USA pulling troops out of Iraq?

[Tetsuya]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19760628/

 

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åany time they want,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[BlueLancer]

 

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.

 

 

 

Interesting, because all of the plane hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, including the supposed planner bin Laden (who himself applauded the attacks but said he didn't directly plan it himself), and "terrorists" are local militia armed with mostly poor weapons and homemade rockets.

 

 

 

But I'm sure if your country gets invaded tomorrow, you'll just obediently sit inside your house and let them take your stuff. (Wouldn't be a surprise for a western society really) And don't be surprised if the other country's media calls you a "terrorist" if you dare fight back against the occupiers.

[KnightLite]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19760628/

 

BAGHDAD - Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åany time they want,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Tetsuya]

 

 

 

Oh yes, lets get a time table so the terrorists know exactly when they will be able to take over again. Lets just let the leaders of all terrorist groups know exactly when we plan to leave the country so they can have a run at taking it over again...

 

 

 

Ok, fine. Lets not have any organized plan on when to leave Iraq. Lets just stay there forever. Lets just keep pouring billions of dollars trying to babysit the country. Because if we ever make a plan to leave, the evil terrorists will take over!

[djo0]

 

Actually, it is the insurgents who were loyal to Saddam Huissein who are our soldiers, and there wouldnt be ist attacks if we pull out now because the 9/11 ists came from Afghanistan, not Iraq.

 

 

 

Interesting, because all of the plane hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, including the supposed planner bin Laden (who himself applauded the attacks but said he didn't directly plan it himself), and % ists" are local armed with mostly poor weapons and homemade rockets.

 

 

 

But I'm sure if your country gets invaded tomorrow, you'll just obediently sit inside your house and let them take your stuff. (Wouldn't be a surprise for a western society really) And don't be surprised if the other country's media calls you a % ist" if you dare fight back against the occupiers.

 

Comparing the troops in Iraq to ists is wrong. The ists in Iraq are destroying not only US troops but thousands of their own people. They are the ists, not the US soldiers. Its not like we are going to stay in Iraq forever, so you can't exactly call us the enemy. I personaly am against the Iraq war, but I at least respect out troops and the work they try to do in there.

[Zonorhc]

Sheesh, don't pull out now.

 

 

 

I was already preparing my Freedom Popcorn so I could watch a good old-fashioned proxy war.

[Satenza]

 

Once again, does the President not have the right to represent his potical base and his own morality? You may disagree with his stance on the issues, but does that make him a moron, or to your original point, a dictator?

 

 

 

He is president, not a voter. If you were to vote on your morality then thats fine, but as president you should do whats best for the general public and act on the general will. Vetoing because it stands the wrong side of his personal morality doesn't represent anyone, not even christians because his personal morality differs from other christians. That and you should really respect the seperation of church and state, and since his morality is derived from the Bible it does not. In every decision he makes he shouldn't ask himself whether it's immoral to him he should ask whether the population of the USA think it's unethical. Christianity isn't the only religion in the USA and i reckon that if you had a Muslim president who chose to make decisions based on this morality then I doubt you'd be too happy.

[mad4u689]

 

Comparing the troops in Iraq to ists is wrong. The ists in Iraq are destroying not only US troops but thousands of their own people. They are the ists, not the US soldiers. Its not like we are going to stay in Iraq forever, so you can't exactly call us the enemy. I personaly am against the Iraq war, but I at least respect out troops and the work they try to do in there.

 

 

 

After reading this post, I remembered one more thing I'd like to add, an addendum to my not-pulling-out-the-troops: if we stay in Iraq, we also need to make a HUGE commitment to not killing civilians "accidentally" like we currently keep doing. Civilian casualties are not an "oops." Civilian casualties are something to be actively avoided.

[KnightLite]

 

 

 

Oh yes, lets get a time table so the terrorists know exactly when they will be able to take over again. Lets just let the leaders of all terrorist groups know exactly when we plan to leave the country so they can have a run at taking it over again...

 

 

 

Ok, fine. Lets not have any organized plan on when to leave Iraq. Lets just stay there forever. Lets just keep pouring billions of dollars trying to babysit the country. Because if we ever make a plan to leave, the evil terrorists will take over!

 

 

 

Do you honestly think you know everything about it that the government does? Of course they have a plan

[hohto]

Oh yes, lets get a time table so the terrorists know exactly when they will be able to take over again. Lets just let the leaders of all terrorist groups know exactly when we plan to leave the country so they can have a run at taking it over again...

 

 

 

Open your eyes. These "terrorists" aren't randomly aiming their attacks on USA or its allies. They are doing it for same reasons why Chechenyan "terrorists" are attacking against Russia. With your current acts in Iraq, Iran and other muslim countries you aren't reducing the risks of getting attacked again, you are just throwing more gas to the flames. Every time you kill or cause the death/suffering of one person there, you multiply the odds to get new "terrorists". To stop the anti-American feelings you don't airstrike the nearest countries with oil that don't want to dance with your tune and.

 

 

 

Second, if you had read the post properly, you should have understood that pulling out the soldiers doesn't equal to totally leaving the area. The current plans are to make military bases there and train an army. In the other words turn Iraq into your satellite country just like the Soviet Union did for many countries, including Czechoslovakia(sp?).

 

 

 

I personally don't know should I laugh or cry when I read here about how those "barbarians" are attacking against US soldiers, blowing up themselves and so on. I'd personally defend my country too if some other nation attacked us. No matter was the reason for it terrorism, reindeer blood or what. You also seem to forget while praising your soldiers who are willing to die for their countries that those suicide bombers are also willing to die for what they believe right.

 

 

 

I'd also like to ask you what are these "terrorist groups" and what is "terrorism" in your eyes. I've been wondering for ages what it really is. If you take closer view to the acts of USA, the only real difference between them and "terrorists" are that they have managed to mask it for something acceptable, they can control the media better and they have more money with better technology and more soldiers.

 

 

 

I was already preparing my Freedom Popcorn so I could watch a good old-fashioned proxy war.

 

 

 

For that you'd need someone else to get their satellites to fight. With the current situation best chances (or least worse) for that would be North Korea (China) vs South Korea (USA) but I wouldn't personally bet a single euro on it.

[jackattack]

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.

 

 

 

yep

 

 

 

 

 

and the guy above me :-k no. :shame:

[Tetsuya]

 

 

 

Oh yes, lets get a time table so the terrorists know exactly when they will be able to take over again. Lets just let the leaders of all terrorist groups know exactly when we plan to leave the country so they can have a run at taking it over again...

 

 

 

Ok, fine. Lets not have any organized plan on when to leave Iraq. Lets just stay there forever. Lets just keep pouring billions of dollars trying to babysit the country. Because if we ever make a plan to leave, the evil terrorists will take over!

 

 

 

Do you honestly think you know everything about it that the government does? Of course they have a plan

 

 

 

Coulda fooled me by how they've handled everything.

 

 

 

Anyways, they're going to attack whether we have a time table or not. Only with a time table we'll have a more organized way to finish things up. I don't understand how having one is so unreasonable.

[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.

 

 

 

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... more people would have died, IF WE HADN'T GONE IN.

 

 

 

Second, 9/11

 

 

 

And last, there were an estimated 6,289,000 car crashes in 1999. So if what you're saying is true, then there will now be 60,000 people involved in terrorist attacks per year? Lets pull our troops out tomorrow!

[Satenza]

Jesus [bleep]ing christ.

 

 

 

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

 

 

 

and why the hell would more people have died if Iraq wasn't invaded, what the hell?

 

 

 

Heres a little figures for you. Saddam came to power in something like 1979, in that time an estimated 100,000 people were killed because of him. Thats civilians. Since March 2003 an estimated 70,000 civilians have died due to the war.

 

 

 

So basically your argument for going into Iraq "there would have maybe, probably been more terrorism if we hadn't gone into Iraq" and I am sure no (sane)country would go to war on something as hypothetical and ridiculous as that. However, attacks in Madrid and London were directly influenced by the coalition forces actions in the middle east including the war in Iraq, so really i don't know what the [bleep] you're talking about.

[Zonorhc]

Second, 9/11

 

 

 

Hilarious!

 

 

 

I swear, that date has got to be this decade's "remember!" date. Back in World War 2, it was "remember Pearl Harbour!" In World War 1, it was Archduke Ferdinand, along with the Franco-Prussian War.

 

 

 

It's not just America that does this. Almost everyone has some fallback atrocity/humiliation date they can rely on to rally the home front.

 

 

 

Just remember, every time we screw up in the Middle East, we can always blame it on 9/11!

[Ash6110]

Dont get your hopes up

 

:lol:

[Lenticular_J]

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:

 

I don't get why everyone is screaming about Iraq. We're helping, and, technically, at a price of very few lives. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands without mercy, and without us, the entire country would fall apart. I myself believe that the middle east is destined to be like that until the end of time, but at least we can postpone some deaths. While some mistakes were made, nobody looks at the good protions-WE ENDED A GENOCIDE. There are places that could have used it more, such as Canbodia in the 80's, but at least we can do something while we still can. Believe it or not, if we became pushovers, the U.S. would be wiped from the map incredibly fast. War is often necessary to stay alive in this day and age, as horrible a fact as it may be (And I know from personal experience how horrible). There are still massive amounts of terrorism in the world, as well as genocide, but the U.S. can only do so much on its own. If the UN seriously got to work, we could a tleast get rid of some bad people. Hmm...I hate politics, sooo much. So I now wash my hands of this thread, thank you, and goodbye.

[Lenticular_J]

Second, 9/11

 

 

 

Hilarious!

 

 

 

I swear, that date has got to be this decade's "remember!" date. Back in World War 2, it was "remember Pearl Harbour!" In World War 1, it was Archduke Ferdinand, along with the Franco-Prussian War.

 

 

 

It's not just America that does this. Almost everyone has some fallback atrocity/humiliation date they can rely on to rally the home front.

 

 

 

Just remember, every time we screw up in the Middle East, we can always blame it on 9/11!

 

Sorry for the double post, but...

 

Remember the Alamo :wink:

[hohto]

I don't get why everyone is screaming about Iraq. We're helping, and, technically, at a price of very few lives. Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands without mercy, and without us, the entire country would fall apart.

 

 

 

When his real crimes happened, you Americans were still supporting him. When he attacked your another ally, you got enough of him and basically drove the country into horrible situation. I've already posted a link to a source to the peace treaty with Iraq which drove it into catastrophy.

 

 

 

And for the war against Hussein... In Azores 2003 Bush declared that no matter will Saddam leave Iraq or not, they are going there. If the war was against weapons of mass destruction, first of all evidences of them even existing were what they were and most importantly: many high ranked US officers and professionals on this case said it could lead into a huge spreading of wmd's and make USA even more likely to be their target.

 

 

 

I myself believe that the middle east is destined to be like that until the end of time, but at least we can postpone some deaths. While some mistakes were made, nobody looks at the good protions-WE ENDED A GENOCIDE.

 

 

 

Which genocide was going on when you attacked Iraq? None. The genocide Hussein was guilty happened when you supported him and you kept your support to him even after it.

 

 

 

The middle east has been the top place for science many centuries ago back in the days when European doctors still blamed demons for diseases. Most of their wars on 20th and 21st century have been caused by either directly or indirectly by western countries or by Israel which can be seen as west's dog at that area.

 

 

 

There are places that could have used it more, such as Canbodia in the 80's, but at least we can do something while we still can. Believe it or not, if we became pushovers, the U.S. would be wiped from the map incredibly fast.

 

 

 

Wiped by who? Everyone who had the ability to wipe USA away from the world map knows exactly that it would also wipe themselves off. Second, for many countries it is safetier and economically better to silently accept these crimes. Russia is a good example of it: after the collapse of USSR they were weak but gaining more power slowly. Now when they are stronger, they can also be clearly against the plans of USA.

 

 

 

War is often necessary to stay alive in this day and age, as horrible a fact as it may be (And I know from personal experience how horrible). There are still massive amounts of terrorism in the world, as well as genocide, but the U.S. can only do so much on its own. If the UN seriously got to work, we could a tleast get rid of some bad people. Hmm...I hate politics, sooo much. So I now wash my hands of this thread, thank you, and goodbye.

 

 

 

Who are these bad persons and terrorists? In my eyes certain Americans could easily be put on the list of war criminals and terrorists. The only difference between them and these "real terrorists" is that they got power in right place, more money, more troops and more advanced technology.

[fenrir321]

A few people say that if we pull out now, all the lives that we have lost will be for nothing. What would we gain from this war? Second, this isn't a war it more like a Katrina accident that we're helping out, just under heavy fire.

 

If we fight this war and get nothing out of it, even if we do win, that will be sacrificing live for nothing. War is a gamble and a game at the same time:

 

 

 

Rules( mean guidelines) for war:

 

1. Hit the guy so hard that he can't retaliate back.

 

2. Human lives are only a monetary term for other human lives, no amount of land or money can replace human lives, only a trade off of soldiers vs civilians.

 

3. Don't condemn people to death during a campaign, it's the same thing as murder.

 

4. Don't manipulate someone's loyalty to country for a personal gain.

 

5. Running away does not mean that you are afraid, it means that you are losing and need to get out there before unnecessary risks/sacrifices are made.

 

 

 

That's all I got to say about this.

[hohto]

Think this suits here pretty well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6909331.stm

 

 

 

So, now Bush has finally banned torturing of people who are suspected to be terrorists. In the other words, torturing was allowed earlier, denied they it or not. The scary part here is that according to their moral, it's ok to kidnap anyone from anywhere aslong as they are suspected to be terrorists. We've seen this already and I provided some sources to one case like this here in tip.it.

 

 

 

USA been using the word "democracy" as one of the official reasons for war, other one which could be named is "human rights". How democratic is it when you can randomly kidnap anyone without any solid proof? How democractic is it to punish him even when there's no real evidence of him being anything? Is it accepted by human rights to torture people who might have done something?

[Kill_Thomas9]

War is often necessary to stay alive in this day and age, as horrible a fact as it may be (And I know from personal experience how horrible). There are still massive amounts of terrorism in the world, as well as genocide, but the U.S. can only do so much on its own. If the UN seriously got to work, we could a tleast get rid of some bad people. Hmm...I hate politics, sooo much. So I now wash my hands of this thread, thank you, and goodbye.

 

 

 

Who are these bad persons and terrorists? In my eyes certain Americans could easily be put on the list of war criminals and terrorists. The only difference between them and these "real terrorists" is that they got power in right place, more money, more troops and more advanced technology.

 

 

 

And the fact that we dont go there with the intention of midlessly killing everybody, and flying planes into building. Oh wait... thats all terrorists do...

[hohto]

And the fact that we dont go there with the intention of midlessly killing everybody, and flying planes into building. Oh wait... thats all terrorists do...

 

 

 

No, you got a lot more advanced ways to kill the people you don't like.