Is it not high time Americans and Allies withdrew from Iraq and attend to the problems in their own countries.

Question

Opposition to the foreign forces is increasing in Iraq every hour.Correct or wrong the country has been invaded and torn to pieces.A Government has been elected and a begining for democracy made.It would save a lot of lives if the occupying forces leaves.After all there are other pressing issues in their own respective countries. The money can be better spent to eradicate poverty in the needy countries

Answer 1

Yeah! I quite agree - we should bring them home and let all the Iraqi factions blow themselves to pieces -we can then use our troops to find all the illegals here and deport them back to their own countries so they can blow themselves up all over again - Oh! Yes, one more thing - we then won't have to pay all the benefits they claim - happy days

Answer 2

The first date for a chance to withdrawl is June 2007. That's when the Iraqi president has stated that The Iraqi police and soldiers would have been trained and supplied enough to take care of themselves. If 500,000 guys with tanks, machine guns and body armor can't take care of themselves, then there isn't much the U.S. can do.

The second date for a chance to withdrawl is Fall 2007. That's when the U.S. secretary of defense says the surge should be finished and he said if it worked then the U.S. could withdrawl then.

The third date for a chance of withdrawl is May 2008. That's when the U.S. plans to finish handing over the providences back to Iraq.

The fourth date for a chance to withdrawl is Fall 2008. That's when the Democrats have said should be the limit of U.S. involvement.

The fifth chance for a withdrawl is January 2009. That's when the U.S. will have a new president and all but one candidate wants the U.S. to leave Iraq.

George Bush has no plans for Iraqi or Afganistan and because of that he is unable to find somebody (what he is calling a war czar) to manage what is happening in Iraq and Afganistan.

The U.S. soldiers won't get a break though. The Democrats want them in Sudan and Afganistan.

Answer 3

Our troops are dying unnecessarily and horribly in order to sustain the status of megalomaniac. For starters, the Iraquis, if we withdraw, are going to kill one another but eventually they will recognise the fact that they need to sell their oil so they will come to some sort of agreement. They will not do this whilst American and British troops are there because they have something to vent their hatred upon. One begins to realise why Saddam ruled with a rod of iron.

The war was ill conceived, started by an American president with no knowledge of foreign affairs, supported by a British Prime Minister who simply hasn't a clue how to run his own country. It's all a sick joke.

If Blair wanted a legacy he could have at least tried to sort out the domestic problems of this country. He hadn't a clue so he decided to posture as a world statesman. He is not qualified and he has made all our lives more dangerous as a result. End of rant!

Answer 4

It seems to me the majority of the casualties on the Iraqi population is inflicted by other Iraqis. No doubt external insurgents and Al Quaida operatives are taking a pop at the Allies but to withdraw them would allow those enemies of Iraq and the Allies to impose their will on the Iraqi people.

As for spending money on needy countries - we have been doing it for decades. It has been like pouring good money into a bottomless pit.

Answer 5

It relies upon on which individuals you're asking. i think of maximum individuals (the main contemporary determine is two-thirds i think of) do not choose this occupation anymore. US "protection" companies or militia contractors and their managers and shareholders choose the occupation to proceed of direction. Republicans recently, by using definition or inference, back aggressive foreign places coverage. maximum of those occasion contributors, i might say, choose the conflict to proceed because of the fact they're jingoistic and immature and don't choose their us of a to lose (even if meaning). i think of we would desire to bear in mind that the occupation of Iraq isn't the only government coverage awry; our militia spending is vast, conspicuously because international conflict 2, and enriches the wealthy (protection companies), which negates extra significant social spending. Militarism decrease than each and each president, decade after decade, is our countries concern.

Answer 6

I agree with you, but, based on the 35 year example of Northern Ireland, what do you think will happen if these insurgents aren't squashed before we leave?

How long do you thnk it will take for them to make a simple phonecall to awaken thier sleepers in your country and cause permanent mayhem?

Life isn't as simplistic as we would like it to be, even though we may agree with the sentiments of your argument.

U.S. got us into this situation, but, rather than follow the ususal U.S. withdrawal method ;-) we need to complete the job BEFORE we leave Iraq - for the sake of our kids and future generations.

Answer 7

No. Iraq will be nothing more than a puppet of Iran. It is political neophytes like you who love the terrorists that are truly causing Iraq's downfall! Senator John McCain 4 President!

Answer 8

we are attending to the possible problems in our own country by staying in iraq...we are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here...a stable iraq is good for everyone. get a clue buddy!

Answer 9

You may not care about the innocent Iraqis but we do. If we had more people like you in America, we could nuke you all together and no one would notice.

Answer 10

They have to stay there until they clean up the mess they've made. They caused the problem, now lets see them fix the problem.