John Kerry calls for "total withdrawal" of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by end of 2006

[almaty 19]

kerry is a chopf##k...and so is bush

[*Robert* 2]

kerry is a chopf##k...and so is bush

totally agree with you bro dean!

so what should be done about our troops?

[Veiled Princess 1]

kerry is a chopf##k...and so is bush

Agreed!

kerry is a chopf##k...and so is bush

totally agree with you bro dean!

so what should be done about our troops?

Bring them home. Iraq did not have nearly the problems they have today before the US went over there. If that place is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists, it's the US's fault for taking out any kind of structure they had to their society before we (I use "we" lightly here because I don't really want to include myself in this mistake) started this mess. Even the people who hated Sadam there say at least he kept them safe and didn't let the terrorists in the country!

[bubba100 0]

Kerry is just mad because the military no longer serves Heniz Ketchup to the soliders!!!!!

[dalegg 143]

Even the people who hated Sadam there say at least he kept them safe and didn't let the terrorists in the country!

What does that say about a country if they have to be ruled that way in order to behave? For shame.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Even the people who hated Sadam there say at least he kept them safe and didn't let the terrorists in the country!

What does that say about a country if they have to be ruled that way in order to behave? For shame.

The thing is it's not the Iraqis who are behaving badly for the most part. It's the "illegal immigrants" who are flooding the borders now that there is no real structure there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

kerry is a chopf##k...and so is bush

Agreed!

kerry is a chopf##k...and so is bush

totally agree with you bro dean!

so what should be done about our troops?

Bring them home. Iraq did not have nearly the problems they have today before the US went over there. If that place is becoming a breeding ground for terrorists, it's the US's fault for taking out any kind of structure they had to their society before we (I use "we" lightly here because I don't really want to include myself in this mistake) started this mess. Even the people who hated Sadam there say at least he kept them safe and didn't let the terrorists in the country!

IMO this whole situation has gone beyond the initial objections to the legality of the war. Fact is - we went there (against significant objections both domestically and internationally), we knocked over the government and destroyed the country's economic infrastructure. Like it or not the US has a moral responsibility to restore a degree of stability to that country. Leaving now without ensuring some sort of peaceful outcome will invariably make things worse, especially if the fledgling democratic government collapses and Iraq turns into another Afghanistan.

Unfortunately what will probably happen is once the government decides it can safely disentangle itself (when it has gotten all it wants out of Iraq), it will pull out- and the UN and international community will wind up stuck with the bill.

[dalegg 143]

Even the people who hated Sadam there say at least he kept them safe and didn't let the terrorists in the country!

What does that say about a country if they have to be ruled that way in order to behave? For shame.

The thing is it's not the Iraqis who are behaving badly for the most part. It's the "illegal immigrants" who are flooding the borders now that there is no real structure there.

Well, if you agree it's not the Iraqis who are causing all of these problems, and the "illegal immigrants" from across the borders are causing mayhem WITH the U.S. troops there, what do you think it would be like without the troops there?

Do you think that Iraq can build up it's own infrastructure faster if the U.S just left? I don't think the current Iraqi government officials think that. Wouldn't it just make it that much easier for the outside forces to take complete control of the country once we left--like what happened in Vietnam?

Even if the mass of Iraq doesn't want whatever the insurgents want for a government (I'm still not even sure what that is- Iranism?), many there probably do but are just hanging in there because they don't think actually defeating the US forces on the ground is possible. If we leave it could very well launch some sort of prolonged civil war, and that wouldn't be good for the citizens of Iraq either.

All I have to say is----what a mess!!!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The thing is it's not the Iraqis who are behaving badly for the most part. It's the "illegal immigrants" who are flooding the borders now that there is no real structure there.

Damn, there are Mexicans in Iraq too?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

The thing is it's not the Iraqis who are behaving badly for the most part. It's the "illegal immigrants" who are flooding the borders now that there is no real structure there.

Damn, there are Mexicans in Iraq too?

they probably want green cards too

[slim 1,525]

I'm curious how many people actually feel our troops should remain in Iraq, and how many more casualties are acceptable?

Can someone please explain to me how Iraq isn't just another Vietnam? Or how does having troops in Iraq protect the US?

You know what would happen if the US left Iraq?

There would be a big war, thousands of thousands of casualties and then the country will be divided up into three seperate countries.

You know what's going to happen if the US stays in Iraq?

US troops will continue to piss off Iraqis and the whole Middle East by engaging in something that combat troops have no business doing, then eventually the US will pull out, and there will be a big war and the country will be divided up into three seperate countries.

Why don't we just save some face and bow out gracefully?

Edited June 3, 2006 by slim

[*Robert* 2]

I can understand the argument that we went in and dismantled the former government (if that's what you want to call it), and are somewhat responsible for ensuring things are stable before leaving... but where do you draw the line? For how long? How many more troops must die needlessly?

[Well, if you agree it's not the Iraqis who are causing all of these problems, and the "illegal immigrants" from across the borders are causing mayhem WITH the U.S. troops there, what do you think it would be like without the troops there?

Do you think that Iraq can build up it's own infrastructure faster if the U.S just left? I don't think the current Iraqi government officials think that. Wouldn't it just make it that much easier for the outside forces to take complete control of the country once we left--like what happened in Vietnam?

Even if the mass of Iraq doesn't want whatever the insurgents want for a government (I'm still not even sure what that is- Iranism?), many there probably do but are just hanging in there because they don't think actually defeating the US forces on the ground is possible. If we leave it could very well launch some sort of prolonged civil war, and that wouldn't be good for the citizens of Iraq either.

All I have to say is----what a mess!!!!

I totally agree! If we left, I have a feeling it would allow the healing process to begin and let them get on with their own lives and government sooner. As long as the US is there, they will say it is the US that is running everything, not the local government.

I SAY LET'S GET THE F##K OUT!!! (either that or nuke it and turn it into the worlds largest mirror)

Oh... and one final thought... How about all the money that is being wasted over there?!!! Those are OUR tax dollars being wasted on some worthless piece of shite country, instead of being used here at home to help our own people.....

Edited June 3, 2006 by roi_aggie

[Veiled Princess 1]

IMO this whole situation has gone beyond the initial objections to the legality of the war. Fact is - we went there (against significant objections both domestically and internationally), we knocked over the government and destroyed the country's economic infrastructure. Like it or not the US has a moral responsibility to restore a degree of stability to that country. Leaving now without ensuring some sort of peaceful outcome will invariably make things worse, especially if the fledgling democratic government collapses and Iraq turns into another Afghanistan.

Unfortunately what will probably happen is once the government decides it can safely disentangle itself (when it has gotten all it wants out of Iraq), it will pull out- and the UN and international community will wind up stuck with the bill.

I can certainly see the logic in your opinion. I don't think we should just pull completely out and leave them on their own now. However, I still don't agree that we should continue to be an occupying force in their country any longer. We should never have been to begin with. The US should help them rebuild what we destroyed but we don't need to do that by policing their streets in a military fashion like we are. It should be more of a humanitarian relief effort at this point. The first step, in my opinion, is that the US government (namely the president) has to admit that it was a mistake going in there at all. After that we can start to make ammends for the autrocities that we have commited there. It just requires taking our level of pride down a notch, or twelve. I think if the US made an announement that we were in error by starting this war in the first place but that we would like to take the neccessary steps to rectify the situation now, it would be accepted and we wouldn't be viewed so much as the "big bad satan". I don't really think that will ever happen as long as greedy, fat cat, oil tycoons are in office but I'm entitled to my opinion anyway.

[slim 1,525]

As far as troop losses go... less than 3,000 is more than acceptable from a military standpoint for a prolonged ground war.

The US military cannot be defeated on the ground in a toe-to-toe fight. The insurgency knows this, and that's why they fight the fight the way they do.

Where do we draw the line?

It is our responsibility to "fix" Iraq, since we broke it. However, the thing the US continually does around the world is try to fix situations that can't be fixed by inserting a puppet government. Without the real problems being addressed, the status quo will remain, and the situation will worsen once the US pulls out. (Why do you think we haven't gone to Africa?) The tyrannical regime that ruled Iraq prior to the invasion actually stabilized the country. Now, there is no stability, and there won't be. The reason the US remains is to control the output of oil. Do you think we're really there to "help" the Iraqis? I think we are. We're there to "help" take their oil. The only time the US will leave is once the Iraqi government is strong enough to ensure oil will be exported steadily. Until that happens.... prepare to keep on pissing off the Arab world.

[*Robert* 2]

You hit the "proverbial nail"... right on the head!!!

It just really sucks... that's all. I'd like to see that money spent somewhere else, and given our gas prices right now, keeping the oil flowing out of Iraq doesn't seem to be helping that situation at all.