Would you support....

[JQ24]

Hey guys, I'm doing a persuasive essay for a class. My topic is on the troop pullout from Iraq. I know some people want the troops out of there now, but I'm arguing that the troops should stay until Iraq is stable and ready to fight the insurgency on their own. I'm trying to get people's opinions on this issue. If you answer yes or no, please at least tell my why you would or would not support a troop pullout from Iraq. Thanks!

JQ24

[Abolith]

all politics aside, we are there now, and to just up and pull out would be bad for the iraqi people. the whole place would probably fall into a civil warand we would be to blame. best thing is to just finish the job that we started, but hey WTF do I know I have not had a tour over there. ask Argyll he would know better than I.

[askDNA]

Do you mean today? Or over a certain time?

[Laworkerbee]

Too many good men and women have died...to leave now with our tail between our legs dishonors them all and leaves Iraq a much more dangerous place

[Oddbod]

Pulling out before a reasonably stable Gov't is in charge would give a clear message to ALL opponents of freedom that the Democracies of the World do not have the resolve to complete what they set out to do.
This would give a green light to any terrorists & opponents of freedom to do as they wish.

On Iraq:
I have always seen this as the RIGHT war for the WRONG reasons & Hussein should have been finished off in '91 - I blame the UN for that.

[JQ24]

Do you mean today? Or over a certain time?

I mean a pullout today or next week...something like that.

[TacoDelRio]

Too many good men and women have died...to leave now with our tail between our legs dishonors them all and leaves Iraq a much more dangerous place

x2.... X42!

[futurepilot2004]

Hussein should have been finished off in '91 - I blame the UN for that.

why?

[Jani.R]

Just leave troops to guard the major oil-fields.

[Lurch]

No

I don't think the Iraqi military and police are yet capable for total security in the country. To leave now would open a big door for the insurgency groups or whomever has the most guns. Regime change was part of the reason for invasion; but I don't think they want someone worse. The coalition lives would be all for naught and Iraq would likely be in terrible shape.

The lives and money spent on Iraq have been difficult, but a premature withdrawl would be far worse.

[Werewolf01]

Pulling out now would be totally irresponsible. We are committed now, we need to see the thing through.

[Thom]

pulling out now would be disasterous to the country. it would make the whole war completely and utterly pointless.

[Nawlins]

No. For the same reasons everyone else gave.

[steel bonnet]

I too think it would be a Bad move to just pull out,as the iraqi`s would suffer.

They`d suffer from internal & external forces.

Too many countries have wavered & pulled out & thus affected Iraq`s path to Peacefull democracy.

The Brits & US certainly shouldn`t do it as there the basis for Helping Iraq restore itself.

Sb

[Oddbod]

Hussein should have been finished off in '91 - I blame the UN for that.

why?

Too many interested parties(Syria, Egypt, France, etc) involved to allow those who saw the need to remove him the authority to do so.

In its present form, the UN is incapable of making timely & hard decisions.

[JQ24]

Thanks for the reply guys! It's been really helpful. ;)

[M4ko]

Hussein should have been finished off in '91 - I blame the UN for that.

why?

Too many interested parties(Syria, Egypt, France, etc) involved to allow those who saw the need to remove him the authority to do so.

In its present form, the UN is incapable of making timely & hard decisions.

I think he asks "why he shouldve been removed in 91?"

[martinexsquaddie]

we broke the country time for us to fix it :(
although george snr did'nt help by calling on the shias to rebel and then leaving them to be used as target practice :(

[Gyles84]

We're there now, so may may as well suck it up and finish what we've started. Half the job (toppling Saddam) was done at a reasonably low cost. It's tackling the Bathists, foreign jihadi;s and the Mehdi Army thats proven a tougher task. As I see it we'll be there in our current level till early 2006 and then gradually reduce the numbers. By the next US Presidents inaugeration I'd only expect special forces, embassy staff and joint-training classes to be in place. It's been much tougher than originally expected but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

[Digital Marine]

No, the job isnt done yet.

[Big D]

NO.

That's what happened in Afghanistan. After Russians withdrew, U.S. had no more interest in that country, so they said f**k it and left too.
You know what happened as a result.

[Gyles84]

NO.

That's what happened in Afghanistan. After Russians withdrew, U.S. had no more interest in that country, so they said f**k it and left too.
You know what happened as a result.

Erm, so far as I can tell there are tens of thousands of coalition troops
A constitution (or developing one)
A ratified Congress/Parliament
More elections on the way
Disarming Warlords
A fast growing economy
New schools hospitals and academic institutions being built

That place came a long way in just a few yrs time.

[Big D]

NO.

That's what happened in Afghanistan. After Russians withdrew, U.S. had no more interest in that country, so they said f**k it and left too.
You know what happened as a result.

Erm, so far as I can tell there are tens of thousands of coalition troops
A constitution (or developing one)
A ratified Congress/Parliament
More elections on the way
Disarming Warlords
A fast growing economy
New schools hospitals and academic institutions being built

That place came a long way in just a few yrs time.

oh no, you misunderstood me. I was referring to the previous Afghan war when the Soviet Union invaded 1970s - 1980's.

edit: had to fix a typo.

[promillo]

No!

For the many reasons the others said...and because it is a perfect starting point if we have to liberate Iran or/and Syria in near future.

woot