War in Iraq

[SPC]

Since Gully Foyle asked, here's a thread to debate the Iraq War.

My position is that, the war was unconstitutional frm the start, given that Congress never declared war on Iraq, but instead gave the president authority to invade Iraq. This is a violation of the War Powers Act, since Iraq never attacked us in the past 12 years, and a violation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. At the present time, we have killed a dictator who hadn't don eany harm to Americans in the last 15 years, thus leaving us in the present scenario: Sunni and Shiite insurgents killing each other. If we were to leave right now, without doing anything, Iraq would most likely turn into complete anarchy, making it susectable to an Iranian invasion. If we were to continue doing what were doing, we will just have an indefinate military presense in a place where 100 soldiers die a month. Given that there will eventually reach a point where more soldiers are dying than enlisting, this will eventually either lead to a draft or the first situation, anarchy. Clearly there must be a third solution. Joe Biden has made a proposal to partition Iraq into three states: A Sunni state, a Shiite state, and Kurdistan. Some may complain that such a plan would create a war with Turkey, but that is why we must make a deal wit Turkey: Don't declare war on Kurdistan, and you will get a share of the oil revenue. Also, to ensure that Iran doesn't get any of the oil profits, which could be used to purchase articles for nuclear bombs, we would gerrymander to oil rich regions into the Sunni state, so the oil-rich regions could not be acquired by an annexation of the Shiite state.

Please give constructive criticism of this plan and propose other solutions.

[PBrunsel]

I believe the answer to solving Shiite mistrust of the United States is as simple as sheep. Yes, those furry white animals that go “baa.” Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, Shiite shepherds were viewed as important for the Iraqi economy, especially when it came to trade in the Middle East. Hussein’s regime pumped money into taking care of Shiite shepherds, and this gave the nation revenue, assured employment, and gave the Shiite’s a sense of gratitude towards the government.

However, the new Iraqi Government, trying to live up to the Senate’s “power benchmarks”, has ignored Shiite shepherds, and now the once bustling enterprise is now going broke, and this is resulting in major unemployment woes in Shiite country. The United States and the Iraqi government need to begin giving more funding to the Shiite shepherds, and thus the Shiite’s will side with the Iraqi government.

Economists believe that by 2010 there will be a major unemployment crisis in Iraq, thus they will need jobs. The shepherding industry may well prove to be the savior for a nation gripped in unemployment.

[David S]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

[SPC]

I believe the answer to solving Shiite mistrust of the United States is as simple as sheep. Yes, those furry white animals that go “baa.” Under the regime of Saddam Hussein, Shiite shepherds were viewed as important for the Iraqi economy, especially when it came to trade in the Middle East. Hussein’s regime pumped money into taking care of Shiite shepherds, and this gave the nation revenue, assured employment, and gave the Shiite’s a sense of gratitude towards the government.

However, the new Iraqi Government, trying to live up to the Senate’s “power benchmarks”, has ignored Shiite shepherds, and now the once bustling enterprise is now going broke, and this is resulting in major unemployment woes in Shiite country. The United States and the Iraqi government need to begin giving more funding to the Shiite shepherds, and thus the Shiite’s will side with the Iraqi government.

Economists believe that by 2010 there will be a major unemployment crisis in Iraq, thus they will need jobs. The shepherding industry may well prove to be the savior for a nation gripped in unemployment.

That is a good idea. If the Iraqis have jobs, I doubt that they will have the time to kill each other. (I say this with complete seriousness.) I think it would also be noted that our benchmarks encourage the Iraqi government not to make progress. If you don't follow me, think about it like this:

*The most powerful nation on Earth is telling you hat as soon as you make progress, they will leave
*As soon as the most powerful nation on Earth leaves, your country will be in even greater chaos than it is now.

What o you want to do?

[SPC]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

[David S]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

Gov. For the sake of argument  let's say a foreign country invaded the US and defeated our military, overthrew our government, and then created a new government modeled after their own which happened to be an Islamic theocracy. During their occupation they conducted warrantless searches of private homes, hauled American citizens off to prison camps and tortured them and  killed thousands of innocent people with bombs and missiles. Maybe their bombs killed one of your family. In such a scenario, if you happened to get one of the invading soldiers in your sights would you take a shot at him? I think I would and I think you might too.
And I also suspect that neither one of us would be very supportive of the government they created. Do you agree? Now to carry the analogy a little further, lets say the country was falling into chaos because no one supported this new government. Now suppose the invaders had the balls to criticize us because the government they created wasn't working. Then let's say they decided the only way to restore order would be to divide America into separate states; one for Catholics, one for protestants, one for atheists and maybe one for "other". Do you think that would work?

I said we can't create a stable government for Iraq, because even if we were smart enough to come up with some equitable solution, the fact that we created it would automatically alienate the people.


Saying we have an obligation to fix it is like saying the bull that destroyed the china shop has an obligation to glue the pieces back together and put everything back on the shelves. The problem is that the bull has no ability to do that and the shop owner would be much happier to just see the bull get out of his shop so the owner can salvage whatever he can.

Now don't think that I'm being supportive of the nuts in Iraq. But just try to understand human nature by putting yourself in a similar situation. Then you can understand why the US cannot fix Iraq.

[Silent Hunter]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

Gov. For the sake of argument  let's say a foreign country invaded the US and defeated our military, overthrew our government, and then created a new government modeled after their own which happened to be an Islamic theocracy. During their occupation they conducted warrantless searches of private homes, hauled American citizens off to prison camps and tortured them and  killed thousands of innocent people with bombs and missiles. Maybe their bombs killed one of your family. In such a scenario, if you happened to get one of the invading soldiers in your sights would you take a shot at him? I think I would and I think you might too.
And I also suspect that neither one of us would be very supportive of the government they created. Do you agree? Now to carry the analogy a little further, lets say the country was falling into chaos because no one supported this new government. Now suppose the invaders had the balls to criticize us because the government they created wasn't working. Then let's say they decided the only way to restore order would be to divide America into separate states; one for Catholics, one for protestants, one for atheists and maybe one for "other". Do you think that would work?

I said we can't create a stable government for Iraq, because even if we were smart enough to come up with some equitable solution, the fact that we created it would automatically alienate the people.


Saying we have an obligation to fix it is like saying the bull that destroyed the china shop has an obligation to glue the pieces back together and put everything back on the shelves. The problem is that the bull has no ability to do that and the shop owner would be much happier to just see the bull get out of his shop so the owner can salvage whatever he can.

Now don't think that I'm being supportive of the nuts in Iraq. But just try to understand human nature by putting yourself in a similar situation. Then you can understand why the US cannot fix Iraq.

And let's say that the previous government of the US had invaded Canada and Mexico without any good reason, committed genocide and carried out even more torture than the US has in Iraq. You've also forgotten to mention that American citizens are blowing up markets and kidnapping people before beheading them on camera.

[David S]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

Gov. For the sake of argument  let's say a foreign country invaded the US and defeated our military, overthrew our government, and then created a new government modeled after their own which happened to be an Islamic theocracy. During their occupation they conducted warrantless searches of private homes, hauled American citizens off to prison camps and tortured them and  killed thousands of innocent people with bombs and missiles. Maybe their bombs killed one of your family. In such a scenario, if you happened to get one of the invading soldiers in your sights would you take a shot at him? I think I would and I think you might too.
And I also suspect that neither one of us would be very supportive of the government they created. Do you agree? Now to carry the analogy a little further, lets say the country was falling into chaos because no one supported this new government. Now suppose the invaders had the balls to criticize us because the government they created wasn't working. Then let's say they decided the only way to restore order would be to divide America into separate states; one for Catholics, one for protestants, one for atheists and maybe one for "other". Do you think that would work?

I said we can't create a stable government for Iraq, because even if we were smart enough to come up with some equitable solution, the fact that we created it would automatically alienate the people.


Saying we have an obligation to fix it is like saying the bull that destroyed the china shop has an obligation to glue the pieces back together and put everything back on the shelves. The problem is that the bull has no ability to do that and the shop owner would be much happier to just see the bull get out of his shop so the owner can salvage whatever he can.

Now don't think that I'm being supportive of the nuts in Iraq. But just try to understand human nature by putting yourself in a similar situation. Then you can understand why the US cannot fix Iraq.

And let's say that the previous government of the US had invaded Canada and Mexico without any good reason, committed genocide and carried out even more torture than the US has in Iraq.

I assume you are saying that we are justified in invading Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait  years ago, even though Bush Sr kicked them out and sent them back to Iraq where they have remained ever since. A peace treaty was signed so why would we now attack them again? They have done nothing to us in the interim. Isn't it like saying we should invade the UK because they were once our enemy too?

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hunter how do you think Americans would react to an invading nation today? I'd like to think that we would not be quite so barbaric as to use beheadings but I'm quite certain we would react very violently.

But the point of my post is that we cannot fix Iraq. Do you think we can? Would you accept a government in your country that was created by Iran?

[Silent Hunter]

Depends on who the invading nation was and what they had experienced before.

You've completely ignored the genocide bit. There is no statute of limitations on genocide.

I don't recall the people of Cambodia objecting when they were invaded by Vietnam (in 1978), or France when it was invaded in 1944 by the US.

The thing is, the government in Iraq is created by Iraqis. We enabled it to happen. It's the job of the Iraqis to fix Iraq. We just help them. If they want us to leave, we leave.

I admit an awful lot of mistakes have been made and it may be unsalvageable.

Also, "they started it" is not an excuse for atrocities.

[SPC]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

Gov. For the sake of argument  let's say a foreign country invaded the US and defeated our military, overthrew our government, and then created a new government modeled after their own which happened to be an Islamic theocracy. During their occupation they conducted warrantless searches of private homes, hauled American citizens off to prison camps and tortured them and  killed thousands of innocent people with bombs and missiles. Maybe their bombs killed one of your family. In such a scenario, if you happened to get one of the invading soldiers in your sights would you take a shot at him? I think I would and I think you might too.
And I also suspect that neither one of us would be very supportive of the government they created. Do you agree? Now to carry the analogy a little further, lets say the country was falling into chaos because no one supported this new government. Now suppose the invaders had the balls to criticize us because the government they created wasn't working. Then let's say they decided the only way to restore order would be to divide America into separate states; one for Catholics, one for protestants, one for atheists and maybe one for "other". Do you think that would work?

I said we can't create a stable government for Iraq, because even if we were smart enough to come up with some equitable solution, the fact that we created it would automatically alienate the people.


Saying we have an obligation to fix it is like saying the bull that destroyed the china shop has an obligation to glue the pieces back together and put everything back on the shelves. The problem is that the bull has no ability to do that and the shop owner would be much happier to just see the bull get out of his shop so the owner can salvage whatever he can.

Now don't think that I'm being supportive of the nuts in Iraq. But just try to understand human nature by putting yourself in a similar situation. Then you can understand why the US cannot fix Iraq.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I think that you have to consider the effects of such an invasion. To put this in a different perspective, let's say that this foreign nation has invaded Canada and Mexico, and that the nation is criticizing us [The U.S.] because our leader is batsh**t crazy and is on the way to developing neclear weapons, which could be used to destroy that nation's ally and our sworn enemy. Also, let's say Mexico is full of a substance that could be sold to help fund our nuclear program. Considering that Mexico will almost certainly turn into anarchy once the foreign country withdraws, don't you think that there's a possibility of nuclear war? I'm not trying to defend the neocons, but I'm just trying to make a point.

[Person Man]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

I don't think you can just hit someone and then think by hitting them again you can fix them.

[Person Man]

Also, I don't think the invasion/genocide issue is a good one because that issue was already done years age. Sure there is no statute of limitations, but we already had the chance to deal with the situation in a proper way and did not completely deal with it.

[David S]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

Gov. For the sake of argument  let's say a foreign country invaded the US and defeated our military, overthrew our government, and then created a new government modeled after their own which happened to be an Islamic theocracy. During their occupation they conducted warrantless searches of private homes, hauled American citizens off to prison camps and tortured them and  killed thousands of innocent people with bombs and missiles. Maybe their bombs killed one of your family. In such a scenario, if you happened to get one of the invading soldiers in your sights would you take a shot at him? I think I would and I think you might too.
And I also suspect that neither one of us would be very supportive of the government they created. Do you agree? Now to carry the analogy a little further, lets say the country was falling into chaos because no one supported this new government. Now suppose the invaders had the balls to criticize us because the government they created wasn't working. Then let's say they decided the only way to restore order would be to divide America into separate states; one for Catholics, one for protestants, one for atheists and maybe one for "other". Do you think that would work?

I said we can't create a stable government for Iraq, because even if we were smart enough to come up with some equitable solution, the fact that we created it would automatically alienate the people.


Saying we have an obligation to fix it is like saying the bull that destroyed the china shop has an obligation to glue the pieces back together and put everything back on the shelves. The problem is that the bull has no ability to do that and the shop owner would be much happier to just see the bull get out of his shop so the owner can salvage whatever he can.

Now don't think that I'm being supportive of the nuts in Iraq. But just try to understand human nature by putting yourself in a similar situation. Then you can understand why the US cannot fix Iraq.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I think that you have to consider the effects of such an invasion. To put this in a different perspective, let's say that this foreign nation has invaded Canada and Mexico, and that the nation is criticizing us [The U.S.] because our leader is batsh**t crazy and is on the way to developing neclear weapons, which could be used to destroy that nation's ally and our sworn enemy. Also, let's say Mexico is full of a substance that could be sold to help fund our nuclear program. Considering that Mexico will almost certainly turn into anarchy once the foreign country withdraws, don't you think that there's a possibility of nuclear war? I'm not trying to defend the neocons, but I'm just trying to make a point.

Well I'm not quite sure who is invading who in this scenraio, but I guess you mean Iran or someone similar invaded Canada and Mexico. In that case I, as an American would be most happy to see them leave. That's kind of what the Monroe doctrine was about. It said the US would not look kindly on any European nations trying to establish colonies in north or south America.

The possibility of nuclear conflicts exists, but our being there doesn't reduce that likelyhood. It may even increase the risk and it puts Americans at ground zero. Modern technology brings good things and bad. More and more nations will have access to nuclear weapons whether we like it or not. Pakistan and North Korea already have them and they aren't all that friendly to us. In my opinion our number one goal should be to make sure than none of them go off here. I think that effort should be along the lines of having a missile defense system, plus making sure we know what is being shipped into this country, plus stopping illegal entry of people and things, plus making sure that all other nations understand that we have some pretty nifty weapons of mass destruction too, and that if they attack us with WOMD it will be the last thing they ever do.

[SPC]

We can't create a stable Iraqi government any more than they could create one for us. Whatever government eventually comes to power there will have to be one of their own making.

The best thing we could do for them and us is to say adios and bring our troops back home.

Not to sound like a neocon, but, since we caused the violence in Iraq by overthrowing their dictator, don't we have an obligation to fix it? I'm not saying our current policy is doing jacksh*t to end the violence, but I still think that we need to create some kind a government that can end the violence over there, at least one that is more effective than that of Nouri al-Maliki.

Gov. For the sake of argument  let's say a foreign country invaded the US and defeated our military, overthrew our government, and then created a new government modeled after their own which happened to be an Islamic theocracy. During their occupation they conducted warrantless searches of private homes, hauled American citizens off to prison camps and tortured them and  killed thousands of innocent people with bombs and missiles. Maybe their bombs killed one of your family. In such a scenario, if you happened to get one of the invading soldiers in your sights would you take a shot at him? I think I would and I think you might too.
And I also suspect that neither one of us would be very supportive of the government they created. Do you agree? Now to carry the analogy a little further, lets say the country was falling into chaos because no one supported this new government. Now suppose the invaders had the balls to criticize us because the government they created wasn't working. Then let's say they decided the only way to restore order would be to divide America into separate states; one for Catholics, one for protestants, one for atheists and maybe one for "other". Do you think that would work?

I said we can't create a stable government for Iraq, because even if we were smart enough to come up with some equitable solution, the fact that we created it would automatically alienate the people.


Saying we have an obligation to fix it is like saying the bull that destroyed the china shop has an obligation to glue the pieces back together and put everything back on the shelves. The problem is that the bull has no ability to do that and the shop owner would be much happier to just see the bull get out of his shop so the owner can salvage whatever he can.

Now don't think that I'm being supportive of the nuts in Iraq. But just try to understand human nature by putting yourself in a similar situation. Then you can understand why the US cannot fix Iraq.

I see the point you are trying to make, but I think that you have to consider the effects of such an invasion. To put this in a different perspective, let's say that this foreign nation has invaded Canada and Mexico, and that the nation is criticizing us [The U.S.] because our leader is batsh**t crazy and is on the way to developing neclear weapons, which could be used to destroy that nation's ally and our sworn enemy. Also, let's say Mexico is full of a substance that could be sold to help fund our nuclear program. Considering that Mexico will almost certainly turn into anarchy once the foreign country withdraws, don't you think that there's a possibility of nuclear war? I'm not trying to defend the neocons, but I'm just trying to make a point.

Well I'm not quite sure who is invading who in this scenraio, but I guess you mean Iran or someone similar invaded Canada and Mexico. In that case I, as an American would be most happy to see them leave. That's kind of what the Monroe doctrine was about. It said the US would not look kindly on any European nations trying to establish colonies in north or south America.

The possibility of nuclear conflicts exists, but our being there doesn't reduce that likelyhood. It may even increase the risk and it puts Americans at ground zero. Modern technology brings good things and bad. More and more nations will have access to nuclear weapons whether we like it or not. Pakistan and North Korea already have them and they aren't all that friendly to us. In my opinion our number one goal should be to make sure than none of them go off here. I think that effort should be along the lines of having a missile defense system, plus making sure we know what is being shipped into this country, plus stopping illegal entry of people and things, plus making sure that all other nations understand that we have some pretty nifty weapons of mass destruction too, and that if they attack us with WOMD it will be the last thing they ever do.

I see your point. Also, I would like to withdraw American troops from all places where theie presence isn't needed, not just Iraq.

[AkSaber]

I agree completely that the Iraqis need jobs. If they are able to start providing for themselves, then the scumbags who are murdering our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will find themselves short of trainees.

[Person Man]

..yeah, but first we have to build good condititions for work...which means bringing criminal animals and genocidal retards to justice and I don't see how we are capable of that. It just seems to be a situation based on the subjective mindset of many than a few objective goals. How do we get people from wanting to kill eachother in the market place to wanting to kill eachother in the marketplace. The point here is to turn violent competition into non-violent and beneficial competention. If it was based on objective factors alone, the rationality of our argument would have convinced many, however, people are still irrationally murdering eachother like they belong in a zoo. Subjective matters appear to be at work and our mission is an objective one. I think this is a worthwhile mission, but we have failed it, and should cut to our loses, dust ourselves off, think more of the subjective issues and try again.

[SPC]

I agree completely that the Iraqis need jobs. If they are able to start providing for themselves, then the scumbags who are murdering our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will find themselves short of trainees.

Correct, and I believe a free market is the best way to do that.

[Verily]

I agree completely that the Iraqis need jobs. If they are able to start providing for themselves, then the scumbags who are murdering our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will find themselves short of trainees.

Correct, and I believe a free market is the best way to do that.

You can't get a market any freer than the current lack of government in Iraq outside of Baghdad. So where are the magic jobs?

[SPC]

I agree completely that the Iraqis need jobs. If they are able to start providing for themselves, then the scumbags who are murdering our soldiers and innocent Iraqis will find themselves short of trainees.

Correct, and I believe a free market is the best way to do that.

You can't get a market any freer than the current lack of government in Iraq outside of Baghdad. So where are the magic jobs?

Well, first you need an effective government. Iraq right now is essentially anarchy, and anarchy isn't freedom.

[PBrunsel]

An advancement that must be made in Shiite villages is installing running water that is efficient (comes straight to homes) and clean (safe from lead and other toxins). The underdeveloped Shiite villages suffer from a lack of nearby water sources. In fact, a majority of Shiite villages rely on wells, all dingy and dirty with water that is not worth drinking. This affects the Shiites in two major ways:

1) Shiite’s suffer from far more sickness than Sunnis’ and Kurds’ due to the lack of clean water. Thus, their life expectancy and quality of life is much lower than their Iraqi counterparts. The hate mongering Shiite militia leaders claim that the Iraqi Government and the United States Government ignore their needs, fueling their membership and accepting the aide of Iran. However, if the US gives aide to Shiite villages to build modern water treatment plants, the Shiite lifestyle will become far more livable. This one change could show the Shiite village leaders that the Iraqi and US Government are not enemies, but friends who want to help them. Also, when Iranian and Shiite militia attack water plants (as they would), this would simply bring down their popularity amongst the Shiite people.

2) Shiite women are expected to hike 10 to 20 miles back and forth everyday brining water to their villages. This hampers their ability to take advantage of the new Iraqi women’s right of learning how to read and participating in representative democracy. When water is pumped into the home, Shiite women will then have the time to learn as the Sunni and Kurdish women have. Shiite women have known little besides oppression, and when they learn to read and vote, they will embrace the new Iraqi Government as a way to liberate themselves from those who have oppressed them.

I know many will see water and sheep as strange weapons to win the peace, however Napoleon was defeated by his own jacket buttons. History has shown that even the smallest things can make a change. There are many ways of helping the underdeveloped Shiite community will disarm their radicals and empower the new government.

[DownWithTheLeft]

As much of a shock as they may come to some, I support a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and do not support the President's plan anymore.  However, I do not want a complete withdrawal immediatley, and I under no circumstances want it done in a way that create political gain for anyone.  We need to slowly but surely being to withdraw troops from Iraq in a way to try and secure whatever stability is left.  I see a date such as early 2010 as a resonable time for this to happen.

[SPC]

Well, I think that before you give the Iraqis jobs to prevent them from killing each other, you first need to fix the economy. And before you fix the economy, you need to fix the government. If you establish a stable government, it will create a domino effect that should diminish violence. Of course, because the current Iraqi government needs U.S. troops to sustain itself, I would not consider it to be stable.

[Gustaf]

Obviously, the war wasn't a good thing for America. Ideally, people would be less critical and a little more grateful and supportive now that the situation is what it is and the US should stay the course and get the whole thing cleaned up. Perhaps it is impossible in the current political climate in Iraq. In that case I guess getting out is the best you can do.