USA pulling troops out of Iraq?

[hohto]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6896789.stm

 

 

 

So, once again Bush might veto this and show his rear window to democracy which he always talks about. It's good to see that majority of the politicians (votes went 223-201 for pulling the troops) are seeing that this thing should end. Even tho the current plans would make Iraq a satellite for USA, that's better than the current situation.

 

 

 

Even tho Bush will most likely veto this (just few days ago he was seeing that they still got all the possibilities for a success in Iraq), it's a good sign so many politicians don't agree with it. Most likely the troops will be pulled when they get a new president: Bush has already failed miserably and most likely won't stop his visions because of political pressure as he got nothing to lose. With Iraq's current situation, anti-american feelings all around the globe, case Libby and many other mistakes only a success in Iraq would save Bush in history books. With poker terms he might go for all in with a weak hand and hope for the best. The best case for majority would be folding, but in his situation that would just mean he'd have no chances to win, only chances to avoid the total loss.

 

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6896375.stm Also one rather interesting article about this situation...

[malo2]

I'm against pulling out, in fact, I have no idea what the politicians are thinking when they try to pull the troops out. Have you seen the situation in London? How is pulling out of Iraq going to help other than just moving the war to London or New York?

[das1330]

Same idea as malo. Wars are not popular things, and politicians like to pull support quickly so to not lose votes. It would be a VERY bad idea to leave Iraq right now. At least at this point terrorists are killing ~90% their own people and not Americans, or westereners in general. And where did you get the idea of Iraq becoming a satellite of the United States? That will never happen.

[Kill_Thomas9]

If we pull out now, what will all the lives lost be for?

 

 

 

Look at it this way:

 

 

 

You tear down the empire state building, to remake it bigger and better. You tear it down, and build start building. When you get to the 15'th floor, they decide to pull out of the project, because 7 people died in a crane accident. The building is in worse shape now, and the lives lost will have been for nothing.

 

 

 

It's the same with Iraq. The project is half done, and if we pull out now, Iraq will be in ruins, and all the lives lost will be for nothing. Not to mentioin the terrorists will be there, and will probably attack us again.

 

 

 

And that brings up another point. Why are people so upset whenever someone dies? I mean, sure. A life is a life, but in terms of deaths, this war has had almost no death toll compared to most other wars. I mean, we're in the hundreds of lives lost now, right? In past wars, 10,000 people have died in one day. And this war has been going on for what, 5 and a half years? Thats less than 1/10 the deaths in 2008x the amount of time, or ONE TWENTY THOUSANDTH the amount of deaths. So if death toll is the problem, it is nothing compared to past events.

 

 

 

AND, we would probably loose more lives if we pulled out. They're called TERRORISTS for a reason. They terrorise us. Meaning kill. If we pulled out now, they WOULD attack us, and more than likely other countries too. Other countries without such a high alert level. Imagine all the lives lost in those countries. Aren't they're lives just as valuable as ours?

 

 

 

So incase you havn't gathered this, I am AGAINST pulling out of the war.

[Stilev]

not going into Iraq would have been the best plan, but now that we are here its ganna end being even worse thats the problem.

[destro3979]

i don't know....

 

 

 

i think we should get out

 

 

 

if we stay more lives will be lost....

 

 

 

i understand what your saying about saying....

 

 

 

but no more lives need to be lost....

[superson]

If we pull out now, what will all the lives lost be for?

 

 

 

Look at it this way:

 

 

 

You tear down the empire state building, to remake it bigger and better. You tear it down, and build start building. When you get to the 15'th floor, they decide to pull out of the project, because 7 people died in a crane accident. The building is in worse shape now, and the lives lost will have been for nothing.

 

 

 

It's the same with Iraq. The project is half done, and if we pull out now, Iraq will be in ruins, and all the lives lost will be for nothing. Not to mentioin the terrorists will be there, and will probably attack us again.

 

 

 

And that brings up another point. Why are people so upset whenever someone dies? I mean, sure. A life is a life, but in terms of deaths, this war has had almost no death toll compared to most other wars. I mean, we're in the hundreds of lives lost now, right? In past wars, 10,000 people have died in one day. And this war has been going on for what, 5 and a half years? Thats less than 1/10 the deaths in 2008x the amount of time, or ONE TWENTY THOUSANDTH the amount of deaths. So if death toll is the problem, it is nothing compared to past events.

 

 

 

AND, we would probably loose more lives if we pulled out. They're called TERRORISTS for a reason. They terrorise us. Meaning kill. If we pulled out now, they WOULD attack us, and more than likely other countries too. Other countries without such a high alert level. Imagine all the lives lost in those countries. Aren't they're lives just as valuable as ours?

 

 

 

So incase you havn't gathered this, I am AGAINST pulling out of the war.

 

 

 

First off.. you say only a few hundred lives have been lost... What about all the Iraqi's who've died, BECAUSE WE WEN'T IN.

 

 

 

Second, if we pulled out, where's the proof that terrorism would be horrible?

 

 

 

And last, terrorism is made into such a huge deal, but you are something like 100 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack.

 

Now it might be 80times or something... Not a huge increase.

[indy500fan]

I don't think Bush gets to veto it until it passes through the Senate. Can't remember the "I'm a bill" song right now, but I think it goes 1. House introduces 2. House adds completely irrelevant things to the bill in order to get it passed, thus making some lobbyists and rich people happy, 3. Senate gets it 4. Senate changes it, adding more pork barreling 5. Senate/House subcommittee gets it, adds more pork barreling to it so that both agree 6. President gets it 7. Veto, bill dies and is never heard from again. Unless the President was on the receiving end of some of that pork barreling, then it will get passed.

 

 

 

/So I am a cynic, what's it to you?

[Lenin64]

If we pull out now, what will all the lives lost be for?

 

 

 

Look at it this way:

 

 

 

You tear down the empire state building, to remake it bigger and better. You tear it down, and build start building. When you get to the 15'th floor, they decide to pull out of the project, because 7 people died in a crane accident. The building is in worse shape now, and the lives lost will have been for nothing.

 

 

 

It's the same with Iraq. The project is half done, and if we pull out now, Iraq will be in ruins, and all the lives lost will be for nothing. Not to mentioin the terrorists will be there, and will probably attack us again.

 

 

 

And that brings up another point. Why are people so upset whenever someone dies? I mean, sure. A life is a life, but in terms of deaths, this war has had almost no death toll compared to most other wars. I mean, we're in the hundreds of lives lost now, right? In past wars, 10,000 people have died in one day. And this war has been going on for what, 5 and a half years? Thats less than 1/10 the deaths in 2008x the amount of time, or ONE TWENTY THOUSANDTH the amount of deaths. So if death toll is the problem, it is nothing compared to past events.

 

 

 

AND, we would probably loose more lives if we pulled out. They're called TERRORISTS for a reason. They terrorise us. Meaning kill. If we pulled out now, they WOULD attack us, and more than likely other countries too. Other countries without such a high alert level. Imagine all the lives lost in those countries. Aren't they're lives just as valuable as ours?

 

 

 

So incase you havn't gathered this, I am AGAINST pulling out of the war.

 

Actually, it is the insurgents who were loyal to Saddam Huissein who are killing our soldiers, and there wouldnt be terrorist attacks if we pull out now because the 9/11 terrorists came from Afghanistan, not Iraq. Bush just used Middle eastern terrorism (all from Afghanistan) as an excuse to go into Iraq to finish what his father started. Overall I think we should just make Iraq a territory, like Puerto Rico.

 

 

 

Oh, and Destro: LOVE the avatar

[mad4u689]

This is a complicated question, and contrary to what people might think of my probable opinion, I am not in the "just pull out now" camp.

 

 

 

So right now, the country is on the verge of a civil war. If we pull out the troops entirely now, civil war will erupt entirely. If we keep the troops there, we will maintain some semblance of order, but the underlying tensions won't go away, and civil war will be probable eventually.

 

 

 

So what we need is some major diplomacy. We need to possibly get leaders together from different sides to bring up the question of peacefully creating three states - one Kurd, one Sunni, one Shiite. Or maybe that's not the answer - I don't know enough, really - but some sort of diplomacy is vital. We should keep troops there while we're working on this, to prevent the loss of just more Iraqi lives - however, the troops should be viewed as a temporary peacekeeping effort, NOT a permanent solution, which is how it's currently being treated.

 

 

 

The troops alone will not help Iraq. If anything, it's hurting the situation without good diplomacy as well - it's creating an entire generation of Iraqis that hate America and can't stand to be under its occupation. Unless we have a specific goal, we're being idiots.

 

 

 

So, US government: find some direction, and actually strive for peace, not oil. Yes, it might seem risky to allow 3 democratic governments that might be comprised of some Muslim extremists, but if you give them the freedom now, you're going to avoid a lot of future trouble.

[das]

This is a complicated question, and contrary to what people might think of my probable opinion, I am not in the "just pull out now" camp.

Surprised me

 

 

 

 

So right now, the country is on the verge of a civil war. If we pull out the troops entirely now, civil war will erupt entirely. If we keep the troops there, we will maintain some semblance of order, but the underlying tensions won't go away, and civil war will be probable eventually.

 

Well said, echoes my view so well

 

 

 

Which is why she should pull out in my view, in the south iraq is referred to as Vietnam part 2. Enough Blood has been shed...

[Nanosauromo]

we pull out now because the 9/11 terrorists came from Afghanistan, not Iraq. Bush just used Middle eastern terrorism (all from Afghanistan) as an excuse to go into Iraq to finish what his father started.

 

 

 

That's true, but ironic part is that Afghanistan isn't even in the middle east.

 

 

 

The occupation of Iraq should end as soon as possible. Iraq had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to us prior to Bush going in there. We had NO REASON to go ther and no reason to STAY there.

[mad4u689]

we pull out now because the 9/11 terrorists came from Afghanistan, not Iraq. Bush just used Middle eastern terrorism (all from Afghanistan) as an excuse to go into Iraq to finish what his father started.

 

 

 

That's true, but ironic part is that Afghanistan isn't even in the middle east.

 

 

 

The occupation of Iraq should end as soon as possible. Iraq had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to us prior to Bush going in there. We had NO REASON to go ther and no reason to STAY there.

 

 

 

Except that if we pull out now, civil war erupts, and the people who will come into power may well be terrorists who hate America even more now that we've put their country under occupation, and would likely lead as corrupt a regime as Hussein did, and kill plenty of their enemies (Shiite or Sunni, depending on who comes out on top). Then terrorism is still a problem, and even worse (I hope others agree), a nonstable and likely brutal government would take over. Civil war is about to happen, and you might consider to already be happening. We are in no state to leave that country, for their sake OR for our own.

 

 

 

P.S. das, long time no talk :D

[transcript80]

Even though I was against the war, I think it unwise to pull out the troops. It's the civil war thing you talked about, no need to repeat al that.

 

 

 

Pulling out will not really increase terrorism. What is terrorism? They call themselves freedom fighters. Just because "their" freedom is not the same as "USA freedom" makes them terrorists in the eye of the USA.

 

 

 

Back in WW2, my country was occupied by the germans. Those in the resistance were called terrorists, but our people found they were fighting the oppressors, thus being "freedom fighters"....

 

 

 

But on topic...pull them back gradually. Finish what you start, clean up your mess.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I've decided to look at this situation by comparing it to other conflicts in the past. In other words, other revolutions of political change. When we look at the British Civil War, we see that it actually lasts a lot longer, and was bubbling under the surface long before Oliver Cromwell came along. The Gunpowder Plot would be an example of this. The French, British, even the American revolutions to the Republic form of government all happened over a prolonged period of time - it was only the wars that lasted a few years. But perhaps quintessentially, they all happened without the presence of a foreign occupying force.

 

 

 

There are cases where revolutions have happened in the presence of foreign forces, but in these cases, those forces were just assimilated into the new country's culture, and people forgot they even existed because they were too busy fighting each other.

 

 

 

I then look at the situation in Iraq. We see us saying, "We're gonna bring about a whole U-turn of political change, without a revolution and with our presence there to protect the people of Iraq", then I look at the cases above, and I begin to think all is hopeless. I want to point two facts here:

 

 

 

A) You cannot undergo political change on the scale of this without revolution.

 

B) Revolution oftens entails Civil War, and usually with religion getting involved in support of opposing political and economic ideologies. The Protestant, capitalism-supporting church versus the Catholic, feudalism-driven church in Britain would be an example.

 

 

 

The fact is, Iraq isn't getting better. There are more attacks now than there ever was, and the situation has never been better since April 2003 than it was under Saddam Hussein. In fact, the country's stability has never been in a state of "Improving" since the declaration of war. So, I'm puzzled where people get this idea that our presence there is a good thing...

 

 

 

Iraq has just lost its dictator, and the people are consciencously moving towards a system of democracy. However, they're not ready for it yet. Democracy manifests itself from the will of the people when they feel ready for it - not when the pro-Democracy Western World feels it's better for them. Iraq will makes its own mind up as to when it wants a democracy, but it's clear from all the violence there that it's simply not ready for that yet. Therefore, we need to withdraw from the country, and allow Iraq to undergo its own revolution. We have no right, nor any power, to dictate over their timeline. This will be bloody and will take decades, yes, but it's the best thing for them in the long-term.

 

 

 

I just cannot see any purpose in staying there any longer.

 

 

 

Also, I just really wanna blast someone to pieces here:

 

Except that if we pull out now, civil war erupts, and the people who will come into power may well be terrorists who hate America even more now that we've put their country under occupation, and would likely lead as corrupt a regime as Hussein did, and kill plenty of their enemies (Shiite or Sunni, depending on who comes out on top). Then terrorism is still a problem, and even worse (I hope others agree), a nonstable and likely brutal government would take over. Civil war is about to happen, and you might consider to already be happening. We are in no state to leave that country, for their sake OR for our own.

 

I'll agree. Civil War would be a inevitable. However, what gives you the right to stay inside the country as an occupying force, just because an Islamist extreme group might get into power? Also, what evidence is there to say that terrorism would be worse? If there is such evidence, then I for one would certainly dismiss it straight away, saying it's actually your actions which have alienated many young muslims into terrorism, not the work of al-Queda or other extremist groups.

 

 

 

Secondly, who are you to decide what's best for their sake? I'm strongly of the belief that revolution (and if it Civil War is involved in that, so be it) is the best thing for them. In fact, I wouldn't actually regard that as debatable. So basically, you're not thinking about what's best for them, since most of them want you out. You're actually thinking of exclusively what's best for you. It's this arrogant and selfish attitude many people dislike about Americans who talk making the situation better for Iraqis.

[Guest]

It would be totally unfair on the Iraqi civilians if they pulled out now. If America went this far already then they've got to go all the way. Not doing so would only cause the terrorist to win and cause major civil war in Iraq.

[KnightLite]

If we pull out now, what will all the lives lost be for?

 

 

 

Look at it this way:

 

 

 

You tear down the empire state building, to remake it bigger and better. You tear it down, and build start building. When you get to the 15'th floor, they decide to pull out of the project, because 7 people died in a crane accident. The building is in worse shape now, and the lives lost will have been for nothing.

 

 

 

It's the same with Iraq. The project is half done, and if we pull out now, Iraq will be in ruins, and all the lives lost will be for nothing. Not to mentioin the terrorists will be there, and will probably attack us again.

 

 

 

And that brings up another point. Why are people so upset whenever someone dies? I mean, sure. A life is a life, but in terms of deaths, this war has had almost no death toll compared to most other wars. I mean, we're in the hundreds of lives lost now, right? In past wars, 10,000 people have died in one day. And this war has been going on for what, 5 and a half years? Thats less than 1/10 the deaths in 2008x the amount of time, or ONE TWENTY THOUSANDTH the amount of deaths. So if death toll is the problem, it is nothing compared to past events.

 

 

 

AND, we would probably loose more lives if we pulled out. They're called TERRORISTS for a reason. They terrorise us. Meaning kill. If we pulled out now, they WOULD attack us, and more than likely other countries too. Other countries without such a high alert level. Imagine all the lives lost in those countries. Aren't they're lives just as valuable as ours?

 

 

 

So incase you havn't gathered this, I am AGAINST pulling out of the war.

 

 

 

First off.. you say only a few hundred lives have been lost... What about all the Iraqi's who've died, BECAUSE WE WEN'T IN.

 

 

 

Second, if we pulled out, where's the proof that terrorism would be horrible?

 

 

 

And last, terrorism is made into such a huge deal, but you are something like 100 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack.

 

Now it might be 80times or something... Not a huge increase.

 

 

 

First off - Sadam would have killed his own people anyways, as it has been prooven that he's done in the past

 

 

 

Second, is that a serious [bleep]ing statement? Do you need proof that terrorism is horrible?? 3 numbers pal... 9/11

 

 

 

And last, that is the stupidest comparison about anything I've ever read in all 19 years of my life.

[Guest]

If we pull out now, what will all the lives lost be for?

 

 

 

Look at it this way:

 

 

 

You tear down the empire state building, to remake it bigger and better. You tear it down, and build start building. When you get to the 15'th floor, they decide to pull out of the project, because 7 people died in a crane accident. The building is in worse shape now, and the lives lost will have been for nothing.

 

 

 

It's the same with Iraq. The project is half done, and if we pull out now, Iraq will be in ruins, and all the lives lost will be for nothing. Not to mentioin the terrorists will be there, and will probably attack us again.

 

 

 

And that brings up another point. Why are people so upset whenever someone dies? I mean, sure. A life is a life, but in terms of deaths, this war has had almost no death toll compared to most other wars. I mean, we're in the hundreds of lives lost now, right? In past wars, 10,000 people have died in one day. And this war has been going on for what, 5 and a half years? Thats less than 1/10 the deaths in 2008x the amount of time, or ONE TWENTY THOUSANDTH the amount of deaths. So if death toll is the problem, it is nothing compared to past events.

 

 

 

AND, we would probably loose more lives if we pulled out. They're called TERRORISTS for a reason. They terrorise us. Meaning kill. If we pulled out now, they WOULD attack us, and more than likely other countries too. Other countries without such a high alert level. Imagine all the lives lost in those countries. Aren't they're lives just as valuable as ours?

 

 

 

So incase you havn't gathered this, I am AGAINST pulling out of the war.

 

 

 

First off.. you say only a few hundred lives have been lost... What about all the Iraqi's who've died, BECAUSE WE WEN'T IN.

 

 

 

Second, if we pulled out, where's the proof that terrorism would be horrible?

 

 

 

And last, terrorism is made into such a huge deal, but you are something like 100 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a terrorist attack.

 

Now it might be 80times or something... Not a huge increase.

 

 

 

First off - Sadam would have killed his own people anyways, as it has been prooven that he's done in the past

 

 

 

Second, is that a serious [bleep] statement? Do you need proof that terrorism is horrible?? 3 numbers pal... 9/11

 

 

 

And last, that is the stupidest comparison about anything I've ever read in all 19 years of my life.

 

 

 

Don't worry Knight its just another 7 year old whose come down from the General Boards. We need to learn to ignore stupidity. :wink:

[Ginger_Warrior]

Don't worry Eelspremier, it's not your fault you and KnightLife actually missed the whole point of his post. :wink:

 

 

 

I actually agree with superson. There is no proof Iraq would descend into a cesspool of terrorism if you withdraw your forces. You can't decide your actions based on what might happen in the future. 9/11 was an extreme case of terrorism. The way solve cases such as 9/11 isn't to go about bombing every country with a dodgy leader. It's to use intelligence to foil potential plots. Therefore, you no longer have any justification for staying in Iraq.

 

 

 

It makes me laugh when people use the recent terrorist attempts at Glasgow and London as a case for staying in Iraq, considering the Iraq War clearly didn't stop them, and it was actually foiled thanks to the vigilence of the ambulance service in London - in other words, the vigilence of the public. Not the work of soldiers in Iraq.

[Striker6]

I think that the Americans should pull out and leave. Then just fund the Iraqi government like they used to do to Israel. That way the underlying tensions disappear and the Iraqi's themselves can control the situation. Staying is just making the situation worse.

[Doughnut]

Once we pull the troops out I wonder how long it will take for everyone to say that was a bad decision as well. :roll:

[Ginger_Warrior]

I think that the Americans should pull out and leave. Then just fund the Iraqi government like they used to do to Israel. That way the underlying tensions disappear and the Iraqi's themselves can control the situation. Staying is just making the situation worse.

 

Correct. That way, America can stop things from becoming too extreme, while allowing Iraq to undergo its own revolution and not being directly cuaght in the middle. This is the policy they should have started from the beginning - encouraging a resistance cell inside Saddam's regime.

 

 

 

Once we pull the troops out I wonder how long it will take for everyone to say that was a bad decision as well.

 

Correction - you're presuming everyone will say it's a bad decision. The fact is most of your population wants you out. People who support your view are a dying minority.

[Doughnut]

Either way the media and some bigwig politicians will start to insult George W. Bush about this as well. Either way he is between a rock and a hard place, and most of the population are too lazy to think for themselves.

[Guest]

Don't worry Eelspremier, it's not your fault you and KnightLife actually missed the whole point of his post. :wink:

 

 

 

Oh Sorry Ginger, may I offer up my apologies. There was just too much stupidity mixed up with his point that I totally overlooked what he was trying to say. I still can't believe I made that mistake! :roll:

 

 

 

There is no proof Iraq would descend into a cesspool of terrorism if you withdraw your forces. You can't decide your actions based on what might happen in the future.

 

 

 

I'd say that probably gets the award for "the most idiotic comment of the thread". Well done Ginger! Seriously, do you not think that people of authority would not consider the future in what actions or plans they might chose to take now? Your comment is just so stupid I can't bare to pick more holes in it. How do you even come up with a statement like that!? :lol:

 

 

 

Looks like stupid people think alike. No wonder you were able to understand "the point" Superson was making! :roll:

[mad4u689]

 

A) You cannot undergo political change on the scale of this without revolution.

 

B) Revolution oftens entails Civil War, and usually with religion getting involved in support of opposing political and economic ideologies. The Protestant, capitalism-supporting church versus the Catholic, feudalism-driven church in Britain would be an example.

 

 

 

 

I don't see why diplomacy and peace talks couldn't bring about an agreement for a three-state solution or some such thing.

 

 

 

 

The fact is, Iraq isn't getting better. There are more attacks now than there ever was, and the situation has never been better since April 2003 than it was under Saddam Hussein. In fact, the country's stability has never been in a state of "Improving" since the declaration of war. So, I'm puzzled where people get this idea that our presence there is a good thing...

 

 

 

 

Well, schools and hospitals are improved, except for the fact that innocent students and sick people and doctors are being killed and all... So we've helped built up some infrastructure, but I don't know what we think it's going to do.

 

 

 

 

Iraq has just lost its dictator, and the people are consciencously moving towards a system of democracy. However, they're not ready for it yet. Democracy manifests itself from the will of the people when they feel ready for it - not when the pro-Democracy Western World feels it's better for them. Iraq will makes its own mind up as to when it wants a democracy, but it's clear from all the violence there that it's simply not ready for that yet. Therefore, we need to withdraw from the country, and allow Iraq to undergo its own revolution. We have no right, nor any power, to dictate over their timeline. This will be bloody and will take decades, yes, but it's the best thing for them in the long-term.

 

 

 

 

When a country is undergoing revolution by itself, it's a revolution. When some other country who has already gone through such a revolution is there and can guide you through it, you don't NEED a revolution to get to that point. I think it's a good idea to use history as an example, but you also have to factor in technological change and extreme globalization and how things are DIFFERENT now than in other revolutions.

 

 

I just cannot see any purpose in staying there any longer.

 

 

 

Also, I just really wanna blast someone to pieces here:

 

Except that if we pull out now, civil war erupts, and the people who will come into power may well be terrorists who hate America even more now that we've put their country under occupation, and would likely lead as corrupt a regime as Hussein did, and kill plenty of their enemies (Shiite or Sunni, depending on who comes out on top). Then terrorism is still a problem, and even worse (I hope others agree), a nonstable and likely brutal government would take over. Civil war is about to happen, and you might consider to already be happening. We are in no state to leave that country, for their sake OR for our own.

 

 

 

I'll agree. Civil War would be a inevitable. However, what gives you the right to stay inside the country as an occupying force, just because an Islamist extreme group might get into power? Also, what evidence is there to say that terrorism would be worse? If there is such evidence, then I for one would certainly dismiss it straight away, saying it's actually your actions which have alienated many young muslims into terrorism, not the work of al-Queda or other extremist groups.

 

 

 

 

Yes, American actions have alienated many young Muslims into terrorism. This is largely because most American citizens and soldiers and probably the President are completely culturally insensitive and ignorant. However, that being said, we already have done a lot of damage in terms of alienating many young Muslims into terrorism. There are people there who are angry and have a lot of weapons and are powerful, and we've made them that way, by acting like [wagon] and thus giving them followers. But we're already entrenched in this situation, and to leave now would make these people in power in a position to take more.

 

 

 

Plus, the main reason is for the Iraqi people, themselves. I'll continue after your next quote.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, who are you to decide what's best for their sake? I'm strongly of the belief that revolution (and if it Civil War is involved in that, so be it) is the best thing for them. In fact, I wouldn't actually regard that as debatable. So basically, you're not thinking about what's best for them, since most of them want you out. You're actually thinking of exclusively what's best for you. It's this arrogant and selfish attitude many people dislike about Americans who talk making the situation better for Iraqis.

 

 

 

I am against war in general. I doubt many Iraqi citizens want all out civil war. Rather, they would like to have peace and stability, and the ability to worship how they like, and live in communities where they feel comfortable - Shiite not at the hands of the Sunni, Sunni not at the hands of the Shiite. Or Kurds.

 

 

 

First of all, the first obligation of the American government IS to its own people and their safety. However, the American government also has an extreme obligation to Iraq itself, because it already came in and took away its existing government and is declaring "success!! democracy!!" about a fledgling American puppet government kind of deal that can't last. So while America can't fix things, it can help things along the right track.

 

 

 

If all out civil war can be avoided, then I very well think it should be. And I feel like it could, and the troops need to stay a little longer to help guide the process and peace talks. Of course, that's not what's going to happen, and the troops will stay there with no definite plan, and things will get worse and worse until it's too late, because our government is full of fools, but oh, well.