example of this. Russia was trying to take over the world, and they wer trying to take control of Vietnam.  Well America came it and over took South Vietnam in order to combat the Russians.  We didn't give a damn as to what happened to the villagers of Vietnam.  That's not why we were there.  That's also why there are so many horrible stories of rape and mass murder committed by American soldiers.  Our mission was to stop Russia through the Vietnamese. This is called realism.  Realism states that there is one state in control and all of the other states want to be in control.  It turns into the survival of the fittest and who can out military the other.  Wars are going to happen, and that's the nature of the beast.  Getting back to the part of the state having something to gain from being in certain places, allies will form also as another way for a state to get what it wants or needs.  To stop Hitler, America had to join forces with England and France, and Russia(Although France had its own problems with the Maginot line.) We had something to gain from allying with them, obviously. But what happened immediately after the war ended? the Cold War began with Russia and America and 2 wars resulted form it: Korea and Vietnam. We broke our alliance with Russia so fast, it made everyone's head swim.  But why do we remain "close" with places like Australia, and England.  Mostly because we have something to gain by being allies with them and allowing them to conduct their business as they wish, rather than conrtolling them and forcing what we want out of them.  In Australia's case they absolutely love us because if it wasn't for us coming to their rescue, they would all be speaking Japanese right now, and they are pretty much eternally grateful to us.  But what did we have to gain from saiving some Ausies, dingos, and roos? A stepping stone to the stopping of Japanese island hoppers from taking over the West.  So what does this have to do with present times? We have something to gain from being in Iraq.  It gives us a shoe in to being a controlling state over a large resource.  As for Afghanistan, I see no need to be in there.  In fact.  We will lose if we continue this pursuit.  No nation has ever in the history of ever and forever won in the land that is currently known as Afghanistan.  Russia lost and they were just about as powerful as us.  We are in there now and we are gettingn our asses handed to us.  Obama doesn't want to put forth the effort needed to actually make and impact on the war and we are losing because of it.  Not that we would win anyway, but this is sort of speeding up the process.  Now will we be left in ruins like Russia is? Probably not.  We are smart enough to keep our nukes at home and I don't think it'll make to big of an impact on our armed forced.  But that being said it is a fruitless adventure.  One that should be stopped immediately.  The reason for being in there given by the government is that we are getting back at the terrorists.  One steadfast rule in international relations is that you don't acknowledge a terrorist attack.  You sort of turn the other cheek.  It's like the bully on the school yard.  If you ignore him he'll go away.  Notice how after 9/11 we didn't run right over to Afghanistan where Bin Laden was adn drop a nuke on the whole nation? Instead we went into Iraq to do what Bush's mission was, even before 9/11 which was to pick up where Senior left off.  Had 9/11 not happened, we would still be in Iraq.  We didn't go after the terrorists at all.  But it make for great media coverage to go along with our sterling save the day hero reputation.  Now that that is all said and done, was there anything wrong with going into Afghanistan in the first place.  No.  We were mearly acting as the controlling power and doing exactly what we were supposed to do according to international relations.  mattfelton 9:20 11/116/09