should america pull out of iraq within the next 6 months?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
They probably will leave though because of pressure from the public at home. When Bush said 'Mission Accomplished', I was in disagreement. This 'mission' is far from accomplished and as far as I am concerned, if they leave then I will deem the Iraq war as just another loss to them, like Vietnam.Total-KOthe loss in vietnam didn't destabilize east asia. a civil war in iraq would destabilize the region
They should have been out of Iraq a long time ago, as they stated before going there they will be out really soon. It has been years...zsc4
they shouldn't have even gone there to begin with
[QUOTE="zsc4"]They should have been out of Iraq a long time ago, as they stated before going there they will be out really soon. It has been years...nightshade85
they shouldn't have even gone there to begin with
Yeah ONLY if the worthless UN had of stood behind their sanctions. But they dont so we have to take care of them and stand up and enforce the rules set on them.
[QUOTE="espoac"]Yes, evyday we're there we create more terrorists and put ourselves in more danger.Jacojac
Nonsense. Please think a little about writing such stupid things.
Without the U.S., Iraq would be doomed. This country can't stand on its own feet! It's weak and corrupted. It needs the United States of America. Leaving Iraq would be the most stupid ans most coward things to do. We must not give up Iraq and the war against terrorists. If we do, then we would be doomed.
It wouldn't have got into this situation to start with if it weren't for the US-led invasion.[QUOTE="Jacojac"][QUOTE="espoac"]Yes, evyday we're there we create more terrorists and put ourselves in more danger.Bourbons3
Nonsense. Please think a little about writing such stupid things.
Without the U.S., Iraq would be doomed. This country can't stand on its own feet! It's weak and corrupted. It needs the United States of America. Leaving Iraq would be the most stupid ans most coward things to do. We must not give up Iraq and the war against terrorists. If we do, then we would be doomed.
It wouldn't have got into this situation to start with if it weren't for the US-led invasion. the invasion was retarded, but retreating wont solve ****.[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Jacojac"][QUOTE="espoac"]Yes, evyday we're there we create more terrorists and put ourselves in more danger.mig_killer2
Nonsense. Please think a little about writing such stupid things.
Without the U.S., Iraq would be doomed. This country can't stand on its own feet! It's weak and corrupted. It needs the United States of America. Leaving Iraq would be the most stupid ans most coward things to do. We must not give up Iraq and the war against terrorists. If we do, then we would be doomed.
It wouldn't have got into this situation to start with if it weren't for the US-led invasion. the invasion was retarded, but retreating wont solve ****. How? You people look at thsmall picture, you need to loko back at past times, like with Clinton. But nooo, you have to blame Bush on something that is as bad as Pearl Harbor 8 months into his Presidency. Besides, you think Bush cares what you think of him? He's said o him self that he doesn't care what you think of him, he's ging to do wat he thinks is best no what you do.Let's look back. If you knew a country (Afganistan)had camps and terrorist training centers wat would you do? Attack it? Too bad, back when Clinton was president that was too "unreasonable". You can't jsut attack a country, not enought "proof." Okay, so you don't attack, it builds stronger and stronger because you arn't attacking. Then guess what happens. 9/11. Way to go, since you ddin't destroy those training camps and other known terrorist sites, your country just go hit with an attack equivalent to Pearl Harbor. But have no fear, our president of 8 months will save us all. So what does he do? He goes inrto Afganistan to find Osama. Okay, gj My. Bush.
Now for Iraq, we KNOW they have terrorist camps there, we KNOW they have terrorist safe houses thre, we KNOW they are in control of a dictator whose peopel will say anything so they won't die/be gassed, and we KNOW they have oher terrorist sites within the country. Okay, the same thing happened with Afganistan. We KNEW they had all those things (minus the dictator) yet we didn't attack and look what happened. They were responsible for 9/11. Now in Iraq, we have suspected WMD's plus everyting else! Imagine if they hit the USA with a WMD, do you know what would happen to the world? So what would you do? Take a chance and leave them be or invade and do what we're doing now? I'd choose the second one if I were you.
Also, Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 occured, what do yuy expect him to do? He handled the situation fine. You cna't jst blame him, and if you do, then you should jsut blame the Pentagon and the US Military as well, since they're the ones giving him intelligence n what's happening in the world. You say you dislike Bush becausehe went into Iraq looking for WMD's when we found none, but guess what, if we did nothing and got hit again, you'd still whine and complain on how we did nothing. And that's the truth, but maybe a few select peoel wouldn't do that, but most of you would.
Besides, I'd like to see you take on a huge challenge (in fact, a challenge equal to one that entered us in a world war) 8 months into your presidency. I really would.
[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Jacojac"][QUOTE="espoac"]Yes, evyday we're there we create more terrorists and put ourselves in more danger.cpo335
Nonsense. Please think a little about writing such stupid things.
Without the U.S., Iraq would be doomed. This country can't stand on its own feet! It's weak and corrupted. It needs the United States of America. Leaving Iraq would be the most stupid ans most coward things to do. We must not give up Iraq and the war against terrorists. If we do, then we would be doomed.
It wouldn't have got into this situation to start with if it weren't for the US-led invasion. the invasion was retarded, but retreating wont solve ****. How? You people look at thsmall picture, you need to loko back at past times, like with Clinton. But nooo, you have to blame Bush on something that is as bad as Pearl Harbor 8 months into his Presidency. Besides, you think Bush cares what you think of him? He's said o him self that he doesn't care what you think of him, he's ging to do wat he thinks is best no what you do.Let's look back. If you knew a country (Afganistan)had camps and terrorist training centers wat would you do? Attack it? Too bad, back when Clinton was president that was too "unreasonable". You can't jsut attack a country, not enought "proof." Okay, so you don't attack, it builds stronger and stronger because you arn't attacking. Then guess what happens. 9/11. Way to go, since you ddin't destroy those training camps and other known terrorist sites, your country just go hit with an attack equivalent to Pearl Harbor. But have no fear, our president of 8 months will save us all. So what does he do? He goes inrto Afganistan to find Osama. Okay, gj My. Bush.
Now for Iraq, we KNOW they have terrorist camps there, we KNOW they have terrorist safe houses thre, we KNOW they are in control of a dictator whose peopel will say anything so they won't die/be gassed, and we KNOW they have oher terrorist sites within the country. Okay, the same thing happened with Afganistan. We KNEW they had all those things (minus the dictator) yet we didn't attack and look what happened. They were responsible for 9/11. Now in Iraq, we have suspected WMD's plus everyting else! Imagine if they hit the USA with a WMD, do you know what would happen to the world? So what would you do? Take a chance and leave them be or invade and do what we're doing now? I'd choose the second one if I were you.
Also, Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 occured, what do yuy expect him to do? He handled the situation fine. You cna't jst blame him, and if you do, then you should jsut blame the Pentagon and the US Military as well, since they're the ones giving him intelligence n what's happening in the world. You say you dislike Bush becausehe went into Iraq looking for WMD's when we found none, but guess what, if we did nothing and got hit again, you'd still whine and complain on how we did nothing. And that's the truth, but maybe a few select peoel wouldn't do that, but most of you would.
Besides, I'd like to see you take on a huge challenge (in fact, a challenge equal to one that entered us in a world war) 8 months into your presidency. I really would.
wow, I didn't know that these loyal bushies were resorting to flat out lies. there were no terrorist training camps under saddam
wow, I didn't know that these loyal bushies were resorting to flat out lies. there were no terrorist training camps under saddammig_killer2
Training camps might be a stretch of the imagination, but the country was certainly harboring terrorism.
before this topic dies, I'll give my opinion
If we left iraq before we built a stable government, it would create a power vacuum which wouldinevitably cause a massive civil war. democrats seem to think that iraq would be fine with us out. that is not possible. if a civil war erupted in iraq, it could destabilize the entire region
mig_killer2
And we care about Iraq, why?
[QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Jacojac"][QUOTE="espoac"]Yes, evyday we're there we create more terrorists and put ourselves in more danger.cpo335
Nonsense. Please think a little about writing such stupid things.
Without the U.S., Iraq would be doomed. This country can't stand on its own feet! It's weak and corrupted. It needs the United States of America. Leaving Iraq would be the most stupid ans most coward things to do. We must not give up Iraq and the war against terrorists. If we do, then we would be doomed.
It wouldn't have got into this situation to start with if it weren't for the US-led invasion. the invasion was retarded, but retreating wont solve ****. How? You people look at thsmall picture, you need to loko back at past times, like with Clinton. But nooo, you have to blame Bush on something that is as bad as Pearl Harbor 8 months into his Presidency. Besides, you think Bush cares what you think of him? He's said o him self that he doesn't care what you think of him, he's ging to do wat he thinks is best no what you do.Let's look back. If you knew a country (Afganistan)had camps and terrorist training centers wat would you do? Attack it? Too bad, back when Clinton was president that was too "unreasonable". You can't jsut attack a country, not enought "proof." Okay, so you don't attack, it builds stronger and stronger because you arn't attacking. Then guess what happens. 9/11. Way to go, since you ddin't destroy those training camps and other known terrorist sites, your country just go hit with an attack equivalent to Pearl Harbor. But have no fear, our president of 8 months will save us all. So what does he do? He goes inrto Afganistan to find Osama. Okay, gj My. Bush.
Now for Iraq, we KNOW they have terrorist camps there, we KNOW they have terrorist safe houses thre, we KNOW they are in control of a dictator whose peopel will say anything so they won't die/be gassed, and we KNOW they have oher terrorist sites within the country. Okay, the same thing happened with Afganistan. We KNEW they had all those things (minus the dictator) yet we didn't attack and look what happened. They were responsible for 9/11. Now in Iraq, we have suspected WMD's plus everyting else! Imagine if they hit the USA with a WMD, do you know what would happen to the world? So what would you do? Take a chance and leave them be or invade and do what we're doing now? I'd choose the second one if I were you.
Also, Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 occured, what do yuy expect him to do? He handled the situation fine. You cna't jst blame him, and if you do, then you should jsut blame the Pentagon and the US Military as well, since they're the ones giving him intelligence n what's happening in the world. You say you dislike Bush becausehe went into Iraq looking for WMD's when we found none, but guess what, if we did nothing and got hit again, you'd still whine and complain on how we did nothing. And that's the truth, but maybe a few select peoel wouldn't do that, but most of you would.
Besides, I'd like to see you take on a huge challenge (in fact, a challenge equal to one that entered us in a world war) 8 months into your presidency. I really would.
Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and would have had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden either. He wouldn't trust Osama because he would of felt it was a danger to have someone challenge for his power. By attacking Iraq we used up VALUABLE resources that could of been used to find Bin Laden, the real danger to America.
[QUOTE="cpo335"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"][QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Jacojac"][QUOTE="espoac"]Yes, evyday we're there we create more terrorists and put ourselves in more danger.Smithgdwg
Nonsense. Please think a little about writing such stupid things.
Without the U.S., Iraq would be doomed. This country can't stand on its own feet! It's weak and corrupted. It needs the United States of America. Leaving Iraq would be the most stupid ans most coward things to do. We must not give up Iraq and the war against terrorists. If we do, then we would be doomed.
It wouldn't have got into this situation to start with if it weren't for the US-led invasion. the invasion was retarded, but retreating wont solve ****. How? You people look at thsmall picture, you need to loko back at past times, like with Clinton. But nooo, you have to blame Bush on something that is as bad as Pearl Harbor 8 months into his Presidency. Besides, you think Bush cares what you think of him? He's said o him self that he doesn't care what you think of him, he's ging to do wat he thinks is best no what you do.Let's look back. If you knew a country (Afganistan)had camps and terrorist training centers wat would you do? Attack it? Too bad, back when Clinton was president that was too "unreasonable". You can't jsut attack a country, not enought "proof." Okay, so you don't attack, it builds stronger and stronger because you arn't attacking. Then guess what happens. 9/11. Way to go, since you ddin't destroy those training camps and other known terrorist sites, your country just go hit with an attack equivalent to Pearl Harbor. But have no fear, our president of 8 months will save us all. So what does he do? He goes inrto Afganistan to find Osama. Okay, gj My. Bush.
Now for Iraq, we KNOW they have terrorist camps there, we KNOW they have terrorist safe houses thre, we KNOW they are in control of a dictator whose peopel will say anything so they won't die/be gassed, and we KNOW they have oher terrorist sites within the country. Okay, the same thing happened with Afganistan. We KNEW they had all those things (minus the dictator) yet we didn't attack and look what happened. They were responsible for 9/11. Now in Iraq, we have suspected WMD's plus everyting else! Imagine if they hit the USA with a WMD, do you know what would happen to the world? So what would you do? Take a chance and leave them be or invade and do what we're doing now? I'd choose the second one if I were you.
Also, Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 occured, what do yuy expect him to do? He handled the situation fine. You cna't jst blame him, and if you do, then you should jsut blame the Pentagon and the US Military as well, since they're the ones giving him intelligence n what's happening in the world. You say you dislike Bush becausehe went into Iraq looking for WMD's when we found none, but guess what, if we did nothing and got hit again, you'd still whine and complain on how we did nothing. And that's the truth, but maybe a few select peoel wouldn't do that, but most of you would.
Besides, I'd like to see you take on a huge challenge (in fact, a challenge equal to one that entered us in a world war) 8 months into your presidency. I really would.
Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and would have had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden either. He wouldn't trust Osama because he would of felt it was a danger to have someone challenge for his power. By attacking Iraq we used up VALUABLE resources that could of been used to find Bin Laden, the real danger to America.
We kow wher eBin Laden is, maybe not exactly bu we know were he is. He's in the region bordering Pakistan if you ahvn't heard already. And we already have enough resources to wipe that place clean but we can't because Pakistan won't let us. I'm not saying that Pakistan is saying "No don't do it", I'm saying that they're a touchy country wit touchy people. If we bomb Al-Queda, they will say the US is out to kill all Islamics, and people would believe them because who are they fighting in Iraq (at least the majority) -Muslims! So the people in Pakistan (majority of them Islamic) would believe Al-Queda and turn agaisnt the Pakistani government who is with USA 100%.EDIT: Northeast region of Pakistan, sorry.
Not knowing nearly what the generals in charge know, I don't know.
Just as a guess, no, we have a bad enough foreign relation image as it is. How would it be any better if we left the country in complete civil war?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment