Who are you going to vote for?

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I agree with you tbh.

 

[Alter]

too late. we're in one. and no one can do anything about it. and we certainly cant just pull out everyone at once. doing so would be disaster, and probably begin the planning of another terrorist attack. "the evil US came in, destroyed our home, and killed our families. we must retaliate".

and ya know what, theyd be completely justified in attacking us
~gR~

You do know we would be fueling anger, wasting money, and losing lives there?

 

[Matt]

It's obvious that we can't immediately pull out of Iraq, but a gradual troop reduction is must imo

 

[MasterOLightning]

The local Boy Scout troop is about as effective at managing international conflicts as the UN. See numerous failures to prevent genocide.

I just laugh when someone suggests the UN has some degree of competency or ability to solve a complex situation.

 

[The Ozzman]

The UN is fucking awful and needs to be disbanded.

 

[cookiecutter]

too late. we're in one. and no one can do anything about it. and we certainly cant just pull out everyone at once. doing so would be disaster, and probably begin the planning of another terrorist attack. "the evil US came in, destroyed our home, and killed our families. we must retaliate".

and ya know what, theyd be completely justified in attacking us
~gR~

That is baseless speculation. Staying in is certainly not doing anything but slowly draining the lives of Americans and Iraqis. I'm sure there will be violence when we pull out, but staying there for the decades needed is not a politically or financially viable option. Need I point to the last war like this where we stayed for over ten years?

 

[Black Friday]

Obama, he's the most redeemable of the choices.
Edit: The Iraq War is pretty much useless scrap, there's no use to it but pulling out. What really matters is what happens after we leave. How will the people there respond to this? I think it's going to be a bloody time in Iraq, even more so than before.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It will be, it's not going to be fun for anyone involved. Nick, it may be "baseless speculation" but it's only because actually having a basis with this kidn of thing would involve some kind of testing which is silly; we just can't do it. I know what you mean but we can't just leave immediately. Think how we would react if a country came here pissing us off and occupying our land or whatever.

 

[skeptik]

There is a CIVIL FUCKING WAR going on in and around Iraq. Imagine if the French and British would have stepped in during our Civil War and would've been all like "hey guys uh you can stop that now hur hur we are liberators"; do you think that would have ended the conflict? Does anybody here or anywhere in the fucking world actually think that third party intervention can stop a civil war? There really isn't much that we can do at this point but wait it out.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

No, I don't think so at all. And I don't think we can just stop involvement either.

 

[skeptik]

I don't think anyone who is actually relevant thinks that we can just wipe our hands clean of this war. That is an argument surprisingly frequently used by avid supporters of the war, but I really don't see anybody saying this aside from a few radically far left organizations and individuals who are no more relevant than the radically far right organizations and individuals.

 

[Alter]

There is a CIVIL FUCKING WAR going on in and around Iraq. Imagine if the French and British would have stepped in during our Civil War and would've been all like "hey guys uh you can stop that now hur hur we are liberators"; do you think that would have ended the conflict? Does anybody here or anywhere in the fucking world actually think that third party intervention can stop a civil war? There really isn't much that we can do at this point but wait it out.

Yes! As terrible as a civil war is, it is a thing they need to settle this own their own so they ca set up a situation that works for them and that is not tainted by our own ideals. Make sense?

 

[Einherjar86]

I know many of the posts in this thread concern Obama and McCain. But has anyone found any good third party nominees to vote for? There are plenty of viable candidates other than Obama and McCain. And I don't care if they have no chance. I'm voting for the person I most agree with.

 

[Zephyrus]

There is a CIVIL FUCKING WAR going on in and around Iraq. Imagine if the French and British would have stepped in during our Civil War and would've been all like "hey guys uh you can stop that now hur hur we are liberators"; do you think that would have ended the conflict? Does anybody here or anywhere in the fucking world actually think that third party intervention can stop a civil war? There really isn't much that we can do at this point but wait it out.

And people say History doesn't matter...

No, I don't think so at all. And I don't think we can just stop involvement either.

What will it prove to stay there any longer if it's not going to help the situation at all? It's costing us millions of dollars every day we continue this futile effort, and it will make no difference whether we leave tomorrow or five years from now. This country, in so great a debt and on the brink of an economic crisis, cannot afford to be in Iraq any longer.

 

[skeptik]

Our presence there at the moment may not be dramatically improving the situation, but it is undeniably preventing it from being much worse. It does not make sense whatsoever to make a rash and hasty complete exit, economically, diplomatically, politically, or by any other measuring stick.

 

[Zephyrus]

Our presence there at the moment may not be dramatically improving the situation, but it is undeniably preventing it from being much worse. It does not make sense whatsoever to make a rash and hasty complete exit, economically, diplomatically, politically, or by any other measuring stick.

Yes it is preventing the situation from deteriorating, but that's inevitable regardless of when or how we leave.

What's your exit strategy, Dodens?

 

[skeptik]

It's not my job to come up with one. It's certainly not pulling the plug though. Obviously what needs to be done is not the mere babysitting that we're doing now, but rather doing a far better and more thorough job of preparing the Iraqi forces to deal with this period of turmoil themselves. I don't see us being completely out of Iraq for at least a few years.

 

[Zephyrus]

It's not my job to come up with one. It's certainly not pulling the plug though. Obviously what needs to be done is not the mere babysitting that we're doing now, but rather doing a far better and more thorough job of preparing the Iraqi forces to deal with this period of turmoil themselves. I don't see us being completely out of Iraq for at least a few years.

And what do we have to gain by this? The Iraqis, and the rest of the Middle East, clearly want us out of there ASAP.

And to clarify, I support an immediate military clear-out, but diplomats and other personnel can stay longer to help out the government. Heck, I'd favor keeping some military there as advisors, if it means removing our direct role militarily.

 

[skeptik]

It's more of a matter of what we have to lose by not doing it. Immediate withdrawal is just not a reasonable option, and frankly I'm surprised that you would think it is.

 

[Zephyrus]

Staying there is the humanitarian thing to do, yes, but it's only delaying the inevitable. It's going to be a humanitarian disaster regardless of when we leave, wherefore it's only a question of how much more of our own resources, including American lives, we're going to waste. We stay, they die and we die. We leave, they die and we live. Either way, Iraqis are going to die. Heck, there will be less violence when we leave, since none of it will be directed toward American soldiers. Sounds selfish? Well it's not so selfish considering it's what the Middle East wants us to do.