Everyone can see the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. More attacks on Americans, kidnappings, insurgents taking cities, constant indecisive fire-fights. Whats going on? We've lost the Shiite support base. Moktada Al Sadr isn't alone. His militia may have originated the fighting, but there are other militias too, and the more Iraqis we kill, the more hate us.
What are we in Iraq for? They don't want us there anymore. Why do our troops need to die for the "freedom" of a people who don't want us there? Is it "a test of will" as Rumsfeld said? A test of our will, to see how many Americans have to die before we've had enough?
I thinks it's enough already. It's time to pull out of Iraq.

this is the true issue: americans are being killed, and we can't do a damn thing.

we can't send in more troops without setting up a draft. the UN sure isn't happy with us, and neither is iraq (or turkey for that matter). And we can't pull out. We stated the damn thing, and we can't leave it alone now. "the scab you keep picking at" isn't the right analogy. "the infection from the scab you kept picking at" is a much better one.

I agree wholeheartedly that we should pull out of iraq because people are dying. they arent's just statistics, or John/Jane Does from anytown, USA. They're real people and Bush sentenced them to death.

but because we invaded, and "overthrew Iraq's evil dictatorship," we CANNOT leave them alone. i know my reputation as a liberal is at the stake here, but things have to be taken into consideration; we saw what happened when we set up a puppet government after an invasion, and then left them alone. the holes are still there in New York. We will have to occupy iraq for a very long time before we let them off the leash. i want to make it very clear that I WAS AGAINST THE IRAQI WAR FROM THE START, but unless we'd like another terrorist attack on our hands (along with the blood of innocent civillians) we need to follow the ancient doctrines of trust. and even after that we aren't 100% sure that there won't be more issues.

it seemed like there was a light at the end of the tunnel about a year ago, but now... i'm not so sure we're coming out of this one without over 5000 dead.

If that's true...then how does the Arab world have governments?

and Strangelove...how does the amount of money spent on a war or it's tactical clarity determine if it is justified or a "waste?"

Comrade: Factions may power movements, but they can only become truly powerful if they somehow centralize into major political organizations. The factions in Iraq however have not done that. They're highly decentralized, often working at just a local level, ruling by force and intimidation. While that can cause chaos in the short term, in the long term unless they unite (not something which is that common in Iraq, or the Arab world for that matter) then they don’t really amount to anything other than thugs.

word

Thank you Comrade Smurf.

The Kurds? The Kurds?! The Kurds have always wanted independence! Besides if we gave them independence in the form of a state, it would cause untold havoc. The Turks oppose a Kurdish state on principal, and I'm sure the rest of the Arab Iraqis wouldn't be too happy about the Kurds getting the oil fields in the north.

Strangelove, as you hopefully know, those 100,000 troops in Germany are not an occupying force. They are there because the German goverment allows them.

quote:

---

Only after we pulled our support from the region after our first involvment. Granted, we pushed the Soviets out of the country, but then we left it with no direction and it decended into choas. This in turn provided a breeding ground of our enemies, giving them a solid base to develop and train unchecked. This time, after a second war, we're staying.

---

It was the Mujahadin who, with U.S. support eventually pushed the Soviets out. Not American troops. And I said we are still in Afghanistan. What point are you trying to make?

Maybe we should have removed Saddam after the Gulf War I, but that wasn't the objective thats why we didn't stay in Iraq!

Public support for Vietnam was caused by NVA inflicted casualties, hence the NVA forced us out of Vietnam. Vietnam was a mess, so don't try the "we won every battle" line on me.

Uhhhhh....knock, knock, factions usually power EVERY movement.

It's a very tough decision, to stay or leave, made so complicated by our incredibly misconieved original entrance. Because of our ****ing everything up, Iraq will most likely collapse into absolutey chaos and a regime as bad as or worse than Saddam Hussein's regime will arise, no matter what anyone does.

Maxno: No, "they" do not want us to leave. In reality, it's only some factions of the population that really wants us to leave. Most Iraqis are happy the US got rid of Saddam (if the Statue over turnings awhile back were any indication), but since there's no real state anymore all the political and religious extremists who were either kept in check and/or repressed by Saddam are now all violently trying to get their agenda passed (which is something we should expect anyway from a country with a history of brutal Authoritarian rule). Plus we have various groups who want independence (ex: The Kurds). I think it would be a short sided to pull out now, that would only ensure Iraq falling to fanatics like Muqtada al-Sadr.

[This message was edited by JusticeConservativism on April 15, 2004 at 10:35 AM.]

quote:

---

Ahhh... my opponents arguing amongst themselves...

---

Welcome to YouthNOISE.

quote:

---

Anyway, Strangelove, after WWI Germany became sucessful eventually, albiet Nazi and I'm not sure we we're ever occupying it...

---

That's the point, we had no control over what happened in Germany. The country was "successful" because of rampant fascism and military buildup. The second time around, we invaded and OCCUPIED for as long as was needed (in fact, as you hopefully know, we've still got something like 100,000 troops there I beleive).

quote:

---

We are still in Afghanistan.

---

Only after we pulled our support from the region after our first involvment. Granted, we pushed the Soviets out of the country, but then we left it with no direction and it decended into choas. This in turn provided a breeding ground of our enemies, giving them a solid base to develop and train unchecked. This time, after a second war, we're staying.

quote:

---

After Gulf War 1 we had accomplished pushing Saddam out of Kuwait. That was the objective. We didn't remove any rulers.

---

But as we later saw, we should have.

quote:

---

And finally, we were forced out of Vietnam by the NVA, we didn't pack up and leave one day because Nixon felt like it,

---

No, we were not pushed out of the country by the NVA. Nixon more or less called off the war because of lack of public support. We vitrually every battle in Veitnam. After the Tet Offensive, the Veit Kong were decimated.

U.S. combat casualties: 58,000
North veitnamese casualties: 2.5 million

We could have won that war.
instead we fought half-heartedly and pulled out, wasting 58,000 lives and billions of dollars.

Ahhh... my opponents arguing amongst themselves...

Anyway, Strangelove, after WWI Germany became sucessful eventually, albiet Nazi and I'm not sure we we're ever occupying it... We are still in Afghanistan. After Gulf War 1 we had accomplished pushing Saddam out of Kuwait. That was the objective. We didn't remove any rulers. And finally, we were forced out of Vietnam by the NVA, we didn't pack up and leave one day because Nixon felt like it, and what is so bad in Vietnam, communism? It's the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia that you should mention.

Paintbucket, I really am having a hard time believing you're serious, but yes, slaughtering the Arabs in droves did work for the British, for a while until the Mahdi's (that name sound familiar?) finally ousted them.

Luvabug, I know this is a bit of a cheap shot, but who is responsible for the removal of that ruler... AH! The U.S.! And also who would attack them? They would turn on themselves before that could happen probably, and after that an attack on them would be nearly moot.

quote:

---

You're such a smart person.

---

Yes I am. They need to stop, or...

quote:

---

Their *** is grass and we're a lawnmower!

---

Thank you "Good Morinng Vietnam".

Yea, you win. It will teach them to back off, because there won't be any Iraqis left to fight us. So there you go, kill them all, and this whole problem is solved. You're such a smart person.

quote:

---

Then you wouldn't be so eager to blow things up.

---

You must not know me very well. Look at my profile. That will tell you how much of a terrorist I am.

If we can't do nothing about them killing us, hy did we start the war? We need to carpet-bomb their ***** about 5 times a day. That WILL teach them to back off, the stupid mother****ers.

quote:

---

Only about 400 9th graders in this country know more about history/geography/social studies than I do. I read my history book.

---

Then you wouldn't be so eager to blow things up.

quote:

---

Besides nukes, how's about some more agent orange? That will surely teach them a lesson. Don't mess with the U.S.A.!

---

Man-o-man...

Only about 400 9th graders in this country know more about history/geography/social studies than I do. I read my history book. I also read that our troops are getting killed while we do not a mother****ing thing to protect them. Besides nukes, how's about some more agent orange? That will surely teach them a lesson. Don't mess with the U.S.A.!

quote:

---

Let's nuke the mother****ers!

---

Did you NOT ever take a history class? Just in case you haven't, blowing up nukes causes quite a few problems. Birth defects, cancer, and it effects crops, too. Now on top of the fact that blowing up nukes screws the people that survived over, why would we nuke citizens?

This is why I love the Durham Herald-Sun. People like this dude. The letter is long, so I'll take stuff out.

quote:

---

...Giving up is just a big mistake...The murder and mutilation of Americans in Fullajah shows how far the insurgents will go to intimidate by barbaric methods. And other Iraqis celebrated. Coalition nations should start fighting on terrorist terms... As a starter, pull all of our troops and civilian contractors out of Fullajah and turn the Air Force loose. Let them do some old-fasioned saturation bombing and but Fullujah back back into the stone age. Then say, "Who wants to be next." Sooner or later, just as the Japanese did after the atom bombs, the insurgents would get the idea. If they didn't? No problem. In the end there would be no Iraq.

---

This is why we still have the Big Ugly Fat ****ers, or B-52's. Let's nuke the mother****ers!

quote:

---

And luvabug, could you please make a list of the reasons to stay?

---

-They have no ruler
-If we pulled out, most likely someone would attack them and everything we worked for is gone.
-They have no ruler
-They have no ruler
-They have no ruler
-They have no ruler

Wouldn't it be brilliant to leave a nation all alone in the middle east, with no ruler? Ah yes! Mr. Bush, PULL OUT NOW!

quote:

---

Yes this is our mess, but I think we should just put the Iraqis in authority and leave

---

Which is exactly what we did with:

WWI Germany
Afghanistan
Gulf War I
Veitnam

And all of those had EXCELLENT aftermaths didn't they?
The fact is, if we pull out now, We'll just set ourself up for another invasion in the future.