Resolved:The U.S. should remove all combat troops from Iraq by 01/01/04!
 

Since there are no WMDs in Iraq, and our forces are being killed daily, is there a real reason to keep combat troops in Iraq or should we turn the government back over to the Iraqi people?

My main motivation in putting up this poll was not to win any sort of "referendum" on the war in Iraq, but rather, to get a feel for which way the "average" (is there really an average person on gfy?:) ) webmaster feels about the current state of the war.

At the beginning of this year, I had a distinct impression that the vast majority of the webmasters were very hawkish.


NOW however..I'm starting to think otherwise.
So..vote durn it!:winkwink:

This question is impossible to answer. 01/01/04 is a completely arbitrary date. There is no way to tell what the atmosphere in Iraq will be then, what level of preparedness the replacement government will have achieved, etc.

SpaceAce

Yeah but it was never about WMD.

They'll be sticking around for that oil.

Dude rome wasn't built in a day

i mean has it even been two months since it has ended?


But i do believe there needs to be a transisiton for nato to take over the role

I understand that. But, I did just pick one to have some sort of cut off date.

Maybe I should have worded it.."U.S. combat troops replaced by Nato/UN troops."

Someone needs to be there to try to keep the peace, and build a democratic government. If we leave it alone now, someone just as bad will rise in Saddam's place.

US Troops are going to be there for a long time.

They're saying that Saddam is still around, or at least his sons.

This isn't about WMD. This about bringing stabilization to the middle east, which has been bloodshed basically since the end of WWII.

Has everyone forgotten what Iraq has done? The basically invaded a smaller country unable to defend itself, robbed it, raped it, and destroyed it. After getting their asses kicked, the Iraqi army set fire to it's oil wells. Then, after it lose the war and signing peace agreements, it CONSTANTLY violated the agreements of such treaties, which were put in place by the United Nations and enforced by the US and England.

Then, just to fucking spite the US, they decided to shoot as US planes enforcing the UN fly zone.

Not to mention that it's goverment makes tens of thousands of people disappear every year..........

Leaving would be great. Let them go back to being ruled by fucking dolts.

Yeah yeah yeah..standard Republican right wing line..yada yada.

But, looking into your crystal ball then, how long will the U.S. have to stay in Iraq before it has no chance of ever becomming all those things you mentioned in your post?

You honestly believe that if the U.S. hangs around oh 2, 3, even 5 years that Iraq will then become so stable that there is no chance of another Saddam taking over?

I think we're in a sandstorm that is badly blurring our vision as to what can and can't be done in Iraq.

I am a liberal. I screamed with GW "won" the Florida election. I do not like it when our country goes to war... Calling me a Republican is as big a joke as I've heard in a long time. I don't agree with Bush, but I do think we need to stay there. It's the right thing to do. Hell, a huge complaint about past US action is that we go in, destabilize, and leave. Which way do you want it?

Whoa, now, hold on there. Facts don't sit well with the people around here. Unless your facts say that Bush is an ass, the USA is a bully and it's all about the oil, you'll just get flamed.

Don't waste your time arguing about it. Life experience has taught me that the people who scream the loudest have the least to say. If you cruise the threads you'll find the same ten people saying the same things over and over and over and over and over again and not making any room for new facts or opposing theories. All the while, of course, they accuse everyone who doesn't agree with them of the exact same bad behavior they themselves are exhibiting.


SpaceAce

Isn't that what the USA has just done to Iraq?

Dood..I didn't call you a repub..that reference was a reply to Rockhard.

Which way do I want it? I want us out before anymore American lives are lost frankly. But I know that won't happen.

But I'm also intelligent enough to know that no matter how long the U.S. stays there, Iraq will NEVER be a "stable" country in the way we define "stable".

How droll of you!

"Facts don't sit well with the people around here.."
Hey, people in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks! Bush said it was fact that Iraq was attempting to get uranium from Africa to build nuclear weapons and that was a threat to the United States.

Turns out to be and out and out lie!
You do not have a monopoly on the truth..especially when it comes to 'facts'.

I missed who you were replying to with that specific comment, sorry about that. Still, since RocHard and I were saying the same things, it still sortof applies. Someone can think that we should stay, without being a Republican, let alone a typical one.

Yes, but the USA and its allies did it to liberate the Iraqi people from their Oppressive, Immoral Leader... :winkwink:

Wow! An overwhelming mandate!:winkwink:

Sarcasm... ???? lol

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-imag...4/30/2bell.jpg

however long it takes to finish the job.


When we pulled out of the nam area due to political pressure Pol Pot and the boys killed a few million people which we could have prevented.

Would I be correct in thinking that neither you, nor any member of your family is or will be on active duty in Iraq?

Sure, this is exactly what we did.

I remember the line of cars leaving Iraq with the US Army full of televisions, radios, and other electronics that we can't get at home.

And I"m sure that we raped all of their women.

And even better yet, we burned down all of their oil wells too.

Funny, I don't remember seeing any of this on the news.

Think so?

Look at Germany and Japan now. They seem to be doing rather well on their own years after the US beat them back.

Hell, the Japs told everyone that the US was going to rape them all. They would rather fight to the death then surrender. They figured it out.

I've always wondered what the view's like with your head in the sand. Could you tell me please?

Yep, the parallels between a WORLD WAR 58 years ago and the U.S. occupation of Iraq are uncanny!

I gotta believe even you don't believe this.

And you learned history at what higher institution of learning?

Pol Pot wasn't in Nam..he was in Cambodia.
And try as Nixon did, we never did occupy Cambodia.
And if we couldn't protect South Viet Nam, there was no way we could have protected all of Cambodia at the same time.

don't waste your time

rooster never replies to anyone

he just posts and runs

and his posts are always right wing vitriolic insanity

this the guy who hates gays, canadians, liberals...etc.

not much going him has he?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ah! A "cock that crows!":1orglaugh