Should the US do what's best for Iraq?

Question

A lot of Iraqi's think that the continued presence of US troops is encouraging the violence. That would be an argument for pulling out. An argument for staying would be that leaving would make the US seem weak and unreliable. Is the moral thing to do to put Iraq's interests ahead of our own?
I'm interested in all opinions.

Z A R I H S - What question are you answering???

Answer 1

I think the US needs to let THEM decide what is best for their country. If we're really there for their best interests and to 'liberate' them, I think they should be the ones to decide what those interests are.

Answer 2

Iraq has nothing to do with the national goal of protecting America. Iraq was not involved in terrorist attacks against the US. Many people, including myself, warned the President that an occupation of Iraq would eventually lead to failure. Bush's political ambitions and willingness to appease war profitters has got us where we are today. Sun Tzu said in 500 BC in "The Art of War" that the needless prosecution of a prolonged conflict would eventually lead to failure.
I do not disagree about eliminating the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan. But attempting to nation build in this area of the world has historically led to failure. We would have been much better off if we would have neutralized the standing governmental structures, entrenched forces to secure the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan from intervention by Iran and Syria, occupied the oil fields and placed oil proceeds into a trust account for the eventual emergent Iraqi government, and then simply informed those countries and the rest of the world that the US will not tolerate threats to its physical or economic survival. We would have offered post-war assistance to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan only if and when requested by them, and would withdraw this assistance at the first hint of violence against US personnel on the ground. Then, working with our international partners, we could have continued to prosecute the war on terror, applying our national power in a positive way supported by the world community. Instead, Bush has conducted a cowboy war which has diminished US prestige around the globe and made the world a much more dangerous place.

Answer 3

I think we have a moral obligation to do what is best for Iraq, since we went in there and screwed everything around. I also don't think that the youth in Iraq necessarily knows what is best for themselves. They haven't done a very good job so far. It may very well be in their best interests fir us to stay until their country is more stable, despite their naive opinion that we should leave.

Answer 4

I am personally not really concerned with the stability of Iraq and can think of much better things to do with more than 336 billion dollars. Like feed the hungry in our country, help balance the national debt, pay off some of our debtors and paying our vets and present military personnel what they are truly worth.

Answer 5

The US has already done what it needed, got Saddam (cleaned up daddy's mess) Looked for WMD in Iraq(Found em in NK though eh) I think there should be a blanket statement and complete withdrawl. At some point we are no longer rendering assistance but colonizing them militarily. Our boys did their jobs, let them come home.

Answer 6

What is good for Iraq and the world, is not good for US.
It will continue to implement its policies no matter how bad they may be for the world peace.

Now what do you think would be better for a country whose citizens can not even decide whats good for them.

The US has sucessfully created a new world order where in the name of freedom, freedom is kept hostage.

Answer 7

The REAL question is: WILL the do US do what's best for Iraq?