When should we leave Iraq?

 

Wow, I inspired a poll, and from 97ranger non the less!! I gotta say when we stabalize a government, not that I think that we should be there to begin with, but we are in too deep to just leave.

 

I think we should get out of there,and bring our guys back and put them around the U.S. at the boarders, to keep everyone out!!

 

We have to be in for the long haul, we absolutely cannot afford to turn tail, especially after not finishing the job during the Gulf War.

If we turn tail now, it'll be open season for terrorists, and they know it.

MHO.

 

That is a really good question, one that will inspire a lot of replys. I for one would just like to say that I support the Bush administration, I think that he is a soldier's president. Having said that, I think that we will be in Iraq or at least a good portion of troops for a very, very, very long time. If you look at the situation in Korea, it may give you some insight in just what it takes to 'stabalize' a country. We have been there since the Korean war for god sakes. I have even heard rumors of the III Armored Corps (Fort Hood) being relocated there to keep stability. Fort Hood is the largest base in the world, 47% of the enitre Army's ground mobile force. So, my vote is at the very least until we establish a stable government. But I have a feeling, like previously said, that we will be there for the long haul. Or till we kill'em all!!!!! Like how that rhymed?

 

Who knows? Franks (before Congress) said, "a minimum of 4 years". This proves it is much easier to leap into a quagmire than it is to crawl out.
Dono

 

We cant leave yet. We promised them freedom and we better deliver. After the UN making us pull out in 91 we cant afford to just get up and leave without finishing the job. You see how little they trust us now. We need to start pulling troops out of other crountries like Germany, and yes I fell even S. Korea, and so on, where they are not needed and send them there so we can hurry up and get it finished. Stop financing some foreign gov'ts and pay off the war debt. latr

 

I was a hospital corpsman from aug 90 to may 91., in the original "storm" we have the job 80% done after 12 years....
the last 20% may take several years more. god bless the folks that are finishing the the job that i was a part of starting all those years ago....i just wish the guys and gals that were in the
vietnam period could have the sence of closure that i have.....
Dave.

 

Pull out? No, that will be taken as a sign of weakness.
The muslim extremists will love that. That would give them a chance to re-group and begin attacking American interests.
We have them on the run and disorganized. Besides we promised the people of Iraq we would finish the job.
When the seed of democracy is firmly planted and spreading, we can leave.

Peace and security through superior fire power.
zanny

 

Powell is now in the process of soliciting UN member nations for troops and financial aid to reduce the horrendous drain on our treasury. In virtually every case the only countries who are responding are second tier nations who are supplying a limited number of troops we'll pay for, no financial assistance and they get US loan guarantees, costing us double. All first tier nations have stated they will not consider assistance in the form of voting for a UN resolution that supplies troops, financial and administrative aid unless we relinquish all administrative and reconstruction responsibilities and military command in Iraq to the UN.

How long we stay is an international political issue currently dominated by administration ego. After circumventing the UN to invade Iraq, we're basically asking them to bail us out of a mess we created with their disapproval. Press releases are now downplaying the WMD invasion rationalization due to the Nigeria intelligence scandel, not finding any WMD and currently touting 'for the good of the Iraqi People'.

We can't get out now and we're not wanted there because the Iraqis correctly view us as an army of occupation which is contrary to their customs and belief systems (something we ignore all over the world). The poorly designed 'Iraq Council, supposedly the first step to Iraq self-government has fallen apart, the dislike of our current administrator by most Iraqi professionals and especially the clergy is a big issue, 20-25 daily attacks on our forces by partisans, many never connected to Saddam and far from Baghdad are undermining troop morale and our using US companies to restore oil production is all creating a situation that we'll need to resolve in the near future. We've stepped on our you know what.

Look for the beginning of a resolution this fall or early next year.
With our current economic problems, the daily killing of our troops and approval poll ratings dropping, 2004 election considerations will drive at least a partial solution.

 

 

Democracy, as we define it within our culture, isn't suitable as a governing body in many countries. First you'd have to eliminate the history, change the belief systems to reflect one or more versions of christianity and Judism and then children could be raised with the desired objectives. That's a lot longer than we have resources to achieve at the point of a gun.

Franks was the one who pointed out that 15-25 incidents involving hostile gunfire against US Forces were occuring daily all over Iraq in his retirement speech. Prior to that, media reports were of 'isolated incidents primarily in the former Saddam stronghold known as the Triangle near Bagdad'. Being supportive and facts are often two different subjects. Why did Franks pass on the chief of staff job and opt for retirement?

It is rather doubtful that anyone attacking a sovereign nation based on rumours will ever be under consideration for a Nobel peace prize. That's normally reserved for individuals working towards peace.

Politics and money are the very heart of the Iraq situation, terrorism and the very lifeblood of all politicians. If anyone doesn't understand that, I have several bridges for sale.

 

Quote:

and the knowledge that the Yanks could do it themselves.

Then why go to the UN at this point for support and money?

Quote:

President Clinton called into a talk show with Bob Dole and Larry King and said he found it INCONCEIVABLE that Iraq didn't have missing WMD

OK, so to clarify. Everything else that Clinton has ever said is ignorant commie lib crap spewing from the mouth of the worst, most despicable, morally corrupt president in US history, who is, in fact, the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war (if I've read all your other posts correctly), but in this case, what he says should be taken as Gospel.

Interesting.

Waxy

 

I'm so surprised at how many people were behind Bush and the war after the events of 9/11 that now, after having some of our soldiers killed, are insulting our President. It is given that there will be casualties in a war. But if we were to have just stood back and watching Saddam terrorize his own people with no regard for human life then what would be to stop him from making his way around the world like Hitler??? Let us honor and appreciate the brave men that go to war to protect our families. It will take years for this to be under control but in the end it will be worth it. Our ancestors fought to free our country, lets keep it that way!!!

 

I don't think anyone is insulting our president and certainly not doubting the bravery of our military forces.

Having the ability to question the actions of government officials and reflect those opinions to others is defined as free speech and, I think, still allowed under our constitution.

Unless we're perfect, criticism is generally understood as being constructive in that it makes us look at all facets of a situation or issue. If someone is unable to accept any criticism, then that person must be perfect or really thin skinned. And politicians certainly aren't thin-skinned. Speaking of politicians, arrogance is one of the definitions of insult.

My recollection of Clinton's comments on the radio call-in are that in summary he said Bush had made a bad call on the nuclear WMD issue and that he (Clinton) had made bad calls as had every president because of the number of decisions the office required on a daily basis. And that he felt it was done, no big deal, go forward.