why should we not pull out of iraq?

Question

i have to do a debate for school on why we shouldnt pull out of iraq now....i need good ideas...help please...lol

Answer 1

There are many reasons that we should not pull out of Iraq right now, the country of Iraq is becoming strong and soon they will be able to rebuild with limited help for the united states but until then we have to help them not for their sake but for ours. If our military were to be pulled out of Iraq tomorrow it would tell the terrorist that we give up that they win, that our great country has lost it's first war ever. Also if we pull out not only with terrorist from Iraq come out of the wood work Iran would just as soon invade for the oil because believe it or not Iran gets 50% of it's oil from Iraq and Iran itself only has one refinery. Lastly among many other points that could be made if we pull out now 9\11 would happen again, and as an American as a human you should never want that to happen again. We have to stomp it out before it comes back over here. I am 20 years old and all I want to say to my generation is that you can't just follow the evening news, you have to educate yourself on both sides of the board and then from there determine your opinion, read books, listen to talk radio, watch CSPAN every now and then. Mainly just think for yourself. Thank you

Answer 2

We should not pull out of Iraq because the area is destroyed. Now that this has started, it needs to be finished. Terrorists are still attacking the hated democracy that rules the land, and the Iraqi police and military have not been built up yet. You cannot leave a country because people disagree with the war. Its not the decision of the people but that of the Commander in Chief (President Bush). The troops need to be increased in order to train the police and military force just enough that they can handle it by themselves. If we pull out now, it will seem like we don't care about the country we liberated and more innocent people will die.

Answer 3

Because throughout our history we have been a nation that rides to the rescue of a people in need. We "invaded" france in WWII to save them from the German occupation... actually, we did that in both WWI and WWII... We entered Iraq because Hussain was a psychopathic military dictator and we have information there were weapons of mass destruction... and we knew of the mass murder he'd committed upon his own people, using his own military. And so we invaded, to save the innocent Iraqi's from further tyrrany.

A couple years later, 12 million Iraqi's voted to elect a new government, KNOWING that by voting the new government in, they were accepting a continued US Military presece there... at least until their own newly forming security forces could take over the job of policing their own nation.

And so, we must remain. We must finish the job we started... which was, to free the Iraqi people to govern themselves and maintain their own security.... Because that is what the Iraqi people want.

One common misconception is that the insurgents are all Iraqi's... WRONG. Their funding and training comes from Al Queda, Syria, Iran, and other countries. Many of them come from those countries and follow "rat lines" of safe houses across Iraq, to reach whatever hot spot they're headed for... The iranian suicide bombers are paid an exhorbitant amount and kept in high style until their mission is complete... and then their families are paid well for their act of terrorism. And somehow the media turns it into an argument that it's the fault of the US military that this is happening.

Read a book called "We Were One" by Patrick O'Donnell... it's a GREAT book about the US Marines securing Fallujah after months of attempted negotiations and a huge build-up of multi-national insurgent forces there. Mr. O'Donnell does not specify his political beliefs, just gives a factual day by day, firefight by firefight account of what the Marines in one Unit faced as they did their job, and what they found in Fallujah as they moved through the City. It's amazing what our young men have been subjected to... and they'd have been a LOT safer had their command structure not had to worry about how things might play out on the evening news.

(I'll end there, as I'm getting WAY off the topic... :)

Answer 4

You're going to get clobbered, let's examine the pro Iraq positions already posted.
1. If we pull out, evrything is going to fall to pieces in Iraq...OK, so we stay in Iraq indefinately? Everything is going to go to hell in Iraq as soon as we pull out anyway, rather that be next year , next month or three years from now.
2. The military knows more than we know...Obviously they don't, if they did the war would be going a lot better than now. The military and the state dept. have admitted mistake after mistake, to the contrary, what would make us think they have it right now, they've had years and have been wrong the entire time.
3. If we pull out, we are going to get attacked here in the U.S., this is the easiest and most vulnerable argument to disect, do not choose this one it's a sink hole. By our own govt. admissions, the terrorist are already here, not to mention we have allowed thousands of middle eastern men into the U.S. in just last year, add the fact that the Mexican border is still pourous and unsecured, if they wanted to sneak in, they would just sneak over the Mexican border, it's not difficult. Pulling out of Iraq will have no effect on us getting attacked here or not. The terrorist are going to attack us here because they are already here and besides, Bush has already said that we are going to get attacked again, so again, pulling out of Iraq is a completely seperate issue.
Dude...you're going to get your asss kicked just like we are.

What winemkr fails to account for is the billions of dollars it will cost to maintain permanent bases in the middle east. Again it brings you full circle back to where we are now, the American people and congress will not continue dumping money into a money pit in the middle east.
Secondly, as long as there are permanent military bases in the middle east they will be a target for extravagant attacks by the terrorists, the Russians tried this in Afghanistan and it failed. There is a reason why we pulled all our military bases out of Saudi Arabia, if we could not maintain military bases there of all places, where would we be able to in the middle east. Again...we're right back at square zero.

Answer 5

Sorry to say it, but we SHOULD pull out of Iraq. However, for the sake of debate, right wingers believe we shouldnt pull out becuase it would be premature at this time. We basically "made a mess and need to clean it up" instead of making the mess and leaving it for Iraq to clean up by themselves.

Answer 6

Ok, here's an easy one. What do you think will happen if we pull out of Iraq? We'll probably get attacked again because we won't be doing anything to protect ourselves. If we pull out of Iraq, it would be the dumbest move because the Iraqis can do what ever they want then. I mean, think about it.

Answer 7

Here ya go kid, chew on this. These are not my opinions, I just want your brain to engage.


http://www.tpmcafe.com/discussiontables/foreign_affairs_table/2006/jun/19/the_argument_for_staying_in_iraq

The big "debate" these days is between those who say we should stay the course and those who say we should set a time table for departure.

I discuss(dismiss) both options below.
Some background:

The reasons given for invasion were those that the troika (Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney) thought would sway public opinion best: WMD, 9/11, and make the world safe for democracy.

The real reasons were something like these:
1. Replace bases lost in Saudi Arabia
2. Install client government which would sell oil on the world market under favorable terms
3. Intimidate neighboring Arab states
4. Prevent China from getting long-term oil contracts in the region.

How are we doing?
1. 17-19 bases completed or nearly completed
2. A work in progress
3. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Libya all behaving "better"
4. Accomplished. China is now making deals with secondary suppliers like those in South America

If we were to "pull out" what would happen to the region? Would the disagreements between Iran and Iraq disappear? Would the states that we have intimidated continue to behave moderately or would they revert back to their old patterns? Would the Iraqi puppet government continue to favor the west or would it collapse?

It is time to consider whether the object of permanent bases is so bad. Getting the troops out of the population centers is obviously needed, but is total withdrawal? Notice Murtha doesn't talk about leaving he talks about "re-deployment." This is what he means. We had bases in Saudi Arabia for decades and the troops had minimal interaction with the rest of the country, why not the same pattern in Iraq?

What's 17 more bases when added to the 750 we already have spread around the globe?

Staying is impossible, occupations always fail eventually (look at Algeria or Vietnam).

Leaving would open the region to even more chaos.

Staying on fortified bases may be the best option.

Counter arguments?
‹ "Identity" Politics Amnesty in Iraq ›
login or register to post comments
Jun 19, 2006 -- 03:57 PM EST
Comment viewing options
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On June 20, 2006 - 3:21am Gettysburg said:

First off, I'm legitimately thrilled that you emphasized the REAL reasons for the Iraq War. It seems as if many of the arguments about the conflict at this site seem still to be founded on the "Bush lied" theme. Indeed, if someone were to believe that eradicating WMD, protecting Democracy, and fighting a "Global War on Terror" were the actual reasons for the war, I can see why they would be upset. Before any legitimate argument can be made on the Iraq War it must first be understood that the stated reasons for the conflict are not, in fact, the actual motives. Unfortunately too many people seem to not recognize this; which creates the widely disparate debates on the Iraq War, ranging anywhere from thought provoking to absurd.

Assuming, then, that all of us here "get it" we can look forward. It would seem as if the military base idea is a good one. Good, at least, from an American perspective. Having an American (or Western) footprint in the region is essentially what created the reality of Islamic terrorism. But it would seem now as if the U.S. and Britain intend on maintaining that footprint.

The question you pose regarding what will come of the Iran/Iraq dispute is a good one. In fact, it would seem as if Bush has devoted his entire second term to solving it. It is far from a coincidence that the Bush administration largely ignored Iran during his first term. Indeed, even when military resources were being employed in Iraq, Bush was still able to use rhetoric to antagonize countries such as North Korea and Syria. Yet at this time Iran was all but ignored; Bush was very happy in allowing the EU-3 to deal with Tehran.

Iran, however, has proven to be a main source of refuge and supply for the Iraqi insurgency. Logic indicates that this is the true reason for the United States jumping to the forefront of the Iran Nuclear debate. Like with Iraq, where the stated reasons for war were not truly the REAL reasons, Bush has used one excuse to villify Iran while truly having other motives.

It can hardly be argued that a nuclear Iran is bad for the world. Furthermore Bush is not being completely dishonest when claiming that the nuclear issue is the reason for heightened tension between Washington and Tehran; just as he is not being completely dishonest when saying that spreading Democracy and fighting terrorists are the reasons for the Iraq War. Yet when Iran is undoutedly the one X factor with regard to the likely success or failure of the unity government in Iraq, it is little doubt Bush has turned his attention to Tehran.

In short, the Unity Government in Iraq will likely succeed in the long term unless Iran continues its clandestine efforts to undermine it. There is your REAL reason for Bush's second term animosity toward Tehran; the nuclear debate is a mere diversion (and, by all odds, a good one considering the EU and UN are siding with us...unlike Bush's Iraq War pitch which was largely rejected).

It makes one wonder what was truly included in the "incentive package" offered to Tehran a few weeks ago. The marked reaction of Iran indicates that something sweet tasting was offered. As much as Bush would like to serve sanctions to Tehran, this would hardly do anything to stop that nation's subtle support of the Iraqi insurgency. Perhaps Bush did have a "breakthrough" by finally coming to the negotiating table...

Answer 8

the military says we arent done yet, an the know a lot more than the people who wnat to pull out because all of thier friends dont like bush either. also, we are one think that is keeping the number of bombings down a notch. We leave, expect a rise suicide bombers.

write a speech around that?

Answer 9

Simple. The Iraqi people don't want you there. Bush's alternate excuse for invading when the WMDs claims proved lies was bringing democracy and freedom to Iraqis. They don't want it. They want you gone. The USA is viewed as an invading occupying power, which is what they are. Bush can fool the Americans but he can't fool the Iraqis.

Answer 10

because if they pull out now then they will attac the us and we will be indanger? and thats what i think?