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

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.....

What I find ironic is quotes on some Iraqi blogs saying how much better things were under Saddam than under the coalition occupation. I guess a lot of people can't understand how after 3 years, some areas of the country still don't have reliable running water and electricity.

While noone denies that Saddam Hussein's regime was a brutal dictatorship, there is a certain logic in the idea that strong (authoritarian) leadership (I should say ANY leadership) is preferable to no leadership. That's a big part of the problem in say, many African countries. Somalia for instance has been without a government for 14 years - various rival warlords keeping the peace of the gun. Under those conditions, its perfectly understandable why someone might prefer a single strong leader (albeit a brutal dictator) to provide more stability to their day to day lives than prolonged periods of lawlessness.

Certainly it seems clear to me that Saddam's regime had the fundamentalists under control and severely curtailed their interest - because their politics conflicted with his own interests. Part of the reason the US decided to lend their support to Saddam in the first place, is that he wasn't motivated by religious fanaticism, its easier to deal with someone who can be bought off with money than someone who is motivated by an idea...

Edited June 4, 2006 by Fishdude