Should The Americans pull out of Iraq?

[Andúnië]

An other thing would you guys want someone take over your country and call you a terrorist?

No one is calling the citizens terrorists. The terrorists belong to no specific nationality.

you want me to   actually believe that american re going there to help the inoccent people?

Explain to me then what the Americans are doing and why they were sent there in the first place.

_{By the way, please speak ENGLISH}

[numenorian]

Iraq and middle east in general have many oil supplies so the Americans want it as everyone but they(Americans) have all the means to get it.
Another reason why they is that their economy really sucks because if u remember Santam sai that he wanted to sell oil for euros and not for us dollars so instantly dollar was much lower than euro.And as we know us dollars re inflationary.Another reason America as we all know has the biggest weapon industries, so these industries have to work right?So if your economy is so dependent to war you cant do anything else than war.Final sth to think do u actually believe that poor countrier like Iraq etc can harm America or Europe?

[Pulsifer]

Iraq and middle east in general have many oil supplies so the Americans want it as everyone but they(Americans) have all the means to get it.
Another reason why they is that their economy really sucks because if u remember Santam sai that he wanted to sell oil for euros and not for us dollars so instantly dollar was much lower than euro.And as we know us dollars re inflationary.Another reason America as we all know has the biggest weapon industries, so these industries have to work right?So if your economy is so dependent to war you cant do anything else than war.Final sth to think do u actually believe that poor countrier like Iraq etc can harm America or Europe?

So, oil, (crude) the weapons industry and "because we can"? Doesn't sound too far off the mark. Though I'd also include unseating Saddam Hussein, which was also a goal even before the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

That said, you really did make a botch of an explanation.


Now, for me, it's not so much the motivation that ticks me off, as the means. Göering-like Patriotism rallies, fear-campaigning, slide-sticking shitty amendments to good bills, defamation, religious asshattery, egregious arrogance when faced by their [the government] mistakes, fuckups and blatant bullshit.

[Amroth]

   When the Allied forces went against Hitler, it was to stop a madman.  Did we say that all Germans were Nazis?  No.  We were there to put down a dictator, and restore a wayward country.  It wasn't Germany that we were at war with; it was Hitler and his Nazi miscrits.  So, some eighty years later, we're making war with Saddam Hussein.  Is it because of oil?  NO!!!!  In case you haven't noticed((you'd have to be really ignorant not to have.)), gas prices have sky-rocketed!!!!  Is it because Iraqis are terrorists?  NO!!!  It's because Saddam Hussein was arming children, and placing them on the frontlines, to protect his stronger troops!!!  I think it's supposed to be the other way around; the strong protect the weak.  We took Saddam out, because he was killing anyone who wouldn't side with him.  He mass-murdered his own people!!!  Now, no credit to Hitler, but even he wasn't such an idiot as to mass his own country!!!  At least he ruled his own by loyalty, and a cause, rather than by fear!!!  Even O/Usama Bin Laden rules his own ((mostly)) out of loyalty, and a common cause!!!
   So, are you saying that we are terrorists for putting the end to a madman's reign???

[numenorian]

Iam not trying to say that Sadam was a great guy but i believe you didnt read the last posts carefully.I will make you a better explanation if Sadam was ok with the American goverment the Americans would not even care about what Sadam was doing in Iraq.Another thing i want to add is that behind the scenes the guys that rule us are sitting side by side with them that they call terrorists making billions of money and watch soldiers and inoccent people die.Do you know that the Landen(Oh my God the terrorist ) family has a big share on American weapon industries?You better learn it.As Wolfchild had said its an evil vs evil war.

[Zaku]

I'm going to have to set the original motivations for the war aside to look at the here and now.

I say we pull out ASAP. Yeah, I used to be torn between "Well, it's bad" and "well we can't leave" but now I see it's really the only option.

Think about it. We're stretching our resources as it is, and Iraq is still spiralling out of control. As others have said, civil war is inevitable coalition or not. If it gets any worse in Iraq we'll need a draft, so I'd rather not have my country involved at that point. Either we abandon the country or we make even more sacrifices over a war we don't want.

Then there's the scare-mongers yelling "if we cut-and-run, the terrorists will be emboldened." Guess what. You can't win them all. Give up your goddamn pride for one minute and face reality. These are extremists who believe they're dying and going to paradise for their crimes. Look: If they're willing to strap a bomb to their chest and say goodbye to everything they know for a cause, I'd say they're already pretty "emboldened".

Also, consider all the ways our presence in Iraq helps the cause of the extremist. For one thing, we're breaking our budgets paying for this fight, and we're fighting it half the world away. The terrorists sit at home and fight us with cheap guns and homemade bombs, on their own soil. This war is more convenient for the insurgents. Also, our presence alone stregnthens their cause. Before, America simply symbolized everything a fanatic Muslim hates. Now, with actual Americans occupying and bombing their land, they can see firsthand our evil. Not to mention, a large number of those killed in this conflict have been civilians. Many of those deaths spawned more terrorists. It's an endless cycle.

Bottom line, it's ridiculous to think a "war on terror" can actually be won, and as long as Bush keeps spouting "stay the course", the question isn't when he'll pull us out, but which next president will.

[Gliowien]

I will try to keep this as short as possible.
 
This is no longer a war, it's an occupation.

In May of 2003, Bush declared "Mission Accomplished".
We succeeded in the things that we set out to do. We destroyed their army, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the "war". It's over.

Unfortunately our leadership somehow overlooked the possibility of an insurgency, and underestimated them greatly.

The biggest purpose we're serving there now, is that we're inadvertently training terrorists. As Zaku said, this is very convenient for the terrorists. Our presence there angers them more and more each day, and more and more of them flock to the area to fight us "infidels".

Get this straight. The only real terrorist threat coming out of Iraq prior to our invasion was in the northern part, which was NOT controlled by Saddam. In fact, WE had more control of this area. Saddam wasn't even allowed over there. (If you want sources, I can get them. I'm trying to hurry with this.)  Now the terrorists groups are a' plenty all over the country. I'm telling you, all we are doing is breeding more terrorists. Actually, we are giving Osama bin Laden EXACTLY what he wanted!

Civil war is inevitable. There are some out there who will tell you they are already in a civil war, and there are very large areas that are no longer under our control.
I will not debate this point further until I've had a chance to get some sources and prove the method to my madness. 

Advocates of this war within our government say that to pull out would be "a disaster". My question to them is, what exactly is it now, if not a disaster?

In order to truly win a "war on terror" by following the methods we are now, we would need to blow up the earth.  They are everywhere.

The way you fight this war is to go after people who actually are terrorists, like Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. (Again, making the point that yes, Saddam sucks, but that's not part of the big picture.) Where is Osama BTW? Are you aware that we are no longer searching for him....AT ALL?!?! I know this is cliche', but at this point, more Americans have died in Iraq than people killed in 9/11. 

We need to concentrate more on actual terrorists, securing our borders, securing our own cities, etc. to accomplish any sort of victory in the war on terror. I believe there will always be terrorists, but to at least try to decline the growing numbers, we must look at a much bigger picture than to invade some little country with a whack-job for a leader who has nothing to do with terrorism. (Here's the part where Bush supporters start arguing, using the faulty intelligence that supposedly linked Saddam to Osama.) 

Okay, stopping now. Will probably post more another time...

[Gil Galad]

I totally agree, it is no longer a war but an big game of risk, whose gonna get what first, and yes it is a big mess, and the problem remains is that the insurgents arent playing fair and neither should we, though to pave the whole place wouldnt be a bad idea

[Gliowien]

..."the Pentagon yesterday admitted defeat in its strategy of securing Baghdad."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1926809,00.html

[Zaku]

the insurgents arent playing fair and neither should we, though to pave the whole place wouldnt be a bad idea

"Playing fair"? Do you mean fighting guerilla warfare or killing civilians?
If you mean guerilla warfare, remember that this is the way the North American colonists fought the British during the Revolutionary War. It's the only way an outnumbered, outgunned group can fight a larger force. There is no "fair" in war.
Also, we can't fight guerilla warfare against guerillas. I just... I don't even know how to begin with why that wouldn't work. Someone smarter than I might want to.

If you actually suggest we "pave the whole place", whatever that may be a metaphor for, it would be a horrible act to cause this much trouble for the people of Iraq and then screw them over like that just because we're having to pay now.

[Andúnië]

Either way, though, Bush recently stated that he had "no intention of leaving Iraq until its government can support itself." I suppose that means this is going to last a long time, no matter what anyone else thinks.

[Zaku]

Well, as I said, the next president will most likely pull us out, so I beleive it's just a matter of riding it out the rest of Bush's term.

[Gil Galad]

Yeah, it looks like its gonna be either Hillary Clinton or Gore or Kerry. So we are really gonna be messed up. What i said had nothing to do with what i believe, and apparently yall havent heard that joke so im sorry. And i didnt mean Guerilla warfare or killing civilians. I meant not bring so nice, we need to be firmer and not give the benefit of the doubt, unless they come at us with their hands up and we are watching our backs.

[Zaku]

No worries, if it's Clinton, Gore, or Kerry I won't vote for any. I'm kinda looking at Obama at the moment.

And Gil-Galad, if someone comes too fast at American troops, I beleive the policy is to issue a warning and if they don't stop, shoot to kill. Other than that, they kind of have to give them the benefit of the doubt, because most of the insurgents look like civilians.
It's just part of occupying a country that doesn't want you there, never knowing who's civilian and who's insurgent. Same as in Vietnam.
It causes massacres.

[Gil Galad]

Did you mean Osama, or is Obama someone i dont know about, like i said with the advancing enemie troops, they better have their hands in the air and then checkrd, yes it would take time but that time is worth a convoy or one soldiers life