BobbyGT

I don't think we can leave until the Iraqi government is strong enough to stand up and defend itself. The have a weak army. The country is unstable even with a US presence, what do U think will happen without one. We both know as soon as we leave, that another country will try and come in a take over. Which will more than likely spread to the surrounding countries, which will bring us back over there anyway.

The country has no infrastructure. None. 2 -4 years is more than likely unrealistic. I know this. But like said before, the deed is allready done. We R more than likely never to leave Iraq totally. Who controls the money (the oil) controls that country, and we want to pull the strings on whoever is in charge. I know it sucks, but I don't see any other way. I believe leaving will make things alot worse.

RedScott

You mean like the US did?

bry623

Expound on this please.

__________________
When you fear Sarah, you attack her and try destroy her

RedScott

Okay, I'll try.

When we invaded Iraq, their army was weak (including a virtually non-existing Navy and Air Force) so we went in and took over. Now we view this as a bad thing? That's a reason not to leave, because someone else might do what we already did? Well okay.

And further more...

Much like many of the so-called "conservatives" want to spread the war into Iran, a "surrounding country".

BobbyGT

It sounds like U were not in favor of the invasion in the 1st place. Well, niether was I. I thought we needed to finish off Afganistan 1st. It doesn't matter if U agreed or diagreed with the invasion, we have already invaded. U can think Pres Bush is the worst person alive, and it still doesn't matter. The deed is done. Has Pres Bush messed up alot, YES. Has Pres Bush had some success, YES.

Iraq was a messed up country long before the US invaded. Saddam was killing people left and right.

So, U propose we just pack up and leave so another country (like the US I don't know what U meant by that) can invade and take over the country?

How hard would it be for someone else who hates the US, to come in and take over, stir up US resentment that is already present, and attack the US. Whomever that is would certainly have the reaources (oil) to do it.

We have to stay there until the Iraqi government build themselves back up.

It true some lawmakers want to attack Iran, but that is because Iran is helping the insurgents in Iraq.

Do U really think, if given the chance, someone wouldn't us Iraq as a launching point for attacks on the US?

RedScott

Iraq was screwed up long before Saddam. Iraq isn't even a real country, it's a made up country invented by arrogant Westerners (mostly in Britain) who assumed the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds were too weak and stupid to determine for themselves what type of government they should have. There's a LOOOOONG history of outsiders determine for them how they ought to run their "country". And what is the result of all these enlightened Westerners telling the Iraqi people how to run their country? The current quagmire in Iraq. And what will be the future result of the United States dictating what the Iraqis ought to due with their land, oil, and government? More quagmires in the future.

Iraq has had enough of our "help". We've bombed half their country with depleted uranium and poisoned their air and water for most likely generations to come. In 1991 the United States encouraged the shiites to rise against Saddam and told them we would back them up, yet we were no where to be found. 10,000 shiites died then. Not to mention Saddam himself came to power as a CIA plant, whose "killing people left and right" STARTED when the CIA was feeding him names of leftist intellectuals and communists to eliminate. Which is to say nothing of the sanctions and bombings throughout the 90's that killed thousands of Iraqis and strengthened Saddam's power there. So yeah, I think Iraq has had enough help from the Americans.

Not to mention the price that our own vets pay, what with about 6000 vets who commit suicide every year, the untold number of them who suffer from PTSS and who the government can't afford to treat (since we're too busy making more and more mentally sick vets with our countless forays into spreading democracy) or flat out refuse to treat because the poor kid who watched some 12 year old girl get a hole shot in her head didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

Oh, and we're broke, btw, actually. Anyone notice the dollar is worth a third today against foreign currencies as it was when the Iraq war started? Oh, and what a coincidence that gas costs about 3 times as much! Meanwhile our economy is shot and the Fed's plan to "fix" it? You bet! Print more dollars! That ought to help the value of the buck.

So um, yeah. Chew on that.

Nik00117

I don't remember gas being a dollar a gallon in 2003, it was very close to 2...

We leave Iraq and we get known for what we aregood for, move in **** em up and leave em.

RedScott

In '03 crude oil was about 33 DOLLARS a barrel, now it's hovering right about 100 DOLLARS a barrel.

And if we stay we'll get know for what we are have been known for for quite some time now. Arrogant imperialists who think they have the *right* to dictate to other countries how they should be run.

Mind you though that most people who aren't Americans realize that the history or Iraq didn't start when we invaded them. They're not likely to judge our action on what we did after this point, but before it.

EnglishPaul

By 'before it', do you mean the disregard of the rules and wishes of the UN that went on prior to the war, or were you thinking of something more long term?

Britain were certainly partners in crime in all that preceded the war as well as the war its self. But we won't stay there forever. There is only so much we can do. For many our presence is the problem, and when these people and the damage they inflict outweigh the good done with the people who view our presence as helpful, it is time to leave. Not a sudden running away, but handing over to Iraq their own running when all the training and support is done.
Iraq will never be neat and tidy while it is occupied. We will never 'succeed'. Internal battles have to be fought and won by indigenous people; and that means at some point we have to step back and let it happen.
The UN can do a lot to help, but perhaps they need to be invited by Iraq in the aftermath, so that they are not seen as the enemy to.
Sadly the longer America and friends stay there, the longer that the world sees it as an occupation and imperialism. And it will breed resentment and distrust. For democracy to look and smell like democracy the country needs to be unoccupied, so if that is our end objective then at some point we must hand over.
And there will be no celebration marches through London and New York. But in time, history may look back with kindness.

March in to Iran as an act of preservation, and just wait for the day when China or some other country marches on America; because America will be seen as the lion out of its cage, and too much of a risk to just leave to its own devises.

RedScott

Much more long term, actually.

Chode

Nik, most of what you say about the U.S. presence in Iraq just boils down to "just give me one more chance". Here's a simple truth: God didn't appoint America to rule the world and solve everyone's problems. I'm sure there are those on the far right that might disagree, but I'm sure there are billions more that share my view.

Here's another simple truth that a lot of folks find unpalatable: the U.S. force structure can't support a continued, massive presence in Iraq without seriously undermining the entire infrastructure of the U.S.'s ground forces. We aren't repairing and replacing assets like vehicles at nearly the pace they are being attrited. Instead, domestic National Guard units continue to see their equipment used to cover the shortfall.

The Bush Administration deals with this cluster of issues largely by denying that a problem exists. Wubbya just sent a budget to Congress that (once again) includes a massive deficit. It increases defense spending, and cuts Medicare and Medicaid, decreases children's healthcare coverage, cuts programs to train doctors in pediatric specialties, cuts grants for career and technical training, after school tutoring programs and many other domestic programs. But, by Golly, it preserves the President's tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. And it includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. $70 billion, to be exact. If sayin' it makes it so, things on the war front are really looking up, I guess.

I'm sorry, but any perception that large scale U.S. involvement in Iraq is paying big dividends is just delusional. The costs of this fantasy are real and measurable. All my life, I've heard statements from the far right about how the Commies had to be defeated in Korea, or they'd take over the world. If Vietnam fell, all of Southeast Asia would fall. It was all garbage then, and continuing the war in Iraq now is garbage.

__________________
Sweet!

Nik00117

I'm sorry but who broke Iraq? Who invaded?

I believe it was America

They broke it, they fix it.

RedScott

That's like saying if you break into your neighbor's house and break all their furniture and walls, you have to fix it. Though, not to it's original state, or even to the the design that your neighbor wants, but to the design that YOU want.

It's also like saying the German's should have been the ones to administer the rebuilding of France after WWII. What nonsense is this? Seriously?

It makes no sense in the real World, only to the hubris vision of western arrogance which firmly believes it is chosen to "fix" the World, and astonishingly that their leaders are the ones that are trust worthy enough to do it at the point of a gun. Even though it is the same leaders that have proven time and time again to be wrong and even outright lie about the goings on of the World 6000 miles away.

Nik00117

Ok, since so many poeple think withdrawing is a good thing what happens after we withdraw? Iraq suddenly becomes so much better?

Explain, i'm curious.

bry623

The terrorists will say "praise allah, we have defeated the infidel Bush!" and then the will gather in numbers around this "victory" and then come here and kill more innocent people.

__________________
When you fear Sarah, you attack her and try destroy her

RedScott

No one can say what will happen and anyone who claims to know should be looked upon with much skepticism. The point is though, whatever does happen will be decided on and dependent on the Iraqis, not the Americans.

EnglishPaul

Because of cause at the moment they are saying: "Damn, Allah is no match for American might. We must give up our god, and build a new temple in our lands, and call it 'Disneyland'."

Chode

IF the U.S. withdrew from Iraq right now, what would happen? Either the Iraqi's would decide to create a nation for themselves and make it work, or break up into multiple smaller states.

Just exactly what would "The Terrorists" gain if we left Iraq today that they don't already have? Safe havens? Well, since Islamic Extremism hasn't been stamped out, don't we have to assume that these havens (and funding and other support) already exist? Isn't that demonstrated daily?

Oh, I've got it! Terrorists would gain access to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction! With those stockpiles of nerve gas and Nigerian yellowcake, who knows what they could do. Don't forget the bio-weapons.

Still, if they had state sponsorship, terrorists would have unprecedented resources at their disposal! But then, Bush already says that Iran supports International Terrorism, and that the Revolutionary Guard is in itself a terrorist organization, so maybe Terrorists already have that "state supported" thing covered.

Face it, Neocons; just like Vietnam, we're beating a dead horse in Iraq. We are squandering resources and manpower that could be better used to defend American security in other ways.

__________________
Sweet!