Should the US withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2007? [Archive]

ringworm

10-09-2006, 04:28 PM

It depends. I think we'd all like them to, but the country & the impact of the withdraw are the most debatable topics now.

If you pull out before the country is stabilized, (if ever), it could look like a victory (not for us) which could only promote more attacks.

On the other hand, if we'd get outta the Middle East's busniess, there might not be so much hatred towards the West.

I really don't have a clue what should be done over there.

Scuba_Steve

10-09-2006, 04:37 PM

There is no real right or wrong answer to that.

If they pull out, the iraqis could possibly suffer a massive civil war.

If they stay, the troops will still be dropping like flies, and the iraq quality of life could still decline.

That's why most people believe this shouldnt have even been STARTED.

madridfan

10-09-2006, 05:00 PM

^ Well, what happened, happened. This topic is strictly about the present.

run don't walk

10-09-2006, 05:03 PM

If we left the insurgents would probably consider it a victory, Iran would move in (I can almost gurantee it), and there would be a civil war. So no I don't think we should pull out in the near future (we can't.) Also Osama bin Laden said that Iraq will be the capitol of "the new Islamic caliphate" so if we pull out we will give him and Amhajinijad exactly what they want.

John Paul Harrison

10-09-2006, 05:17 PM

It sounds fairly logical. Two years is long enough to judge if a practical "victory" is attainable.

run don't walk

10-09-2006, 05:25 PM

It sounds fairly logical. Two years is long enough to judge if a practical "victory" is attainable.

We can't leave Iraq even if we wanted to we don't have a choice because Iran would move in and take control of it.

italic zero

10-09-2006, 05:36 PM

It's probably just going to turn out like the British occupation.

Futue te Ipsum

10-09-2006, 05:37 PM

We can't leave Iraq even if we wanted to we don't have a choice because Iran would move in and take control of it.No it wouldn't.

John Paul Harrison

10-09-2006, 05:43 PM

We can't leave Iraq even if we wanted to we don't have a choice because Iran would move in and take control of it.

If we continue to commit money and troops just to keep a semi-friendly Iraq functional, then we are less able to properly deal with Iran and North Korea. Iran wins both ways.

It's probably just going to turn out like the British occupation.

Correct. And we all know what happened to the British Empire.

run don't walk

10-09-2006, 05:44 PM

If we continue to send money and troops just to keep a semi-friendly Iraq functional, then we are less able to properly deal with Iran and North Korea. Iran wins both ways.

I guess we're vstuck between a rock and a hard place then

John Paul Harrison

10-09-2006, 05:47 PM

I guess we're vstuck between a rock and a hard place then

Pretty much. I'm not necessarily against the war in Iraq, but there's a point when we have to abandon our idealism and seek a realistic solution. Cutting our losses in Iraq to confront Iran/North Korea might be inevitable.

Auberge le Mouton Noir

10-09-2006, 05:56 PM

Increase taxes for upper-middle america and use the money to travel the lands building schools, hospitals and infrastructure?

We can all dream, can't we?

-1up!-

10-09-2006, 05:56 PM

I have trouble catching how some think that removal of troops from Iraq would cause more attacks against USA. Terrorist attacks against the United States are justified (or rather, take root) by American interventions in the Middle East. Sure, stepping out from Middle East is making a gift to insurgents because they want the US out. But to think the moral boost of that victory would cause a rise of attacks is completely illogical.

Krabsworth

10-09-2006, 05:58 PM

Terrorist attacks against the United States are justified (or rather, take root) by American interventions in the Middle East.

woah wtf swoosh right over my head

Akira

10-09-2006, 06:03 PM

woah wtf swoosh right over my head

Are you saying you are confused?
Americans invade the Middle East. Civilians die. Terrorists use these deaths to justify terror attacks. He isn't saying terrorism is justified.

-1up!-

10-09-2006, 06:13 PM

^ Truth.

What I meant is, American troops fighting Iraqis is a basis for the desperate to resort to terrorism. A "moral victory" attained from the removal of troops from Iraq is not. My thesis is, terrorism against the US is not an unprovoked phenomenon as some wish to see it, but a direct response to the role of the United States in the Middle East, namely the American support of Israel. I just hope some of you aren't still stuck in the mindset that terrorists hate Americans because of their freedom...

Africa

10-09-2006, 06:49 PM

We should not pull out of Iraq, we need to make the world safe for democracy.

Iskandar

10-09-2006, 07:00 PM

It sounds fairly logical. Two years is long enough to judge if a practical "victory" is attainable.
That sort of thing has been said before.

White Riot!

10-09-2006, 07:06 PM

America needs to pull its penis out before it gets iraq pregnant and america has to pay child support

sexymuffin

10-09-2006, 08:27 PM

America needs to pull its penis out before it gets iraq pregnant and america has to pay child support

that was one of the most retarded things ive ever read

MattSharpIsCool

10-09-2006, 11:11 PM

That really was an extremely stupid thing to say.

The US cant just up and leave Iraq. But they really need to. They instituted a democratic government that will most likely be gone in the next few years. The US has bigger problems to be dealing with than Iraq.

White Riot!

10-09-2006, 11:12 PM

That really was an extremely stupid thing to say.

Thats why I said it...

John Paul Harrison

10-09-2006, 11:16 PM

That sort of thing has been said before.

I've never been one for original thought.

The US cant just up and leave Iraq. But they really need to.

Why can't they? It would be messy, but not impossible.

MattSharpIsCool

10-09-2006, 11:38 PM

Why can't they? It would be messy, but not impossible.

Well ok, yes it would be possible.

But what would that say about the US? We invade a country, liberate the people from a dictator, then leave the country in shambles.

I think we need to get out of Iraq, we just cant do it in a year.

White Riot!

10-09-2006, 11:53 PM

But what would that say about the US? We invade a country, liberate the people from a dictator, then leave the country in shambles.

The only difference in modern day is that the US has removed the dictator. There are plenty of times america has left countries in shambles

MattSharpIsCool

10-09-2006, 11:55 PM

The only difference in modern day is that the US has removed the dictator. There are plenty of times america has left countries in shambles

Yes, I know. And look what its done for our international image. It wont happen, I dont think we can ever make Iraq "right" or whatever, but it would be nice if we didnt just leave practically overnight.

AA-12

10-09-2006, 11:59 PM

Hell no.

Iskandar

10-10-2006, 12:05 AM

Hell no.
Do you happen to have a justification for that statement, or is your opinion groundless?

RNR

10-10-2006, 02:00 AM

This was all part of the plan. Screw the country up so bad that people oppose withdrawing the troops until the job as over.

I can't say that I care a lot about Iraq as a country but the war there now is like vietnam except with terrorists instead of communists and this one is somehow more justified.

If i'm not making sense, it's because it's late.

roll dem bones

10-10-2006, 02:24 AM

Surgicalgod

10-10-2006, 08:52 AM

Yes, I do believe we should withdraw all troops as soon as possible. No more big bad brother USA out there in the mid east to hold a loose control over the terrorists, provide at least some minimal protection for the citizens, and substitute for a law enforcing government. We should just say "So long, suckers!" and leave them to their bombed-out cities.

Hilarity would ensue.

:lol:

What I meant is, American troops fighting Iraqis is a basis for the desperate to resort to terrorism. A "moral victory" attained from the removal of troops from Iraq is not. My thesis is, terrorism against the US is not an unprovoked phenomenon as some wish to see it, but a direct response to the role of the United States in the Middle East, namely the American support of Israel. I just hope some of you aren't still stuck in the mindset that terrorists hate Americans because of their freedom...

tr00f, and I can't believe some people actually think that.
"It's not because the US government supports Israel's slaughter of their children and women, it's because they hate our freedom."

Amit

10-10-2006, 10:15 AM

oh but its ok for muslim terrorists to kill thousands of innocent people

you're a genius surgicalgod or should i say surgicalallah

anyway wouldn't a better question be should the islamic fundamentalists withdraw all terrorists from iraq by the end of 2007

Africa

10-10-2006, 10:24 AM

anyway wouldn't a better question be should the islamic fundamentalists withdraw all terrorists from iraq by the end of 2007

Yes, and yes.

Mr. Ron

10-10-2006, 10:27 AM

No we should not. It will only ground the false beliefe the terrorists have that Americans will pull steaks and run when things get tough. We must stay.

Amit

10-10-2006, 10:41 AM

either way america is screwed

america pulls out and muslims will criticize america for being cowards and hating islam so much by not staying

america stays and muslims will criticize america for being (power hungry) cowards and hating islam so much by staying

Mr. Ron

10-10-2006, 11:02 AM

What are you doing with the steaks at the moment? :confused:

If you're going to stay then you've got to change strategy right now. One of the reasons I'm coming around to thinking that the US should set a timetable for withdrawal is because I don't think that the Bush administration is willing to admit that they've messed up so far, and because I don't see the current plan working. If there isn't a change of strategy pretty much immediately after the midterms (ideally before, but there's literally no way that's going to happen) then I just don't know what we're waiting for there anymore.

Yeah, pretty much. :-/

Oh, we have handled it the situation over there in the wrong way for quite sometime now. I'm not denying that the strategy needs to change. I'm just saying that it would be incredibly bad if we turn tail and run from our problems. You can never really put a set date on when things will go right.

Surgicalgod

10-10-2006, 01:29 PM

oh but its ok for muslim terrorists to kill thousands of innocent people

when did I say that?

I can't condemn the insurgents fighting the US forces. First, they're defending their country. Second because soldiers are able to defend themselves.
Also, I can't condemn the US troops killing insurgents that are out to get them (self defense).

anyway wouldn't a better question be should the islamic fundamentalists withdraw all terrorists from iraq by the end of 2007

no, that's a very silly question.

america pulls out and muslims will criticize america for being cowards and hating islam so much by not staying

not really.

madridfan

10-10-2006, 02:16 PM

If we leave and Iran takes over... damn, we'd be paying like $7 bucks a gallon for gas o___O

ringworm

10-10-2006, 02:48 PM

I can't condemn the insurgents fighting the US forces. First, they're defending their country.
Most of the insurgents aren't even from Iraq :rolleyes:
They are sent in from various regions (Iran, Syria etc.)
no, that's a very silly question.
So you AGAIN, more proof you support more terrorism?
A lot of the Iraq people wish for freedom & their own government, the insurgents want deperately to make sure this doesn't happen, but you support them staying to kill even more civilians? I should've already known, silly me

John Paul Harrison

10-10-2006, 03:30 PM

when did I say that?

I can't condemn the insurgents fighting the US forces. First, they're defending their country.

Why then are Iraqi police stations targeted? Aren't the recruits also defending their country?

Against Miik!

10-10-2006, 03:38 PM

No. Its a ludicrous idea. I don't know how anybody could support it. I hate the war as much as anyone, but by creating an arbitrary withdrawl date, you give the resistance in Iraq a known date till which they have to hold out. They know if they can make it till then, they can take over no problem.

Leaving would also create the problem similar to that in Afghanistan when we helped the fight the Russians. We go into the country, basically tear it apart in this war, then leave them high and dry. This is one of the events that originally fueled Osama Bin Ladens hatred for the U.S.

Surtr

10-10-2006, 03:49 PM

There's so little point to the war though..It's getting us no where.

Amit

10-10-2006, 03:50 PM

when did I say that?

i don't remember you not condemning islamic insurgents and terrorists for killing civilians but maybe you did and i missed it so i'm just asking for a confirm/deny on this by you

I can't condemn the insurgents fighting the US forces. First, they're defending their country.

wait what

if they are defending their country why in allah's name are they consistently killing many more iraqi civilians than US soldiers

oh wait that's because a lot of the insurgents are foreign :-\

no, that's a very silly question.

why is that

not really.

tell me more

Surtr

10-10-2006, 03:55 PM

if they are defending their country why in allah's name are they consistently killing many more iraqi civilians than US soldiers

oh wait that's because a lot of the insurgents are foreign :-\Or maybe because they look at it as if these people are defecting and are going against them?

AA-12

10-10-2006, 04:00 PM

Do you happen to have a justification for that statement, or is your opinion groundless?

No we should not. It will only ground the false beliefe the terrorists have that Americans will pull steaks and run when things get tough. We must stay.

This.

Amit

10-10-2006, 04:04 PM

Or maybe because they look at it as if these people are defecting and are going against them?

and this changes things how

Mr. Ron

10-10-2006, 04:32 PM

There's so little point to the war though..It's getting us no where.

Thats not true at all.

Hababi

10-10-2006, 04:37 PM

John Paul Harrison

10-10-2006, 05:28 PM

To those who say there's no point to the war:

The NIE report said that if we are successful in Iraq, it will be a significant blow to global jihadist movements. Likewise, if we give up, it'll be a collassal failure and will hurt us for years and decades to come.

I don't think anybody is disputing that. A "success" in Iraq would benefit everybody. The only issue is if a "success" is even a possibility.

What do you consider a victory? Will a prolonged occupation lead to a decisive win?

Akira

10-10-2006, 08:22 PM

To those who say there's no point to the war:

The NIE report said that if we are successful in Iraq, it will be a significant blow to global jihadist movements. Likewise, if we give up, it'll be a collassal failure and will hurt us for years and decades to come.

We've already hurt ourselves. Besides, this far into the war I don't know if a "win" is possible. I can't see a sovereign Iraqi state existing until US troops are gone, but I can't see US troops leaving before Iraq has a sovereign, American-friendly government without letting the country fall into full-blown civil war.

White Riot!

10-10-2006, 08:27 PM

Iraq = modern vietnam.

Except this time there is no professional army against the U.S.

Statistics show the mortality rates mirror those of vietnam

shaqadelic

10-10-2006, 08:35 PM

Um foreign insurgents are actually the minority.. most are local. If anything the top people are local whereas the ones fighting come both from foreign and locla areas.

The fighting in Iraq is not just against the invaders but among the people who want political power and etc. It is very much a civil conflict as well.

EinzingerIsGod

10-10-2006, 08:39 PM

Iraq = modern vietnam.

Except this time there is no professional army against the U.S.

Statistics show the mortality rates mirror those of vietnam

This sums it up. I remember taking a course called "War and Peace in a Dangerous World" back in high school when the war started and it was taught by a Vietnam vet who was the most objective person politically I've ever met. He told us that this war would slowly develop into a modern Vietnam and it is certainly shaping up to be just that.

-1up!-

10-10-2006, 08:41 PM

A more meaningful question, while related, would be: Is democracy achievable through the invasion of foreign military forces (namely, the US in this case)? Is the American objective of "establishing democracy" in Iraq realistic?

shaqadelic

10-10-2006, 08:44 PM

Not through the way that it was set up. Not all countries are ready for democracy yet.

EinzingerIsGod

10-10-2006, 08:44 PM

The whole idea of invading a country and basically enforcing democracy is somewhat condratictory in my mind.

White Riot!

10-10-2006, 08:45 PM

Akira

10-10-2006, 08:52 PM

You cant democrati(s)e a people who are culturally unwilling to accept it.

Exactly. The mere concept of forcing a democracy on people is almost laughable. Democracy cannot work unless the vast majority of Iraqis want it to.

EinzingerIsGod

10-10-2006, 08:55 PM

Forced democracy is the oxymoron.

White Riot!

10-10-2006, 09:02 PM

Forced democracy is the oxymoron.

no , your actually wrong. Thats not an oxymoron

Democracy involves representatives being elected by the voters , representatives then will govern from that point.

The only say that you have as a voter is who you will vote for or back.
nothing stopping the representatives lying and breaking their promises to voters at will.

Hababi

10-10-2006, 09:32 PM

What do you consider a victory?

A relatively stable democratic government. Actually I'll take a relatively stable pro US dictatorship too :p

John Paul Harrison

10-10-2006, 10:35 PM

A relatively stable democratic government. Actually I'll take a relatively stable pro US dictatorship too :p

Is that attainable? I doubt any new government that is okay with America will be considered legitimate.

Imagine if France came in 1775 and "liberated" our colonies from England, then required us to form our own government under their close supervision. Wouldn't any pro-French government would suffer legitimacy issues?

Or maybe I made a poor analogy?

Mr. Ron

10-10-2006, 11:38 PM

Iraq = modern vietnam.

Except this time there is no professional army against the U.S.

Statistics show the mortality rates mirror those of vietnam

I don't believe one word of that. Vietnam was a totally different animal than Iraq.

White Riot!

10-11-2006, 12:10 AM

I don't believe one word of that. Vietnam was a totally different animal than Iraq.

why?
explain?

or is that the standard fundie response to the parallel that is being drawn?

your facing huge guerilla type attacks , whats so different?

gregulus

10-11-2006, 12:47 AM

In my opinion, pulling out now would be disasterous for the country allready in the initial stages of a civil war. The "broken egg" analogy was perhaps the best way I have heard anyone sum up the current situation in Iraq. Where I believe that the initial invasion was, for lack of a better term, idiotic, I fear another radical government in the region. On the other hand, I don't see a clear way we can effectively win in Iraq. I read some statistics, I believe it was on msnbc.msn.com, where since 2003 the number of insurgents of increased from 5,000 to 20,000 (400%), and it has been all over that violence has increased dramatically. It's a quagmire. As Amit said, either way, America is screwed.

Akira

10-11-2006, 06:48 AM

A relatively stable democratic government. Actually I'll take a relatively stable pro US dictatorship too :p

I don't know how possible that is. A pro-US government would be an enemy of the insurgents.
Quite frankly I think the two options is that the US remains almost a permanent occupier, or a Muslim extremist will come in and turn Iraq into a militant theocracy, which it wasn't under Sadaam. I cannot see Iraq being a better place because of this war any time in the near future.

ringworm

10-11-2006, 08:51 AM

or is that the standard fundie response to the parallel that is being drawn?
LOL, I think you're jumping on the fundie name calling bandwagon with the wrong person.
your facing huge guerilla type attacks , whats so different?
A few roadside bombs every few days are huge guerilla attacks?

Besides, the civilians casualties are the big numbers to look at. Militarily, we aren't suffering anything even remotely close to Vietnam. This could turn out to be a long drawn out event, but it will never be close to Vietnam, but it sure does seem like a lot of people would like it to turn out that way though :rolleyes:

Mr. Ron

10-11-2006, 12:02 PM

why?
explain?

or is that the standard fundie response to the parallel that is being drawn?

your facing huge guerilla type attacks , whats so different?
Yes, because i'm such a fundi for disagreeing with you.

Guerilla warfare does not equal Vietnam. The entire situation is different. The terrain for the most part, we're not facing a national army, our casualties are WAY low compared to Vietnam and the motivations behind the terrorists are far different than the Vietnamese had.

By your logic, any type of warfare that involves guerilla warfare is equal to Vietnam.