The reasons for invading Iraq in 2003 have been debated and analyzed in full. But no matter what conclusions you've made, the U.S. is now left with a serious situation that deserves careful attention. We must determine how long -- or even if -- the military stays. Is it time to start bringing troops home or is more time needed to complete our goals?
Although i believe the United States needs to withdraw from Iraq i know that it cannot happen by tomorrow. Look, if we withdraw from Iraq instantly there will be mass chaos there. We are trying to form a democracy there, as hard as that is, so having that goal not been completed, leaving it the way it is with no congress, a corrupt police force and terrorist groups still in the country, the innocent citizens of Iraq are going to feel abandondoned, which will then cause riots and so on and so forth. I would personally love for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq immediately, but that just can't happen without mass pandemonium.
I say that no we should not because we (the United States) has created the state that Iraq is now in. It would be irresponsible to completely pull all troops out and leave Iraq in its current state of disorder. Our soldiers are over there fighting in that war that really should of never started, but the fact is, it did and now we have a mess to clean up.
However, I say yes, because I have family over there and would like to see them return home. Thus far, I have not lost any family or friends over there, but I know people who have.
It is never the responsibility of an invading force to "right its wrongs". This is the tired, same old rhetoric. Your position does not sound "uncommitted" at all. No invading force ever has rights or self-imposed responsibilities, it only has accountability, and the accountability is to the population that has been invaded. This means we do what the Iraqis want, not what we think we ought to do, or have the right or duty to do.
Imagine busting into someone's house because you thought you heard some yelling, and then you decided to stay until you could be sure there would never ever be any more yelling. Do you think after staying for a few years, the family living there would want you to remain even longer?
When we arrived in Iraq, there was nothing going on but a washed up dictator shooting off at the mouth. How does that give us "responsibility"?! What incredible presumption
When I saw the title of your comment, I thought you would be defending a middle ground. However, it looks like you are just pointing out that you feel personally torn between what are simply assertions on both sides. The real debate happens when you examine both sides and think about which arguments seem stronger.
We should stay to clean up our mess -- okay, but does staying really make things cleaner? Do American troops help or hurt stability in Iraq? Furthermore, what is the most appropriate response when an ally asks us to withdraw troops from within their borders?
We should feel sympathy for troops who are put within harm's way -- but we should surely be willing to use military force when it is necessary for the good of the world, shouldn't we? If we have a moral obligation to "clean up" Iraq and military might is the only way to accomplish that, doesn't the US have an obligation to risk the lives of those troops? It's a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless.
Your answer isn't really "no and yes" -- so far, it's neither. I'm curious what you'll end up thinking about it when you take the time to examine your conflicting instincts.
yes we should our troops are dying and it is costing us 10 billion a year plus we can save troop lives.
We should immediately begin withdrawal from Iraq, but that shouldn't mean removing all forces in less then 2 years.
I only chose "no" because hardly anyone else is. I do think we should withdraw, but responsibly in less then 5 years. Ideally I would want all major combat forces out by the first term of our next president, but not in less then 2, or immediately as many people are advocating.
History repeats; decades years age, we had same occation in middle-east, which was that western oil majors had started oil well purchassing. This movenent caused an elevation of oil prices. At that time, U.N. and Washington D.C. had an idea that nationalize oil wells and constructs economical unit that stabilizes oil price amid international relationship. This became OPEC, as we see now.
Today, we see similar situations in middle-east - Bush family is marching onto middle-eastern wells. Yet, some is differnt from that of OPEC establishmet era. Bush has exceptional priviledge so that he can interrupt middole-east affair by the name of "Anti-Terrorism operation afger 9/11".
By the way, oill major has power to control U.N. Security Council's interest as we have seen an example in Rockferrer and Rothchild.
This situation of today ware supposed to be intrugued by oil majors' interest - Revenge of Empirerists!!.
So, now we have this articles' answer here:
"We have to do two things to do at once. First, U.N.-S.C. again has to find an nnternasionl cooperative solustion that never interfere middle-eastern oil well interests and strongthen OPEC's independency. Second, Bush has to give up middle-east invasion and hand off Osama. As we know well, Osama is originally a CIA correspondant of Afgan against Soviet during cold war era. We don't think CIA had missed Osama in Afgan operation in 1988 as shown in the documentary film 'the pass to 9/11'"
There is so much vapid rhetoric and so many one-liners about Iraq that it is getting old. This is NOT a question about whether we should have gone in in the first place. That is a question for history and one that we cannot change.
The question is "What do we do now?"
I am saddened to see that so many continue to answer on the side of emotionalism instead of the side of rationality. While I, and everyone else, would love for the war to be over and there to be peace on Earth, we must do what causes the least suffering and the least loss of life. That choice right now is to stay in Iraq until it is safe, determined by the Generals on the ground, for the American forces to pull out. When the Iraqi army can defend itself and Al-Qaeda is defeated, there will be far less death and suffering than if we left a defenseless Iraq to the mercies of those who cut childrens' faces off with piano wire.
Believing that such evil is merely a "freedom fighter" makes me sick.
No one is excusing people who cut off children's faces with piano wire. I don't know where you are getting that. Did you read the arguments advanced by the Yes side here, or are you just responding to poorly-argued sentiments you've seen put forward by uninformed people?
No one here wants to just hand Iraq over to terrorist forces. Don't be absurd. Everyone wants a safer Iraq. The debate is over which course of action makes Iraq safest and everyone better off.
I am obviously responding to the "yes" side. One of the core arguments, in fact one that is advanced by almost the entire anti-war movement and one of the current Presidential candidates, is that because the war was unjust, we need to leave immediately regardless of the consequences.
No one is saying we need to stay forever. One side says we need to stay until generals on the ground say the country will not descend into chaos. The other side wants to leave as quickly as possible. The choice cannot be any more obvious, and yet we keep rehashing the "we shouldn't have gone in the first place" argument as if that determines what the current course of action is.
The Iraqi people don't necessarily want us out, but if they vote to send us home then by all means! There obviously isn't only a military solution, but does that mean the military isn't part of the solution?
The final argument is where there can be some discussion as to America's role in the world. Do we have a moral obligation as a superpower to do good where we are able, even in a world where almost nothing is 100% good or 100% bad? If we do, then staying in Iraq is the just thing to do.
That's what seems to be happening. Any little quarrel between a couple countries, or between a single country's people, there we are sticking our nose in it.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone, but now they're fighting each other and we're trying to keep the peace. We should pull out, and let them fight their own battles. Only if things get out of hand and it affects innocents should we get involved, legally. We MUST declare war and not just bomb the shit out of them.
People say we are promoting democracy. Who are we to decide what type of government is right for them? Their culture is based on a single ruler with absolute power. This should change only if THEY want it to.