58 percent want Iraq withdrawal by 2008 or sooner

Internet Porn would be nonexistant. Dammit I'm married! I need that!

 

Sloganeering is cute, but only in protest marches, not topical discussions.

So what do you see happening to Iraq if we withdraw in 2008? In your opinion, what would the Middle East be like, in say, 5 years if we withdraw before Iraq is 90-100% stabilized? Anyone feel free to pipe-in... I'm interested to see the opinions of the anti-war or the "its gone on too long and its time to leave" people on this question....

 

Why is it America's responsibility to police the Middle East....

 

I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know something about how Vietnam ended, when I don't. I was too young at the time to pay attention, and although I am deeply interested in military and political history, the Vietnam era is not one that I am well read on, so I defer to you on this.

C'mon Red. I know I don't post much anymore, but I would hope I was better known around here than some knee-jerk reactionary Republican. No where in my post did I mention food and ammo for the troops. Perhaps my point was made too emotionally, but for me this is an emotional issue. Personally I could give a rat's ass about Iraq these days, but the notion of cutting off funding, even for additional troop deployment smacks of politcal grandstanding that will have a direct impact on the military already deployed. Politicians do have responsibility to make sure our military is not squandered vainly. If you want to go back in time and apply that principle to the begining of the war, fine. I won't argue that, but we are here now and that's what has to be dealt with. As a veteran, I detest the idea that our forces are being used as political barganing chips. Both sides are guilty of it. It comes down to this: either give them everything at our disposal to do the job the is being asked (whatever that is these days, who can tell?), or bring them home. Half-ass measures never won a war and never will.

 

By your plan and not the Democrats.
Last I heard they want the troops "home"?
That doesn't mean we have any troops left of stopping the enemy.
Nobody in Washington seems to have a clue of what to do especially Democrats who wish this to be Vietnam all over.

Nobody wants to take the time to win a war the right way.
I acknowledge to you that Bush and his generals screwed things up but that
doesn't change the fact of those that oppose Bush and the war want to live
Vietnam all over again because they want to withdraw troops and bring them
home without victory.
How long were we in other countries we occupied or invaded by various wars.
Hint, we are still in a lot of them but the Dems don't see this for political reasons.

 

Because when we don't this kind of thing happens....



Also, you need this to live your life....

 

By the way, there is incoming statistics that since the troop surge and the new operations being run, US deaths are down 60%, and Iraqi sectarian violence is down 80%. Now the source is US and Iraqi Officials, so the numbers may be skewed a little, but that is still evidence that more troops over there are actually making it safer for everyone. This flies in the face of the logic that escalating the numbers results in more casualties. Note that the context is Baghdad, and not Iraq as a whole.

Here are my sources:



http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365