[lexmarks567]

Do you think we should move are troops out of irag.

[BanditFlyer]

Let's start with Washington D.C. first

: http://forums.techguy.org/3827794-post1126.html

[Galium]

Yes, Yes, Yes-we never belonged there in the first place.

[Yakiba]

Well, let's play a hypothetical game:

Let's say US Forces are removed from Iraq. Totally. Not a single soldier, airman, marine or even seaman left anywhere in Iraq. So, what's the first thing that the majority of Iraqis and Middle Easterners start doing? Well, they'd probably start celebrating at first, but then comes the power struggle. So one faction probably led by that maniac Muqtada al-Sadr would probably want to control Iraq. Of course, the Iranians probably want to control Iraq as well and would probably have their in-country guys try to get control. So what does that mean when you have different factions vying for power? A civil war. Which, by some estimates, has already started. But it would be on a scale far larger than the one we're seeing right now.

So the civil war rages on. Civilians die left and right. Al-qaeda in Iraq grow because now there's a place for them to be without worrying about any government action against them. Iranian agents are trying to turn Iraq into a clone of Iran. Somewhere down the line, the fighting will escalate until other countries are involved. There will be a huge humanitarian crisis. All this fighting causes stock markets to under perform. Oil prices spike up because of the instability in the Middle East. Terrorists get bolder because they believe they won in Iraq and forced America out. Countries like North Korea see this and will think that if a bunch of insurgents without much training and money can force America out, why can't they do the same? So N. Korea will continue with their ballistic missile system research and development which will put America one step closer to danger. Allies to America like Kuwait will get real antsy because of the fighting so close to their border. Countries like Pakistan that can control a majority of the terrorist cells in their country won't be able to anymore because the support will have grown for them and secondly, they don't have the resources and money to get at them in the remote parts of the country. I could go on and on about how this could start a chain reaction to an even bigger crises but I think you guys get the picture. The question that should have been asked was "Should we invade Iraq?" No. Of course not. But we have, and wishing we didn't won't change that fact. The bottom line is, we're in there right now, so we have to finish the job. It was stupid to go in there in the first place, but of course hindsight is 20/20.

[linskyjack]

That sounds like a neo-conservative analysis, and we all know how accurate neo-conservative analysis is! By the way, if you are so concerned about what would happen if we left Iraq, you should have been more vocal before we got in there. Its kind of like a child saying, wow, I made a mess and its so messy I just can't clean it up! No one knows what will happen in Iraq. Its obvious that our current policy isn't working. So I guess your answer is to stay there for an indeterminate time with a kind of vague hope that it stabilizes. My answer is to accept the fact that Iraq shouldn't be a country, unless of course you have a brutal strongman like Hussein running. That no matter how long we stay, they will still have a go at each other, and that it isn't worth one more American life to be sacrificed on the alter of non-existent WMDS.

[BanditFlyer]

Yakiba, Yakiba, Yakiba,

You've introduced entirely too much logic into this topic. A knee jerk reaction is now called for.

Originally Posted by ilnskyjack

That sounds like a neo-conservative analysis, and we all know how accurate neo-conservative analysis is! By the way, if you are so concerned about what would happen if we left Iraq, you should have been more vocal before we got in there. Its kind of like a child saying, wow, I made a mess and its so messy I just can't clean it up! No one knows what will happen in Iraq. Its obvious that our current policy isn't working. So I guess your answer is to stay there for an indeterminate time with a kind of vague hope that it stabilizes. My answer is to accept the fact that Iraq shouldn't be a country, unless of course you have a brutal strongman like Hussein running. That no matter how long we stay, they will still have a go at each other, and that it isn't worth one more American life to be sacrificed on the alter of non-existent WMDS.

Ah, yes, the balance has now been corrected. For a while there I thought the precarious equilibrium of Civilized Debate would be permanently thrown off.

Thank goodness we have plenty of irrationality to cover such abuses of rational, analytical thought.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Yakiba

..........
............
........... The bottom line is, we're in there right now, so we have to finish the job. It was stupid to go in there in the first place, but of course hindsight is 20/20.

Agreed.
But I didn't vote.
The choices should not have slanted as presented.
It should have been a straight up....yes/no choice.


should president bush remove us troops from out of iraq
I would have voted 'No'.
I also think Bush isn't making much progress.

[seekermeister]

If we leave Iraq prematurely, that will only become the beginning of much worse problems than we now have. Iraq may turn out badly if we stay, but it is certain if we leave now.

[linskyjack]

Ah, so you are willling to put American lives in jeopardy based on what you think might happen? You are willing to continue the charade of creating an American-friendly democracy in a country like Iraq? What I love about these stay the course guys is their complete disregard for the poor grunts who are fodder for their experimentation in nation building. (Didn't Bush say during a presidential debate that you can't "nation build"!)

[BanditFlyer]

Just think - we stayed in Germany and Japan for over 40 years!

Let's not repeat that mistake!

[linskyjack]

Brilliant analogy---do a search--this moronic line of thinking has already been dealt with.

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by seekermeister

If we leave Iraq prematurely, that will only become the beginning of much worse problems than we now have. Iraq may turn out badly if we stay, but it is certain if we leave now.

This is the theme that is so often heard---
we can't win if we stay-- and will lose if we go, so....lets stay! .
Its just a matter of time -$$$--and lives , before we have to admit this whole adventure was a mistake IMO.
I failed to see how it could have been a success {as sold} from the begining.
Reinforcing a mistake-- failure is never wise and thats what so many propose.
The comparison with WW 2 has to be a joke. >f

[linskyjack]

No, I assure you the WW2 stuff is not a joke--the radical right has been using this analogy since the war started going bad.

[BanditFlyer]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Brilliant analogy---do a search--this moronic line of thinking has already been dealt with.

Here's the result of my search, o brilliant one:

“I see no reason why this war must go on”

- Adolf Hitler

[linskyjack]

Obviously you haven't taken your meds today.