Hey, guys i wanna see what you think about the U.S. troops in Iraq. So please vote.

I don't think that it is possible. I would have never gone to war in the first place, but I don't think that it would be a very bright idea to just pull out.

There, I took undecided, but I only did it because I'm not an American, and because I don't know enough of the issue. :-)

Iraq didn't cause 9/11.  It was blamed on Pakistani terrorists.  9/11 was a smoke screen, it kept us occupied long enough to not know who we were going to war with...America was mad and wanted vengeance, big brother gave it to us, only they chose to go after the worlds most significant supply of oil...Funny thing is, the president, the one who chose to go to war, is an oil man....He claimed there were weapons of mass destruction, yet the weapons inspector later claimed that there was never even a threat that they might have WMD's.....

Another thing that blows my mind...During Hurricane Katrina, an oil pump was taken out, one out of thousands....And our gas prices doubled, that was given as a reason....Our gas prices have since lowered, but not by much.  Oil companies experienced a record $10,000,000,000 in profit in a single quarter....An investigation was done, and nothing wrong was found...I guess they didn't investigate the reason why George W. Bush's pockets were instantly swollen with billions of dollars...And that has nothing to do with his position as president?

Here's the thing it doesn't matter whether or not 9/11 was blamed/done on/by Pakistani terrorists the thing that matters is that hey are Islamic radicals. The thing that people can't understand is that we are not at war with Iraq we are at war with people that are in Iraq.  The war isn't one of an invading army, it is one against Islamic radicals. Whose minds have been twisted so much they don't know right from wrong.And of course America was mad and wanted vengeance, and wouldn't you? You would have to be crazy to not want to attack people that are chanting "Death to America", right after the events of 9/11. The whole thing with the WMD's is that the President of Iran,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has openly said that Iran is pushing it's nuclear engineering, and if Iran would get nuclear power he said that he would be open to share it with neighboring countries. Once again you would have to be mindless not to see the obvious possibility of Iraq acquiring WMD's. The whole deal with oil if you think about it the entire world economics runs off of the trade of oil. Then if your America, which has the biggest oil consumption to date, and the country/region where the largest quantity of oil lies, there are radicals that are thirsty to get their hands on Americans. I believe that both aspects need to be dealt with. Why isn't anyone getting mad at the Saudi government. Their political system consists of all royal family, and they are some of the richest people on the planet, and where did the money come from........oil. Now if that isn't corrupt, than what is? The only reason that oil prices are being raised is because of the people who own the oil. Think about it this way..... if you owned a shop selling goods that can only be found at your shop. Your prices were reasonable and fair. Then the mortal enemy of your religion comes and wants to buy from you. You aren't going to welcome them into your shop and say, "Nice to meet you, were having a wondrous sale right now." No. Your going to raise your prices ridiculously just in spite of him. The only reason the oil companies are having such  high profits ire because, and when you buy something you logically want to sell it for a higher price. It's called profit/business. When you put it in context, they are buying higher than ever, thus they are selling higher than ever, resulting in the highest profits seen. If we were there for oil, then why would we still be buying it? If we went to the the other side of the world, all for oil, trust me America would control every single oil plant in Iraq. I'm not saying how successful it would be, but we would at least make an attempt to control them. The oil is still owned by Iraqis, not Americans. We are still buying the oil from them. If we went there to "save" money on oil, then why is America losing billions on this war, making it one of the most expensive in history. This link right here debunks your theory on them being oilmen, thus causing a "war for oil" in Iraq.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/warforoil.php

Thats my opinion for now. Hope to hear yours and others!

First, if you live in the United States you are American, meaning that if you are in the country of America. So if Americans citizens are paying, then America is paying. Yes the president might be spending excessively, forcing the tax increase, but he is not excluded from it. All people in America are subject to paying taxes, even government officials. Before the sum of debt gets split up into the American population, a large sum of it is payed off by the government, including the president. We are in no way controlling Iraq's oil. Like I said, if we were why wouldn't be paying for it? The reason the war is having such a negative influence on the American economy is because it is a tug-a-war. We are fighting the people we buy oil from. Not a very good predicament to be in. We need/want to fight the Islamic radicals, but at the same time we need oil for America to survive, or any major country at that. Most wars aren't beneficial to the economy until after the war. Look at WWII, for example. This war was disastrous on the American economy, we were scrounging for raw materials for the military. Salt, sugar and other household goods were rationed from the public, until the war ended. For proof on how beneficial the war was look here:

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/4668.php

But, and that is a big but for me is that even if we were over there for oil, speaking hypothetically of course, and we did get control of the oil in the Middle East, hypothetical once again, think how good America will do in the future. 'Cause there will come a day in the future when oil is worth more than a large sum of money, and if America had control of the majority of the oil it would boost Americas spot as a leading superpower for the 21st century. So that is my ,hypothetical, idea about even if we are there for oil it would be good for the economy in the future.

And alternative energy is out of the question, for now. One of the main allies of the "War For Oil" idea is that we have the technology to make alternative energy cars yet we make them, which people say is the reason we are in Iraq. A good analogy I told my friend is that it's the difference between a PS2 and a PS3. The PS3 is better technology, but it costs 600$+ to get the console and a game. Unlike the PS2 where you can get a bundle for 150-200$ where you get console, and a couple games. The PS3 is better but it costs to much for the majority of the population to have at the moment, once the production fees go down then the majority of the public will be able to get one. People then say, "Well then why doesn't the government step in?" The answer is simple, you thought the war costs a lot? Now imagine the cost of alternative cars for everyone? Here is information on the costing of alternative energies, with hydrogen cars as an example (taken from Wikipedia):

Fuel cell cost

Currently, hydrogen fuel cells are costly to produce and fragile. Scientists are studying how to produce inexpensive fuel cells that are robust enough to survive the bumps and vibrations that all automobiles experience. Also, many designs require rare substances such as platinum as a catalyst in order to work properly. Such a catalyst can also become contaminated by impurities in the hydrogen supply. In the past few years, however, a nickel-tin catalyst has been under development which may lower the cost of cells.[11] Fuel cells are generally priced in USD/kW, and data is scarce regarding costs. Producer Ballard is virtually alone in publishing such data. Their 2005 figure was $73 USD/kW (based on high volume manufacturing estimates), which they said was on track to achieve the U.S. DoE's 2010 goal of $30 USD/kW. This would achieve closer parity with internal combustion engines for automotive applications, allowing a 100 kW fuel cell to be produced for $3000. 100 kW is about 134 hp.

Plus, I just want to ask you the question I've been wondering for a while. Even if we are there for oil, what is wrong with that? It is a scarce resource, and the whole world needs it to run, with modern technology. If you could answer that it would be much appreciated!

(I have to say this is a pretty good argument!)

I know it doesn't justify it, but the fact still remains that they still killed thousands of innocent American lives, it might be wrong to be exploiting their natural resources, but the fact is that if you are going to taunt he only superpower at this point in time get messed up. With your analogy, of the richest vs. the poorest house, that still doesn't justify actions taken on both sides, 9/11 and the immediate bombing of the Middle East. I do agree with people that we should have thought it through more before we rushed in, but I believe it had to be necessary, because no one in the world should be free from the actions taken on 9/11. When you said that the government isn't affected, that may be true while they are in office but the second their term ends up, they are technically the same as any other American. I'm not sure how equal it is, but technically they are the same as another citizen. This war is very similar to the Vietnam war, in ways many other than military tactics. The main reason American went to war against Communists in Nam was because we were afraid that if it caught on there it would spread to neighboring countries, who were looking for a better style of government. The same fear is that if we don't put an end to radical Islamics, it would be the greatest threat to democracy since Nazi Germany. do you want to continue discussing this, or do you want to argue over other controversial topics? 'Cause whenever I try to do this with my friends it always turns out to become a full out "cuss fest". And it's nice 'cause were both using reasonable facts, not "bs" ones. I'm open for any debate you wish to start, bring it on!

Good debate, it would be 10X better if it had LOST in it though!

i wouldnt call us the ONLY superpower. there is still china, England, russia,iran.  And maybe even india because they have over a billion people now.