Do you think that the US should pull out of Iraq and call it a loss or do you think we should keep fighting?

Question

I'm not saying that I want the war to continue, but every person fighting in Iraq is there because they volunteered at some point. Military families seem to believe that we need to stay and fight the terrorists, while many others just want to protect the troops and bring them home.

Do you think that the US government can protect our country from terrorism if we come home now?

Answer 1

This is coming from a mom of an Airman. The TV news stations don't tell us everything. They can't, just as the president can't either. The terrorist watch our tv's! My son believes we have reasons for our "invation" of their lands over seas. That if we knew what the president knows we'd chose to send troops over as he did. We are democrats and want our troops home, who doesn't? I want my son & his friends to be safe. But that comes with a price...these ppl who joined our military are paying the price for our continued "freedom". We are all still very lucky to have what we do in America. We have this by defending potintial dangers such as terrorism. If we pull out now the terrorist may come to us...again. The old saying...keep your friends close but your enemies closer! WE have several thousand injured over seas but we only hear of the fatalities. These members of our military are our heros. We must not forsake their willingness to go abroad and fight so the wars are not fought on American soil. It's so easy for us, as the citizens of a great nation, to complain about our children, husbands, fathers, mothers, etc being sent off to a foreign land to fight what seems to be a never ending battle against terrorism. But the simple truth of the matter is that bringing them home will NOT solve anything. I don't care for Bush at all, not a fan, but I will trust that he has our nations best intentions at heart. He would not send our troops over seas if he didn't feel the need was so great that it would take the lives of our young and saving thousands of lives times infinity. The terrorist are unmoral barbarians! They could easily bring that war to our home land! I'd prefer it stay OVER seas! It is our duty as citizens to stand behind our troops and the one who sends them where ever they must be sent. We do NOT have all the info they have to make our decision in favor of or against it. So we must trust the ones the majority of America voted into office. I look forward to a FRESH minds view with the next presidency election. We all must vote very delicately this time. This is merely my opinion...hope this explains one citizens view who did NOT vote for Bush!

Answer 2

The best thing the Americans could do is to implement the plan put forward by the Iraq Study Group for a phased withdrawal from Iraq while making the Iraqi govt more accountable and responsible for the undertakings of its own country. A phased withdrawal would allow the US to leave Iraq while still being able to salvage some kind of self respect.There are many ways that US involvement in Iraq can be seen as one big f#ck up, but at the same time if they can leave Iraq with a fully functioning govt that is able to manage its own affairs they can say that they at least accomplished that.
To answer your other question, the US govt can protect itself from terrorism to a large extent by moving back from the sheriff of the world position that it seems to think that it has now. By being constructive and not destructive in the international arena and striving to find answers and resolutions to things like the genocide in Darfur rather than talking up military actions against Iran and Syria, it could move from a position of arrogance and misguided righteousness to the position of fighting the good fight and doing good things on the international stage that could not only help protect it from terrorism but also help restore the goodwill toward itself that many countries have lost since 9/11

Answer 3

For your first question, I think we should seriously consider setting guidelines and timetables (yes, timetables) for pulling out of Iraq. We can't necessarilly call this a loss; just like we can never (no matter how long we stay) call this a victory. By the very nature of this "war on terror" we have made this a fight against an ideaology... this is different from the conflicts when we fought wars with other nations where treaties were signed. When we leave Iraq, even at the best of circumstances, Islamic terrorism will still exist. Ask Israel, ask Pakistan, ask India.

We need to ask ourselves that if we stay in Iraq then will it be worth the economic expense to carry this on and the expense to the morale and hardiness of the military itself. When Iraqi forces are virtually in the same state as they were 2 years ago then why continue? I don't know for sure what to do but I am leaning towards to pulling out. Our leadership in the Pentagon and the presidency has failed us in my estimation. Do I wait until another administration is elected with maybe a better plan and a more realistic strategy? That just seems a crap shoot.

One aside about timetables and the idea of them "emboldening" the enemy... The enemy is already emboldened, you can argue that they can not be more emboldened; the coalition forces in Afghanistan is gearing up for a Taliban offensive in Spring... Taliban leaders are actually talking to Western media outlets saying they are mobilizing for this. It is a mistake to think that the enemy we are fighting are cowards and simpletons. They will declare victory whether we pull out or stay. They have already won the propaganda war.

For your second question... Yes, the U.S. governement can still protect us if we pull out the troops. The CIA and the Pentagon estimates that only a fraction of violence in Iraq is from Al-Quaeda. Al-Quaeda has only hit the 50 states in 1994 (their first attempt at the WTC) and on 9/11 attacking the Pentagon and the WTC again. If Al-Quaeda had the resources they would have hit the homeland between those attacks. They have hit democratic nations in Europe and Africa... those are more accessible targets for them. They will try again to hit America but past history shows that it is not as easy for them as a lot of our politicians state. Consider this: Wouldn't a Al-Quaeda operative be more effective psychologically if he bombed a post office in Kansas than attacking a barracks in Iraq? Why don't they do a thibg like this? Why wouldn't Bin Laden take a single operative in Iraq and send him to America? I don't know why this has not happened but I know that it did not happen between the first attack on the WTC and the second attack and we did not have troops in Iraq.

It is ridiculous to think that Al-Quaeda's soldiers can not leave the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan because of American presence. The American military presence has nothing to do with Al-Quaeda containment; the terrorist organization is limited by itself. You could make an argument that American forces in the region are actually growing Al-Quaeda's numbers and fund-raising.

Answer 4

We need to get all of our troops out of there. It's nothing more than a civil war over there. If they want to kill each other, fine. Let them. We have no place over there- and I say this as a Marine Corps wife whose husband is over there right now.
You have to understand that most people that are over there aren't there because they want to fight a war or kill people. Most of them are there for reasons like money for an education, a steady pay check to support a family back here in the states. They're sacrificing a lot having to be away from their families for a year or more at a time.
I don't know any family member that would ever want their loved one to be over there, or where you get that sort of statement from. My husband has been gone for only a month, and I've been wishing he was home with me and our baby since the second I watched him step on that bus.
If you think that supporting the troops means supporting the war, you're dead wrong. I support the troop, I support my husband, I'm proud of him, I love him and I never stop thinking about him, but I don't support the war.
Iraq was never ours to win or lose. We were after a small group of people, and yet we're now all over the friggin' country. Our sights became clouded not long after we got there and began to help them fight their civil war instead of just going after Al-Qaida. We have no buisness in their civil war. BRING MY BABY HOME!

Answer 5

The only reason that i see the us fight wars is to get more money; not necesarily for the people, but the huge corporation that exploits the workers that live in those countries.
Your taking about the US fighting terrorism, the US is the real terrorist, fighting a war were inocent kids, women, and elderly man are dying!!!!!!! Would you like your family to be humilliated, your mom to get raped by some soldiers and your siblings to be killed? Put your self the shoes of an iraqui!!! Would you just forget about what soldiers did to your family or you stand up and fight for the liberation of your people?
The US uses terrorism in it's homeland, with the facist groups KKK, the minuteman, and also the government spying on every american; through the telephone service, on the internet(checking everyone's emails), violating our right of personal privacy.
The government doesn't care about you or me, the only thing they care about is on making more money. F*** the system!!!!! Stop letting corporate news tell you lies!!!!!

Answer 6

No. not one of the attackers on 9-11 have been from Iraq. The conservatives needed a war with Iraq decrease back interior the 90s, yet admitted then that it is not likely they could get one going except an experience occurred on the point of Pearl Harbor. properly, they have been given their experience, and that they took benefit of it. we could desire to continually have positioned _all_ of our components in direction of looking down the criminal communities that have been in touch interior the 9-11 assaults. Iraq replaced right into a distraction, and merely gave those terrorist communities a recruiting center and a battleground. for those that declare we've been 'already at war' with Iraq, and website issues that Iraq supposedly did interior the previous decade... properly, if fact learn that Iraq replaced into no longer a contemporary possibility. Al Qaeda and comparable communities have been. Iraq replaced into contained. If Iraq had to be dealt with it certainly could have waited. 9-11 replaced into an excuse, and the result has been utter chaos, a large death, and an more advantageous possibility than ever existed previously. If we'd have cherished to take down Hussein we could desire to continually've complete the interest interior the 1st Gulf war, particularly than leaving at the back of those we inspired to upward thrust up against him.

Answer 7

Am I the only one who sees "The BIG Picture?" Hate to say it folks (I've been saying it for months), but if we pull out, Iran WILL step in. Look, Iran is setting atop the world's third largest known oil deposit and still, last year was unable to export a single drop. Why? Because their oil is state run and they've completely mismanaged it. Their oil policy is written to discourage foreign investors and drilling. They've been charging their citizens a whopping 38 cents a gallon at the pumps and not returning any of the profit to R & D. Their wells are now all over 50 years old and in a rate of decline in production of 13 % per year. Is it any wonder they're pushing to develop nuclear power? The only problem there is, they export terrorism and the biproduct of the Russian designed reactors they're building is weapons grade uranium. Who stands to gain the most if the U.S.pulls out of Iraq? So far this year, terrorist strikes against Iraqi oil has cost over 14 Billion dollars in loss of oil production. And the year is almost 1/4 over. Iran knows (from our past lethargic, apathetic, cowardace history) that if they just keep going and continue the terrorist strikes, we will belly up and go home with our tail between our legs. America has somehow lost its spine and gut for finishing the work that it starts. Vietnam and Beruit are classic examples.
Should we have gone there in the first place? Honestly, no. It wasn't our job. It SHOULD have been the U.N.s, but they were too corrupt. We should not have had to go for Desert Shield/Storm, we should not have had to enforce the "No Fly Zones" and we certainly should not have been the only ones to support the Weapons Inspectors... But I forgot, we DID NOT support the first insector, and that's why he resigned! Were there WMD? I dunno. Carter gutted the CIA back in the 70s, leaving us blind and dependent upon foreign intel.. Reagan sold Saddam the technology -- he used it on the Kurds and the Iranians. I guess the most likely scenerio and safe bet said "yes," there ARE WMD. Perhaps we'd have found them had either we or the UN actually supported the first inspector and those who subsequently followed..
Funny, the day after our November elections, CNNs Headline News reported that the "president" of Iran had commended the people of the United States for having voted in the democrats. Why would he say that? Hmmm.... Because he knows they're so much smarter and reasonable than the republicans? Or, because he recognizes the weakness and soft headedness? No stomach for the fight. They vote for it one minute, and the next, the whine that they were lied to... Well, just throw your sucker in the dirt. I tell you again, if your yard is being flooded by your garden hose, turn off the valve before you try cleaning up the mess! Seal the freakin' borders, and begin the door to door... In WW II, we were able to circumvent a large portion of the Japanese Army, by simply cutting off their supply lines by skipping over the smaller islands.
And if you believe this war is too costly in U.S. military lives, I charge you to do the math for yourself, we are losing on average all of 3 men per day. Hell, Patton's 3d Army in France (1944), lost on average 1,300 men per three weeks. That, going up against an easily identifiable, uniformed military. You stand a greater chance of being killed in a car wreck here than they do of being killed by a road side IED there! Time to grow a spine and brain and realize Reagan was right in reflagging the oil tankers, the world's economy runs on oil. Either we fight to allow it to be free trade or we give it to Iran and have them starve us to death -- they are our sworn enemy...

Answer 8

I don't know if I would call it a loss but the main people who would lose are the iraqis because the wars between the shia/sunnis would go on but yes we should leave now. We can't help those people and we don't need to be there. If they are going to fight a cival war they are going to fight it. Besides we're doing more harm than good just by being there.

Answer 9

the whole strategy was absent for this war we rushed in there with bad intel and no planning, we need to rebuild what we destroyed, its our responsabilty, if we pull out too soon it will create a huge power vacuum and it will be a successful terrorist state, if we stay there fighting we will be worn down to nothing destroying our own economy by reducing the value of the US dollar who wants to invest in a loser, there is another way but all the neo-cons and the wallstreet machine are too proud & continue the attitude of tough love parenting towards these poorer nations of govts. we installed to est. favorable market prices

Answer 10

We need to resolve the Irag issue by formulating a consise plan for withdrawl, and a timeline to achieve those ends. Unfortuneately, Politicians in the U.S. historically, can't do that. 20 years in Nam. It's time to take politicians out of Government, and draft good buisiness people to run the government on four year tours. Put bill Gates in as president, have him do for us what he's done for Microsoft, we there. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!! They'll draft you in a minute, why not Bill Gates??????