Consequences of Pulling American Troops from Iraq

It is ignorance that leads people to believe that this war is pointless. I know because I was very ignorant. Let us think of the facts on why it isn't a good idea to pull the American troops out of there.

First of all, I would like to address that the foreigners who think this is a pointless war have no clue of the consequences of pulling them out.

It is not the American's job to establish a government for Iraq, granted. However, people would have hated us just as much if we did nothing in Iraq the same they do now.

If we pull them out now, there will be a civil war in the country and Iran would most likely try to invade.

It would be extremely foolish to pull out troops now that the war is in progress. There is a difference between supporting the war, and recognizing that if troops were pulled out the situation would only get worse and people often confuse the two. Pulling them out would be a huge mistake. People can say that we should have never gone there in the first place but that is no arguement because, in the present, we are there.

Should the US decide to establish a successful democracy, the idea of putting a democracy in Iraq puts a regime friendly to the U.S. in the region, so we have help in ensuring that supply of energy long-term, and it brings stability to the region. Energy is so unbelievably critical to America that anyone can see how a reasonable argument can be made for going to war on this purpose.

Saudi Arabis has a friendly regime to America and because of that, both Saudi Arabia, and America, can do healthy business together.

This is not a pointless war by any means. Economy is at risk and so is the wel-being of some middle eastern countries.

If we pull them out now, there will be a civil war in the country and Iran would most likely try to invade.

There is already a civil war in the country as Iraq is essentially a new country that's several decades old. Saddam actually held the country together. Should the US pull out, odds are that the three groups in Iraq (Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds) would split land as it was before.

People can say that we should have never gone there in the first place but that is no arguement because, in the present, we are there.

Agreed.

Should the US decide to establish a successful democracy, the idea of putting a democracy in Iraq puts a regime friendly to the U.S. in the region, so we have help in ensuring that supply of energy long-term, and it brings stability to the region. Energy is so unbelievably critical to America that anyone can see how a reasonable argument can be made for going to war on this purpose.

Actually, the oil supply is running rather low in the middle east and eventually, it will not be needed. Currently, there is a greater push for alternative sources of energy that for reasons of the oil tycoons and the wealthy around the globe, is moving along quite slowly.

Saudi Arabis has a friendly regime to America and because of that, both Saudi Arabia, and America, can do healthy business together.

I wouldn't call it 'friendly' nor would I call it 'healthy.' The royal family grows richer and richer in Saudi Arabia while the poor gets poorer, which causes the economically disadvantaged to rely on the economic support they ARE getting which is from terrorist-related groups. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia actually serves to increase the number of terrorists from that region.

This is not a pointless war by any means. Economy is at risk and so is the wel-being of some middle eastern countries.

As an economist, I have to disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. There are many reasons that our economy is at risk but we certainly don't need to 'win' this war to stabilize it. You could also argue that by pulling out, we'll save ourselves $ and not have to ask for $ 50 billion MORE dollars that our waste of a president wants.

I'll have to look into this more. I didn't know the Middle East was in short supply of oil. It would still be smarter to use their supplies rather than ours, yes? Smart but immoral.

LOL, true! If only those that are in power and are mega-wealthy didn't have so many personal business connections with oil...

In France, gas is around $ 10 a gallon. Here, the government subsidizes the oil so we end up paying far less. However, imagine if the government were to not subsidize, the US would throw away these SUV's QUICKLY and we'd switch over to more economic and environmentally-friendly cars.

Anyway, proof that the world could be a better place if our politicians would look outside their wallets. Glad you brought up this discussion, Scorpius_!!

There is never an excuse for that, Atlantic.

leowithcap, money is far too big for our leaders to just let go of. The president has all he needs like clothing, shelter, transportation, food, and the white house is pretty luxerious for a home, isn't it? So he doesn't really need a $ 300,000 salery and most of our leaders don't need what they get either. We pay taxes to them so they can give it back to us. It would really be nice to see America help other countries out more than we do (not saying we don't) and that would help our diplomatic status, I'm sure. It is a very big part.

Atlantic, there is no worshiping here. Although those stories are bad, friendly fire happens in absolutely every country's military. You cannot put a bad face on te entire American military because of the few bad apples.

You're a bit biased but not so wrong.

By the way, the comments about the gas prices in France were pretty irrelevant.

So why don't you support the war in Iraq or why do you want to pull them out? You didn't give any sound reason.

A friend of mine stationed in South Korea says that they LOVE the American soldiers protecting them from the North.

How is that relative?

Responses here are taking positions on the opinions of people who aren't involved, have no personal feelings about the situation.

The question shouldn't be focused around whether people who are sitting back eating steak, talking on a computer, have dollars in their pockets and every freedom they can want .... we are spoiled, we suffer no personal consequences .. that is arrogance.

It's for the people, whatever we do, or don't do .. it's about humanity and the question should be asked of the ones who are enduring personally.

You're wrong, P-Angel. We have all these things like computers and food because we work for it. We will probably never have to fight another country or scrounge for food because we did it the right way and got a little lucky. The people who are personally enduring don't matter one bit because they are not the ones in power and they wont be, ever.

Secondly, the soldiers work for their governments. It is they who are not involved because they are only representatives.

My point was ... it's suppose to be about the people, not the "Power"


However, it probably doesn't matter anyway, for war with Iran is imminent .. had we pulled out of Iraq a long time ago, we may have been able to avoid this. Our reporte with Iran has been sitting on a precarious ledge for decades as it was, and now .... if that happens, which I don't see how it will be avoided now .. all hell is going to break loose.

The Tehran heavily influences the Shiite Regime, who's a major participant with Saddam's Sunni-dominated government = 2 main players in the Civil War.

Though, your observations are a good to ponder, and this is a good topic, that is merely registering within this whole scenerio the smaller picture .. a minor detail in comparison to the broader view.

Scorpius ... When we invaded Iraq, we did so with the justification that they had WMD, right? And that they had NOT complied with the IAEA. Ok, so there we are now, trying to re-format their government.

However, we are failing .. so what do we do? We now look at Iran, who is very, very rich in Uranium, and who also has not complied with the IAEA and are pointing our fingers at them now. Yet, they haven't complied for just as long as Iraq .. think about that.

If we are in Iraq, and we are losing the battle .. Saddam's Sunni's against Shiite's who are supported by Iran .. now suddenly, we are all concerned about Iran not cooperating with policy (yet, we weren't this concerned before, all up in their face), and the same thing will happen. We will justify provoking a confrontation (which is already underway) with Iran, by saying they aren't complying, and they are using their nuclear power for weapons ... which they do have nuclear power, thier land is dense with Uranium, and they have had nuclear power for some time. They claim it's peaceful, legal and safe, which we are saying it doesn't matter .. for it's still nuclear energy.

The point is .. the only reason we are fucking with Iran is because we can't get the war between the Shiites and the Sunnis under control in Iraq .. so, to remain in Iraq means a war with Iran so we can defeat Iraq, while we call it, "We are looking for nuclear weapons".

The same fucking thing we did to Iraq .. call it something else as justification ... Iran will slaughter us ... we WILL be defeated (my opinion).

To stay in Iraq means war with Iran .. another FUCKING WAR

That's just how I interpret this, my POV ......

"that is a very naive view."

Why?

Perhaps it looks naive to Roxi ... to me, it looks arrogant.

It is saying, whomever is stronger (in power) is deserving to decide what is right .. while those who are weaker deserved to be oppressed.

Power has gone to our heads .. we've lost sight of our duty to humanity, and I don't blame other countries one bit for resenting the way we handle ourselves.

It's supposed to be about the people .....

"when america and britain went to iraq looking for these weapons of mass destruction - all they did was detonate a terrorist network - more lethal than anything they could ever have found."


OMG ... what we accomplished was the set-up for the worlds annihilation. We fucked up so big-time, and most people don't even have a clue, for they are focusing on the smaller quirmishes and overlooking the bigger picture .. just as was the plan all along. Their aim was to keep us scattered, uncertain .. while WMD were being developed in Iran.

If we pull out .. we look like cowards, and can't hold our own, accept defeat. The al-Qaeda, who has covert cells all over the middle east, are just waiting for us turn yellow. Awefully coincidental that Syria is giving Iran easement of their land with intentions of snuffing out Isreal so forcefully at this time, since the middle-east has had conflict with Israel being it's own country, under the US's protection .. why now so forcefully? If they can't get us to pull out, they will prompt us to spread our forces out even further. Once we're out .. they come after us like the world has never seen.

If we stay .... we have no choice except to wage war on Iran, if we expect to unify Iraq. If we do this, we have Iran to the east, and Syria to the west (who just happens to have Saddam's WMD, so they lead us to believe). Sounds like an elaborate plan, doesn't it? Could this be why Iran supports the Shiites so heavily? They actually want the US to attempt to provoke them, for it's in Iran where all these weapons have been developed in mass quantities, since their land has the most Uranium concentration.

The al-Qaeda kept us busy focusing about Afganistan, Turkey who claims to remain indifferent will allow passage to the network but not our forces, Syria gives hints to us that Saddams weapons are in their country to put our focus over there, Israel is being put in dire straights needing our aid ASAP .. all the while, Iran being overlooked as it sits right dab in the middle, just steadily making an arsenal massive enough to send us all to meet our maker. Not sure about Saudi's position in all this, will have to research.

Now the time has come, hasn't it? What are we going to do? Run like pussy's and await to be destroyed, or face them head-on and invade Iran?

Terrorist cells are all over, all just waiting for the word ......

See, Roxi, you have to give an equal amount of credit to the Britains because they were the first to start the slavery. Infact, it was them who introduced slavery to the United States before we became independant. Even when they did introduce that, only the southern half was for slavery, hence, the civil war.

Actually, the Ghana and Nigerians started what was called "The Arab Slave Trade" in the middle-east a thousand years ago by capturing tribesmen and selling them to the Muslims, which they depended on to keep their economy. Africans still sell their people to this day in slave trade. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, or whether anybody thought them to be of lower humans because of their skin .... it was because they were for sale, by their own people, and many countries bought them for laboring.

The difference with American slaves versus other countries where this trade was widely practiced is that we made them chattel, while everyone else treated them as indentured.

Soldiers represent their governments and the governments represent their voters and any act of barbarism is officially war crime against the humanity.

I wonder for how long the American voters wish to carry their government international fiasco and burden..??

I thought Military services was about to protect their citizens, not to protect the interest of the corporations.

The death of half a million children during an earlier embargo, the killing of as many as 700,000 innocent Iraqis (in war on ?error? scenario), and 6,5 mill refugees..!

Its an holocaust.. who is responsible to this manslaughter..??

"Its an holocaust.. who is responsible to this manslaughter..??"

Why would you focus on putting blame on such an emotional opinion? Placing a blame on something like that will do nothing but cause more issues and war. You, America, Iraq, and I are to be looking for ways to fix the problem and end it. Blame is such a stupid thing when you're in the middle of war. You need to focus on blame after the war has ended because only then should we punish the people who are to be blamed.

Why would you focus on putting blame on such an emotional opinion?

Because it is..!

Terminating and destroying other people lives is fun to you..??

looking for ways to fix the problem and end it.

End it..?? GOOD.. the problem comes from Americans not the other ways..!

Okay no-one but P-Angel gave specific unemotional and factual reasons to this topic.

no-one but P-Angel gave specific unemotional and factual reasons to this topic.



Glad to see that you get your answer..


Good luck with it.

lol, Scorpius .. very interesting, indeed .. you and me are the water here, and we can talk objectively without letting emotions get in the way.


Something to think about ......

That sounds, to me, like another topic. I think they are just passionate... Who am I kidding, I think they're morons LOL!

Not you, Rox, you just use your emotions as facts instead.

"Consequences of Pulling American Troops from Iraq" ..too soon

Well one of them is the plight of the Afghan women. The unreal, stone age lives they've already had to endure for so many decades. Never treated as equals. Denied education, personal freedoms, simple rights, etc. etc. So now, thankfully things are slowly moving in the right direction, since ridding the country of those brutal, ruthless fundamentalists, and with the help of RAWA, there is now hope. Of course, this will impact very positively on the children, as well.

And by getting rid of the 'cutthroats of tyranny'..saddam and henchmen, etc ..*no soldier died in vain. ..'still there seems to be so much left to do. I think alot of it comes down to empowering the Iraq soldiers to be the strongest forces they can be, for their own country, before pulling out altogether..

We can't lose sight of our purpose ... if we fail, then sobeit, so long as we know the aim was in the right place.

That's truly heartbreaking to hear Atlantic Myst; i thought there would be some progress, by now. Thanks for the update..

How credible are your people, Atlantic? Do they actually live there or have family there? Describe, to me, what horrible is.

This is what I was asking. I wanted to know how well you knew them. Media, journalism, politics, they are all lies in America. They display a clear bias in their "information" and cannot be trusted as a source. You must go to the route, which is why I had to ask you how credible they were.

I know you do but I understand. It's a New York thing afterall and only we know that don't we? 🙂

Is there a link or site I can read up on that, Leo?

Here ya go! My bad...that would be Pakistan! Got the news entirely wrong. That's what I get for sneaking away from work for ten minutes to soak in as much news as possible. 😉

Speaking of Pakistan...what are your thoughts?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/11/wpak111.xml

I can't say I know much about Pakistan but you inspire me to learn more about it. What happened to this symolic rock was absolutely horrible. It is never right to destroy a relieous symbol like a church, a statue, ect. Even if you are not religeous or of a different religion it is one of the highest forms of disrespect, in my opinion.

Thanks for the timely reply.