Pullout of Iraq: Besides Al Qeada and Sadr, who thinks this is a good idea?

Question

Putting aside the argument as to whether we should be there in the first place, given that the Generals on the ground, lots of dems, and most of the countries in the region agree that a pullout now would be a disaster, who are the liberals getting their advice from?

"Pulling U.S. forces from Iraq could trigger catastrophe, CNN analysts and other observers warn, affecting not just Iraq but its neighbors in the Middle East, with far-reaching global implications."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/02/iraq.scenarios/index.html

Ok, the forecasted choas far exceedes the current choas, so that argument is bogus.

True, Iraqis want us out, and understandably. However, they don't want us to pull out too soon...this is from the largest survey ever conducted there.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1803771/posts
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Iraq/article1530762.ece

brewers0…, read the link - experts, democrats, liberals, iraqis, arab leaders. There are more than Republicans who think this would be bad - this isn't a political question, or one that reflects support of Bush or the war.

half the country didn't want the civil war, half the country didn't want segregation, or US involvement in the world wars.

Raoul Du…, you're lying. None of the US intelligence agencies are saying we should pull out right now, quite the contrary.

fra59e, I knew you're not a lib, you're a Ron Paul con, perhaps a paleocon. Anyway, why wait until 10/1, your arbitrary date makes no sense. Second, the damage (re: recruiting) is done already. If we leave and it turns into more of a bloodbath, more people may become pissed we left it like that. So this is bogus as well. Morover, we ran from Somalia, did that stop recruiting efforts? Pre-Iraq, tell me, what was the excuse then for attack after attack after attack, and why didn't running from Lebonon, Somalia, Iraq, etc. not prevent future attacks and slow recruiting?

Some of your other points have some merit, but isolationism hasn't worked all that well either.

Answer 1

Only American liberals. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Answer 2

It is already a disaster. As well as immense human suffering, the Bush intervention has given Al Qaeda new impetus and a big pool of new recruits. And even if we were able to keep them from using Iraq, there are a whole lot of other countries where they could just as easily build a base.

Don't call me a liberal. I am a conservative who holds to the principle of America First. This means taking care of the domestic economy, and not squandering out resources on foreign adventures. All overseas US military bases should be shut down and our troops brought home. We should withdraw from NATO and maybe the UN too, and take care of our own people and their needs. Get the fundies who think the Rapture will rescue us out of the White House. Abolish the Federal Reserve and get out of organizations like IMF and all aliances. Work to stop inflation, and start paying down the huge national debt that Bush has given us. Make the dollar sound again. Strengthen America by urging every adult to acquire arms and train in their use. Put our resources to work to create the strong and prosperous free and secular Republic of which the founders dreamed. A city of a hill and a light unto the nations. America the Beautiful, land of the free.

First and immediate step: Out of Iraq by October 1.

Answer 3

Wrong as usual neocon. Al-Qaeda wants us there where the killing is easy, and we grow militarily, economically, and politically weaker by the day.

Who wants us out?

How about the consensus opinion of 16 American government intelligence agencies whose recent National Intelligence Estimate report titled “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States’’, concludes that our presence in Iraq is contributing to the problem and is making the global terror threat worse. Their conclusion is that America, and the world, is less safe today than it was before 9/11 – because of our invasion and continuing presence in Iraq?

Or the US State department, whose annual report on terrorism due out next week documents that over the past year terror attacks have increased almost 30%, and that the number of deaths from terror attacks has increased 40% over last year?

How about the President’s own father whose 1998 book ‘A World Transformed’ details why invading Iraq and removing Saddam from power would lead to US failure and would be counterproductive to America’s long-term goals and interests in the region and the world?

-------------------

edit -

Read the report - conservatives are the liars - that is what got us in this mess, remember. Our continuing presence is making the situation in Iraq, and around the globe, worse and there is nothing we can do that benefits our interests more than leaving.

We are leaving anyway, it is only a matter of time, and it will not affect Iraq’s long-term future (that is now completely and forever out of our hands).

And, it is a certainty that there will be at least a major redeployment prior to the 2008 Presidential election as Republicans try to keep control of the executive branch. So, essentially, they are just leaving our troops there to die until it is politically expedient for them make a move based only on their own self-interest. Of course, there is nothing new in that.

Answer 4

Al-Quaedas and the al-sadrs are great at poker game players and twiddle their thumbs around us so cleverly, and each time dumb folks make the same mistake, dalling for their trickeries, to the detriment of Americans! Hey, if they hadn't been playing games with us, how come they could infilterate into Iraq so easily, under the Bush Watch, and not under Saddam's Watch, and Bin Laden and al-Sadr are still uncaught? Do we have to be idiots over and over again, and never learn our lessons? They know that dumb Americans will do just the opposite of what they declare publicly. Wise enemies keep silent about their wants and plots!

Answer 5

About 68% of americans think we should issue some sort of time line, instead of just doing the same thing we've been doing for five years. Even the dem plan does not say pullout immediately, it's drawn out over a year and that's just combat forces, not the training and logistics. The iraqi's need to step up, it's been long enough.

Answer 6

Over half the country:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/431/trends-in-public-opinion-about-the-war-in-iraq-2003-2007

One of the top generals in Iraq, speaking off the record: “Nothing would take the wind out of the sails of the insurgents more than having a timeline in place.”

Answer 7

A disaster for whom? How can you ask more American soldiers to die for somebody else's country?

If you care about the citizens of Iraq, let them come live in America, protected by the American Constitution, instead of sending Americans to die in Iraq defending an Iraqi constitution which trampels the rights our soldiers are sworn to defend.

Are you so terrified by a miniscule chance that terrorists will get you in your bed that you are willing to send Americans to Iraqi cities to be easy targets in the backyard of thousands of terrorists? Our soldiers can defeat any army, but they are not police or social workers to be sent to die in somebody else's bad neighborhoods.

We needed to destroy the government that hosted the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. And we did. The Taliban government was toppled. But now it's making a comeback, because Bush has been fighting the wrong war, draining needed soldiers and equipment from the real war in Afghanistan.

How much American blood is a gallon of gasoline worth?

Answer 8

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are getting stronger and stronger in Afghanistan and Pakistan while our army is tied down in Iraq. I think Al Qaeda wants us to stay bogged down in Iraq because it leaves them free to do whatever they want anywhere else in the world because we can't respond.

Don't get so uptight about "winning" and "losing" in Iraq. We should be doing what is best for the country, and the best thing for the country is going after Bin Laden and Zawahiri. And, they are not in Iraq.

Answer 9

As a liberal, you have no right to speak for me...

I do not support immediate withdrawal... but I DO support withdrawal at some point...

Which is only going to be when Haliburton has all the oil contracts if you keep pandering to Bush.

Authoritarian capitalists make me sick... Bush doesn't care to avenge the deaths of New Yorkers because that was not his voting base... so don't accuse congress of being career politicians!

Answer 10

Only our enemies would benefit.
Like you said, regardless of the initial arguments for invading Iraq, such as no AlQaida-Saddam link, No WMDs, whatever, TODAY, Iraq IS THE primary battle ground against Radical Islamic Jihadists/AlQaida, the same ones who have been attacking the US and much of western civilization for decades now. I believe it is crucial to stabilize Iraq and eliminate as many of these barbarians as well, in order to continue our fight against terrorism. They decalred war on us, (WAY before 9-11), and we have to reduce their ability to freely operate. A pullout would be a ridiculous disaster which would strengthen our enemies resolve, and give them a whole country to seize control of and operate from.

Answer 11

Almost half the countrymen of Iraq would be very happy with this idea. Mullas declaring fatwas every other day would be the happiest lot. And, most of the tax payers of USA will also get some relief.