The reasons for both the wars were never clearly stated. The 'mission statement' for Iraq changed multiple times, from revenge to a vain quest for WMDs to overthrowing Saddam, and now we're basically just getting into fights with angry citizens who don't want us there, and for good reason. I've heard Afghanistan explained with "we have to get rid of bin Laden."

Well, we've been there what, eight years now, and Osama bin Laden is still at large, and there's no indication we'll catch him any time soon. And if we're operating on the logic that we have to get rid of his hiding places, well, we've got our work cut out for us. We're going to have to take out Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, and every other Middle Eastern country on the map. I guess we'd better get busy.

I just don't think we had any business going over there. Our reasons were too sketchy, our plans too ill-defined (and executed), and we're just waiting time, money, and good troops.

LOL It's no problem- just ask Elisabeth, when I get wrapped up in a debate I can be pretty...aggressive myself, hehe.

I would have to say that no, we don't have the money to be pursuing two failed conflicts. Of course, distracting radicals may be a good thing, but at what cost? We have no money to continue this. We have an eleven trillion national debt, we're just getting in deeper, and the wars aren't helping.

I totally agree that we managed to get something done in Iraq with very little damage, even in manpower. When you consider how many people have died in this compared to earlier conflicts, it's kind of amazing. But at the same time- nobody had to die. We didn't have to create any havoc. We could have just minded our own business.

On the subject of Islamist radicals (a bit OT), I have a theory. During the Crusades by the English and other 'Christians', thousands of Muslims were slaughtered. Seeing as the Muslims are still mad at their forefather's younger brothe, who died some 5,000 years ago, it doesn't take much to see that they could still be mad at the 'christians'. And since America is a self-styled 'christian nation', they're angry at us for more than just being infidels. But, that's just a personal theory that still needs some work. XD

I think I would say that I am for both wars.
I also think that war can by useful and can accomplish good things. Without war, Hitler would have controlled the world. It can be a good thing, and I am certainly for it when it needs to happen.

I agree that war can be a good thing. A necessary evil as I like to call it, but I don't see either of these war - ok mainly the Iraq one - as being necessary. I think too many innocent people have died and I don't mean just soldiers.

I don't believe WMD was ever the reason. I honestly think it was ordered as retaliation so America didn't look weak after Sept 11.

If it's really against extreme Muslims - reeeally push their buttons by dropping a bomb on the mosque thingy on the land that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over. Heehee. Ok not really.

Well I think Australian troops need to be removed. I know we're all buddy buddy with America, but I don't think we should have followed them in in the first place.

I just don't think that what we've accomplished (if we have accomplished anything) in the two current wars is worth it, regardless. War can be a useful tool when used correctly, as Rebecca pointed out. But this time, it wasn't used correctly.

Besides the fact that President Bush completely ignored the chain of command, sparked two preemptive conflicts that were not properly explained or justified to the American people, and insisted on promoting his own 'axis of evil' agenda over the best interests of the American nation, the wars were just wrong.

We had no reason to go in there. None. If our reasoning was to get Osama bin Laden- well, we've failed pretty spectacularly, and to all appearances, we'll continue to fail. bin Laden has thousands of contacts all over the Middle Eastern and North African world- hence why he continues to disappear into thin air. (Hire a mercenary or assassin. Would be quicker, cheaper, and less obvious.) And as I pointed out before, if we continue this war of hunting bin Laden, we have a lot of other countries we're going to have to attack.

If our reasoning was nukes- lets attack Russia. And North Korea. And China. And nearly every country in the world.

If our reasoning was overthrowing a dictator- what business was that of ours? Yes, Saddam was horrible, but he was not our problem. He was the Iraqi people's problem, and sorry, but we're not Iraqis. We have a lot more problems here at home that need to be dealt with, like, for instance, a mounting national debt, an insurance system that is broken, an out-of-control government, and corruption in every level.

It's that whole "deal with the beam in thine own eye before dealing with the mote in thy brother's eye."

Wasn't the Afghanistan war a retaliation for the 911 attacks? I don't call that pointless.

Um, it was the terrorists attack and statement against the world. What are we going to do? "They are saying publicly that they hate the world, and doing so by killing thousands of people. Too bad." No, we went in to fight the terrorists for attacking us.