Obama and Biden seem the sensible choice.
And this is where we should take the best from both worlds. We need to remember that the Iraqis will eventually have to run their own country, but until then, we CANNOT leave them to their own devices. We have to respect them, but only when they are ready for our respect. With respect comes responsibility. They have to uphold their reputation as WILLING to run their own government before we can allow them the freedom to do so.
Agreed. That's why I said take the best of both worlds. We need to tell them that we WILL NOT be there forever. We WILL leave Iraq eventually. But we cannot simply withdraw. We can't just LEAVE them. We have to leave slowly, surely, and confidently. We need to be sure that a good governement has a fighting chance.No there needs to be a time table. Or at least a plan to turn the running of Iraq over to Iraqi's. We can't just say "Take your time." they need a base line. They need to understand that we won't prop up an ineffectual goverment forever.
Eventually we have to leave and we need a plan to leave and a solid plan to draw down. We need to inform the Iraqi's of that plan and stick to it. We need to help with the security and rebuilding of the infrastructure, but they need to take an increasing interest in their own future and increasing interest in self governing themselves in all that entails.
That's the question only a few people know the TRUE answer to... I am definitely not one of them.Yes, that makes a lot of sense, but why haven't we done so? Why haven't we set a time table? Is it a failure of the Bush administration? A failure of the military, a lack of international agreement on the exact prosal? Are we lingering in Iraq because we don't know what to do with Iran? Are we afraid that it may split into 3 regions and another war might erupt? Are we still there because by being there we make money, or at least off set some of the earlier expenses? Are we there because we don't trust the Iraqis, think they're just incapable of running a democratic, modern state? Are we afraid that it might get influenced by religious extremists and become a safe heaven for the terrorists of the future?
When the alternative ends much like the Sovet war in Afghanistan, I'd say that we have no other real alternative. Either get out of the burning building or go up with it...So we should get out? And tell me, what happens to Iraq once the only stable factor (the US) is gone? Do we just watch it burn to the ground?
I'd say yes to all.Yes, that makes a lot of sense, but why haven't we done so? Why haven't we set a time table? Is it a failure of the Bush administration? A failure of the military, a lack of international agreement on the exact prosal? Are we lingering in Iraq because we don't know what to do with Iran? Are we afraid that it may split into 3 regions and another war might erupt? Are we still there because by being there we make money, or at least off set some of the earlier expenses? Are we there because we don't trust the Iraqis, think they're just incapable of running a democratic, modern state? Are we afraid that it might get influenced by religious extremists and become a safe heaven for the terrorists of the future?
The surge is overrated. Yes, it reduced violence in and around major cities, but there are still towns and cities which have been deemed too dangerous to enter that we don't even go near. We can't hold this country down forever.Since Iraq is well on its way towards governing itself I would say Obama's stance is outdated, he is arguing how to handle a pre-surge Iraq and ignoring the changes that have taken place since then. Ask someone who was in country before and after the surge, they will tell you that Iraq is far better off today than it was 2 years ago, Iraqi's themselves are in charge of 70% of the country today with the US presence ranging from non-existant to heavy support. Even the AP has reported that Iraq tody is far difference than it was 18-24 months ago. As I said before, Obama is treating Iraq as if it were still 2006. McCain was right about the Surge, he is applying the lessons learned from Vietnam to Iraq, something which nobody else in government has done at any step in the war so far.
The surge is overrated. Yes, it reduced violence in and around major cities, but there are still towns and cities which have been deemed too dangerous to enter that we don't even go near. We can't hold this country down forever.
It has had successes, yes, but not as many as it's being given credit for. Thus, I use overrated.I am not sure you can call it over rated as it clearly had its successes but what I am not sure of is whether they were genuine successes or whether they were a sign of an intelligent resistance who saw extra troops and decided to sit it out waiting for softer target.
If all the Iraqis in Iraq wanted us to leave, I would. But I doubt all or even most Iraqis would want us to right now.Henderson and 03, I have a question for you. For the sake of this question, pretend you are the president.
If the Iraqis were to say today that they wanted to the US to leave Iraq, what you do? Stay anyway? Leave?
If all the Iraqis in Iraq wanted us to leave, I would. But I doubt all or even most Iraqis would want us to right now.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.