Leave iraq or stay? what do you reckon

Personally i am thinking the US should remain in Iraq for at least a bit longer, i am not really a fan of the pushing to withdraw troops (the democrats have about the same exit plan as Bush had AFAIK, which is none, unless someone can link me to somthing)

i think if the US leaves now then we will have another Binladen appear in a decade, someone who was armed, trained, and turned into a terrorist by a lack of thinking.

todays iraqi police, if not properly supported by the US government, may in the future become enemies through anger and feeling of betrayal. (what happened with binladen when he created Al Qaeda)

i know lots of people in the US want the troops to get out of their now, but i think its a bad time to do so, i think its like starting major surgery then not stiching the wound. i think they should leave as soon as possible, but not at the expense of future stability.

do you guys in the US think they should stay or leave? and why do you think so.


Alltaken

I certainly hope that there is no immediate withdrawal.

You're a graphics designer of some kind arn't you? If so, I COMMAND you to make us some cool looking buttons for the forum - preferrably orange.

I simply don't understand why anyone would want us to leave Iraq right now. Only a complete moron would want that. It is disgusting to think that a large portion of our population has put absolutely no thought into this and is willing to pull our troops out immediately. I heard a non-scientific poll on CNN yesterday where something like 97% of respondents wanted our troops pulled out immediately. Even the host was flaberghasted.

If we leave all hell will break loose. You would have Shiites against Sunnis, battling it out for power. The Batheists and Al Queda who have been working together would have no common enemy and would start fighting. You have foreign fighters who would suddenly have nothing to do. Iran and Syria wouldn't have a fear in the world and I'm sure would attempt to infiltrate Iraq and setup either a puppet regime or a Shaw. And worse yet, all of this would happen at the same time. It would set in motion a series of events completely opposite what we have done. Who knows where it would end but we surely wouldn't have any free societies in the region. Concurently with all of this you would have Iran developing nuclear weapons without a fear of any consequences. It would be a disaster.

If the USA can't stomach war we're in for a world of hurt. We currently have 1,500,000 active duty troops and can't stomach losing a few thousand? Why do we spend over $300,000,000,000 on our defense budget if we can't handle a few thousand honorable deaths? These pansies need to grow some backbone. We have a volunteer military and these people should have known that combat was going to happen since we are fighting wars every single decade.

It doesn't matter how we got there anymore. The intelligence was wrong. Get over it! There was a consensus across the globe and across several decades that Saddam was a threat, possessed WMD, and was actively pursueing them. There was intelligence that he was planning to attack US interests both overseas as well as domestically. Weapons inspections weren't working not because there were no weapons, but because Saddam wouldn't cooperate. What were we supposed to do? Do inspections for 6 more months with a defiant Saddam, still find no weapons, and still write it off as if he was hiding them? We would still have gone to war! We're there now and if you look at the progress that has been made it is rather impressive. Elections with over 60% turnout despite all the violence. That's better than most of our countries here. People actually have rights there now. Unfortionatly there's a bunch of lunatics that are killing civilians for shits and giggles. They say that the average insurgancy lasts 9 years. We've got 6 left. Dig in, shut up, and let our military do their job.

OK Who the hell are you? And what have you done with Alltaken?



Personally I would love for all our troops to be home, parents that have lost sons and daughters and are grieving right now are in severe pain for their loss and sacrifice for this country, wives grieving for their husbands, children for their fathers, the constant fear of the knock on the door with the terrible news of another fallen soldier that may be your own son or daughter.

But we cannot pull out right now, the job is not finished!

All the Ifs, Could Haves, and ETC. doesn't matter now! We are in the fire! and we must complete the task at hand, the worst thing we could do is pull out now!

Thats my opinion!

I think there's more to it than that. A lot of it is politics. The Republicans made the Democrats show their cards though by having a vote in the House where it turns out only 3 voted for removing the troops.

Well as you all know i am not a supporter of the US being in Iraq.

but as you said Dhlucke, what is done is done (i am not in any way agreeing with the decision to go into iraq in the first place)

so the only 'logical' thing to do now is to finish the current situation in the best possible light. leaving now without any good exit strategy is equally as stupid as going into iraq in the first place.

the critiscm from the democrate (yes the one democrate pushing it) was vaild crit of the repbublicans, however his sollution to that problem was completely and utterly stupid.

i am glad only 3 people voted to pull people out now, it shows that they were not acting on behalf of all democrates and that the stupidity is in minority.

i think its important that debate about support for going to iraq be seperated from support for getting out of iraq.

you can disaprove of going to iraq in the first place, while still approving of them remaining there untill things are fixed.

sadly more people will probably die as a result, but in the scheme of things less will die by staying there than will die from leaving.

Alltaken

i didn't believe the intelligence was correct back then, all information pointed to there not being any evidence either proving or disproving WoMD, infact the US head of the international nuclear watchdog said saddam had nothing.

and yes i felt they were not a threat.

well that is another debate, because frankly the onl evidence given to the public was 3rd-4th hand through all sorts of scape goats. the vailidity of the evidence was questioned internationally but not really internally.

i didn't agree with the sanctions as i knew there was corruption, medical supplies were not getting to the hospitals, food not getting to the people, this was a long time documented issue far before 9-11.

deaths per year? or total time? (i have no evidence to say more people died under saddam per year than the US)

last year (about this time) it was estimated 100,000 people had died as a result of the invasion (not killed by the US but as a result).

whereas the sanctions lasted decades.

obviously they did work, because they couldn't find anything, and nothing has been found since

yes saddam was being annoying to the inspectors, but this was as a result of him trying to "bluff" by stopping them from seeing things, he was effectivly trying to pretend he had weapons that he didn't. yes he was playing dumb games, and i am not a fan of saddam, but saddam alone was not necisarily justification for the war. if WoMD were not said to be the reason then there would have been no support for going in in the first place(not even from you dhlucke)

not necisarily left alone, but not an invasion. i think iraq was an issue, but not an issue as large as it was made out to be. afganistan i think should have gotten more attention than Iraq. 10x more soldiers were sent to Iraq than were sent to afganistan, where afganistan was the place binladen came from.

bin laden has not been captured, saddam was found rather quickly..... binladden "DOES" pose a threat to the US and all western countries, Saddam however had done nothing and couldn't do anything for a decade to western countries (or their neighboughrs)


given the situation and the fact that Iraq is now unstable, i think it needs to be stabilsed before the US leaves. the original (IMO bad) decision to go in, can only be justified by giving the Iraqis the freedom and stability promised and to make sure it lasts.

Alltaken

nuke the lotta them, then steal the oil.
if any neighbour states complain, nuke them too for good measure.

Even if they were a threat, how could you possibly justify 'preemptive war' and the can of worms it opens?

Starting a war for a perceived threat? Why not just jail all the poor black people since they are, statisticaly, a threat. Or anyone who buys a handgun. I mean, why else would you buy a handgun, if not for killing? Prevent crime before it ever happened! Genuis!

Oh, and lets not forget Germany; they started TWO world wars. That's historical precedent enough to nuke all of europe, methinks.


There is no justification for a possible future attack. Anyone who thinks so has blatant disregard for the equallity of sovereign nations, freedom, human rights and all those other things that americans believe they invented.

Unless of course you believe that Uncle Sam knows best and it's his imperial mandate to fix the world wherever the world is lacking. By all means, this is a valid point of view, but lets stop with the bullshit in that case.

...*mews to the political, vexacious snorkius*...

Depnding on the "perspective" one would have in the star wars movie, the empire was a time of peace.

only the outlaying planets and systems that harboured rebel groups were ever a threat. all those that lived inside the empire were fine.

does one obtain peace through force, or through tolleration?

Alltaken

are you a secret member of the Republic’s Army or something? :?

You posted a very old article. I need something from around the war. Remember there was all that talk from defectors etc that we were being fed, PLUS the inspectors were being kicked in and out of Iraq.

I'm not sure if you realize this [heavy sarcasm] but your article is 5 years before the war.

He's a good guy, but I'm getting dam tired of his bashing my country everytime he's on!!!!!!

Why liberal?

The western imperialistic model was very wide spread and I can see the appeal it might hold for people. One can even argue that it worked well enough.

I don't like it, but not liking it does not make it go away.

Your oustanding in your field..... & that's where your standing, out in the middle of a field in the ocean..... Your nothing on the world stage.... I know you have utopia, but sit on your island & shut the fu[b][/b]ck up!!!! Either that or do something about it besides run you mouth!!!!!!! I'm tired of you bashing my country & want it stopped... You & your 200 friends STFU!!!!!!!!!

wow, i didn't realise you could read that much into my good will.

lots of people in the states are really concerned about jobs going over seas, and i think that the US would benifit heaps from bringing them back into the country...

that is all, and i am totally perplexed as to how you read it differently. more money in the country = more spending oppertunities, i didn't say anything about socialist spending or private spending.

if you have a private health system, and a private education system it doesn't bother me.


Alltaken

*brings out shock paddles*

You ain't going that easy!