<p>You cannot withdraw. We cannot withdraw. We are too well-established within the roots of the Iraqi nation that uprooting us immediately will have a disastrous effect on Iraq. </p>
<p>Imagine. Civil war, chaos. You'd be responsible for more deaths during the period of chaos (after we leave) in a single month than we had in the entire course of the Iraqi incursion.</p>
<p>Please, don't flood me with peace-nik, "Oh, We shouldn't have gone into Iraq" arguments. I frankly don't care, for that matter. There's no need to play Monday Morning Quarterback now, and unless you have a very, ** very ** brilliant plan that the Pentagon hasn't been able to feasibly develop yet, I suggest you start looking for solutions that will allow the Iraqi Provisional government to become a permanent one.</p>
<p>A point you may want to consider: US troops may actually believe in what they are doing and want to stay in Iraq for the good of the cause. They may not consider your (well-intentioned) efforts for peace to be helping them.</p>
<p>To me it seems that Iraq was not a pleasant war. The excuse used to start the war was something along the lines of Saddam having connections with Al Quaida (sp) and having W of M.D. Neither was proven true. I'm not an expert, so to me, Iraq was not a success, but not a failure either.
However, suddenly pulling out of Iraq is an even worse idea than starting the war. As mentioned in posts above, this would create chaos.
Another benefit of the war, is that it kick-sparked the economy. It is undoubtably true that the weapons business in America is one of the top money makers. By starting a war, this strengthens the economy. With the oil that will be coming in after the war (one of the main reasons that the war started), American economy will prosper.</p>
<p>In response to the Liberals bitching about the 2000 elections, I think there are people still ranting about it because Bush cheated. Plain and simple. Yeah, he won, but did he win fairly? I dunno, maybe he did, but what were all those "In all situations with a recount, Gore clearly won Florida" news reports all about?
Honestly, without the victory in 2000 (legitimate or not) he probably would not have been elected in 2004 either. True, Kerry was a very weak and non-charismatic candidate; that really helped Bush too.</p>
<p>I'm a politics neophyte, feel free to correct me</p>
<p>
[quote]
In response to the Liberals bitching about the 2000 elections, I think there are people still ranting about it because Bush cheated.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your proof? The President didn't ** do ** anything except take the proper legal measures because the count was so close. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Plain and simple. Yeah, he won, but did he win fairly? I dunno, maybe he did, but what were all those "In all situations with a recount, Gore clearly won Florida" news reports all about?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is why we have a system of checks and balances, and designed a system in accordance with Montesqeieu (sp, I know I butchered this)'s three powers of government. It's designed to resolve situations such as this, which it did.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, without the victory in 2000 (legitimate or not) he probably would not have been elected in 2004 either. True, Kerry was a very weak and non-charismatic candidate; that really helped Bush too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To say that Kerry was non-charismatic is a euphemism.</p>
<p>There were no situations where with a recount Gore would have won Florida. Several news agencies (including CNN) commisioned a group to study the recount in every way imaginable, and in every variation they got the same result = Bush won. Its a hands down, no question win for Bush. Yes close, but clearly a Bush win. I'm sorry liberals out there, you just have to get over it.</p>
<p>Your proof? The President didn't do anything except take the proper legal measures because the count was so close. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>I dont have a proof, like I said, I haven't been researching much on this topic. I've been just hearing things from my friends, obviously their explanation of the situation was way too simplistic.</p>
<p>But, not as a challenge but as a question, why did the supreme court rule to stop the hand re-counts of the void ballots?</p>
<p>Machines can register some ballots as void......I don't know what the ballot looks like, but apparently a Republican designed the ballot sheet and it apparently was confusing..........?
<a href="http://www.konformist.com/2000/ballot.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://www.konformist.com/2000/ballot.jpg</a>
Is this it? It does look rather confusing......... but I don't see how Democratic votes would register as Republican votes though.................</p>
<p>You know, I think we should pack up all our troops and just leave Iraq... </p>
<p>As I see it, as soon as we're gone Iraq will enter a long Civil War... That should take up at least 10 or so years. Now of course after that time we will have a reigm that hates us much much more then Saddam's ever did.</p>
<p>I know not all of you agree with this war, but regardless of that we are there for the long haul now. If we leave the ramifications will be much more serious then if we stick it out.</p>
<p>back to the iraqw thing - now that we're in here, we can't just leave the country in chaos. its our JOB to fix it, we got ourselves into this mess, now we need to get ourselves out.</p>
<p>jrcho88, you recently gave one of the most uninformed posts I have ever seen. It is people like you who listen to Michael Moore's stupid propaganda and don't even pay attention to the REAL facts. Moore SAYS he's presenting the truth, and everyone takes it as that. Anyway, as angrod said, a study performed by over six major news organizations showed that IN ALL SITUATIONS, Bush clearly would have won Florida had the recound continued. Period.</p>
<p>I was uninformed. Now I did some research about this matter and understand the TRUE facts provided by the U Chicago case study and other news websites. You're right, I originally thought Michael Mooore's crap was true at first. In my last post, I just wanted to know what the ballot debate was all about. I don't really appreciate the way you portrayed me as the retards who listened to Michael moore and believe it is true. I did, not anymore. </p>
<p>Again, sorry for going off-topic....
Back to the topic, simply pulling out of Iraq will cause even more chaos. It's either we don't go in, or go in and finish the job. One or the other. Anything in between the two will simply produce...well..... bedlam and chaos.</p>
<p>Hey, it's OK jrcho88, I even believed some of his crap was true at first (after seeing Bowling for Columbine.) He's a deceptive guy. As long as you understand NOW that he's full of crap, that's great. I'm sorry for coming off as condescending! You said "I'm a politics neophyte, feel free to correct me," so I took the liberty of doing so :-). However, I didn't take the time to read your SECOND post, which explained why you presented such an idea (hearing things from your friends). The most important thing is that you understand the fundamental issue: pulling out of Iraq would cause monumental problems.</p>
<p>With the elections in Iraq only a few weeks away, I still haven't seen anything in the paper or on TV about the candidates and their parties, views, etc. This concerns me because most likely a Shi'ite will be elected to the top position (president or PM?) and could very well align Iraq with Iran, which could make our situation in Iraq hell. Has anybody heard anything about the candidates?</p>
<p>I have heard some. The problem is that they have like 20 candidates running, just like every European country. I don't know who they think will be the favored candidate; I'll have to do some research.</p>
<p>I don't agree at all. The war needs to be finished. Ending it no would help no one, especially not Iraq. Iraq would be overrun by terrorists and warlords faster than you can say peace.</p>
<p>Did you know that some Muslims are refusing aid from Israel? When they go and do something like that, it's hard for me to feel sorry for them.</p>
<p>@ PeacePlease:</p>
<p>"It does not seem that American troops are doing very much good there--just trying to force Democracy and, in so doing, leading to many more Iraqi deaths as well."</p>
<p>Why don't you pull your head out of your as$ for a moment and read something other than the New York Times? What are our troops doing? Remember that Saddam guy? Yeah, the dude that killed hundreds of thousands of people, probably millions. Our troops stoped his 24 year rape of Iraq. Whether or not your average Iraqi likes the US being in their country, they're all happy about what we've done. If that seems kind of confusing and illogical, you're right. It's all part of the Arab thought process that's completely alien to ours.</p>
<p>"Would make a huge stride toward America regaining respect throughout the world."</p>
<p>Whose respect do we need to regain? Why? The French? Fu ck them.</p>
<p>"Would help rebuild relations with the Muslim community"</p>
<p>This one pi$$ed me off more than any other. Take ONE FU CKING look at a picture of the world trade center on the morning of 9-11 and tell me why WE need to rebuild relations with the "Muslim community". It's as if you think they can't help the horrible things they've done and it's our job to help them. Oh, wait, we are helping them, by getting rid of Saddam, the Ba'athists and the Taliban to name a few groups, but that's not good enough for you. What you REALLY think is that we, as a nation, should collectively bow down in front of them and ask for the privilage of licking the soles of their feet.</p>
