The Iraq War?

Question

Would you support an immediate pullout and why

Answer 1

we need to reduce our troops in Iraq....... leave a small amount to support the Iraq army...... let them take the brunt of their security.

we went over there to remove Sadam..... he is gone..... we went to help them start their own government...... they have one...... we are in the middle of their own civil war..... we werent invited to come over....... we need to step down so they can step up...... when they decide what they want we can help them if they are invaded by a foreign force

but until then they have to take control their own security... as long as we are there they wont bother with their own security

you cant fight an idea with a gun

Answer 2

I've heard some big names say that we should pull out immediately. It makes me wonder why they say that. They say that it was a mistake because it is unwinnable.

I'm fairly clear on what the President defines as a "victory", and it looks hard, but not really impossible. The President has advisors with access to information that the big names don't have, and they seem to think it's doable. They do say it'll be hard. What do the big names know? Do they have military experience? Are they in daily contact with military advisors from many countries? What are their assumptions about the capabilities and nature of our military?

What happens if we pull out? Is that not defeat? Isn't the opposite of winning "losing"? What would happen if we lose? Would it impact anything outside of Iraq? Would it make any difference in Iran, France, Libya, Spain? Is the war in Iraq just about Iraq or does it have wider implications? If it doesn't, why are Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia even concerned about it? If it does have wider implications, does that not suggest that there is a huge difference between winning and losing?

No, my biggest reason for not supporting an immediate pullout is because I don't see any evidence that the people that do support it have given any thought to the consequences, and the people that oppose the pullout have specific concerns that I share.

It's theoretically possible that we could pull out in such a way to preclude repercussions on our own shores, but the "get out now" crowd simply assumes them away. That isn't a plan. It's insanity.

Answer 3

When you consider what a mess the country is in now it looks like Saddam was doing quite a good job.....Sure he killed 1000's of Kurds....But the USA had few complaints at the time and even supplied the gas......

Saddam was one of Americas closest allies in the region....they fell out when Saddam threatened a US oil supplier when it invaded it's own former province Kuwait...messily cut off from Iraq by the British in it;s carve up of the Ottoman empire ..and why didn't they sort some space for the Kurds when they had the chance..The whole big mess has been created by western greed for oil.

George Bush is not less guilty than Saddam .and should also be tried for war crimes executed too.

There should be a pullout but it can;t be immediate....sadly 1000's more US soldiers and Iraquis must first die....George don't give a damn his mission is to keep the oil barons and arm companies happy.

Answer 4

I would not support an immediate pull out. I support a long term commitment, maybe ten to twenty years. Not necessarily in a combat status, but surely in a supportive role, and also to establish a few secure military bases in the region. I think that is something that we have to do, if we ever expect to see any peace in the Middle East. Armadinajad ain't gonna do it. And don't expect democrats to do it either, they don't have the intestinal fortitude, or the influence to accomplish any military mission, ie: Carter(Iran) Clinton(Somalia).

Some people say we must quit, because we are not winning the war. I don't believe that for a second. The war on terrorism is greater than the fighting in Iraq. The war on terrorism encompasses the globe. I am sure our government is doing many, many things all over the planet to fight the war, not just armed conflict.
If we aren't winning, then why should we quit? We should continue until we do win. But, how can you explain that to people who think little league baseball games should not be scored, because there shouldn't be winners and loosers? Idiots!

Answer 5

No.

Pulling out before the locals can govern themselves would leave a power vacuum that would be filled by those as bad as Saddam. Halfhearted measures are not what is needed now. A stronger presence will end this. The reason Bush Sr did not remove Saddam was for this very reason. Iran would likely swoop in and take control, then the first order of business would be to lob a nuke at Israel.

Answer 6

Yes, but quietly! A tank here a sub there, a plane here...and more lives will be saved coming home...an immediate publicized pullout would cause many many many American Deaths! It does need to be done quickly but quietly! The War was an important message sent...Don't mess with the USA!

Answer 7

No. We are now in the roll of being the babysitter. The Sunnis, Kurds, and shites being the spoiled brats that can't be left alone for a minute. The U. N. needs to brought in as the super nanny and let us, us being the U. S., have a well deserved weekend off.
With the conviction of saddam i am sure one of the factions will start raising more hell and that very problem must be addressed. Infighting among factions is the only thing keeping them from having a civilized society and if they don't realize that soon we will have no choice but to pull out and let them wipe each other out.

Answer 8

Right war, wrong reasons.
We shouldn't have attacked under the assumption that they had WMD.
We should have taken Saddam out of power just like we did though. He was mass murdering for the sake of his own agenda and that is WRONG no matter which way you look at it. Don't think so??? Ask some of the Kurds and their families what they think of the whole thing and how he was murdering them by the thousands.

Answer 9

Absolutely not!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It would creat a vacuum that would be quickly filled with every insurgency in that whole part of the world. They are just waiting for us to leave so they can come in a take it over as a dictatorship again maybe worse than Saddam's. I suggested we pay a poorer country to send their men over there for us in place of our men. The poorer country's soldiers would probably appreciate the paychecks, probably wouldn't even ask for as much pay as our men get, we could bring our boys home and there would still be someone there doing our job of helping them to protect and run their own country. Don't know why we don't do something like that. Our men want to come home. They've been there along time.

Answer 10

i would support it because it is completely dooable to straighten out iraq in several weeks if we wanted to .. the fact of the matter is that we obviously do not want to leave iraq ...terrorism has nothing to do with it .. and what if it did? what if the whole dam iraq became one big terrorist camp? just what the hell do you think they could do that we wouldnt *** them up for? ... imo the united states is acting like a scared dog with its tail between its legs peeing all over itself when it comes to terrorists .. throwing away rights, hiding under the bed, letting a president walk all over the constitution .. and for what? so we dont get hurt? .. IF i see attacks happening and its from muslims in this country then you all know what time it is .. its time to start hanging them from the street lights ... but for now why are we all so scared and giving up our rights and killing people in iraq? ... doesnt make sense to me ...