Would you say the same about Egypt under Mubarak or Libya under Ghadafi or is it different with a Democrat in the Oval Office?
I’m just wondering what your quantifier for ‘far better’ is.
Iraq stabilized? They’ve had large bombings in just the past month. The Iraqui security forces are being targeted.
Even with us there they are trying to drag this country into civil war. You’ve got three ethnic factions (Kurd, Shiite, Sunni) that will be at each others throats the second we leave. That’s the turmoil that opens the door for Iran.
Obama only wants to get reelected. He could care less how many soldiers died trying to stabilize Iraq. Eventually we’ll have to return to Iraq and clean up the mess from Obama’s decision. More soldiers will die the next time we have to go in.
First, I despise the Democrats in general and Obama in particular. And second, neither Libya nor Egypt was as bad as Iraq has been under our domination. Iraq was in fact used by the Libyan rebels specially as an example of what they wanted to avoid.
More safety, more freedom, fewer corpses, less destruction, more wealth, more stability, more hope. Iraq is worse off in pretty much every way thanks to us.
If we “have” to go in again it will because under Bush we manufactured millions of mortal enemies there. They will hate us for generations, and should.
So, what’s Iran…chopped liver???
hh
I don’t understand all this naysaying. Iraq has been one of America’s most successful wars:
[ul][li] U.S. armed forces deaths - 4400[/li][li] Iraqis - 1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict[/li][li] Non-U.S. coalition and journalist deaths - 505[/li][/ul]
It may not be clear whether to lump coalition soldiers and journalists with us or the enemy, but even in the former case, the Kill Ratio is a whopping 210. I think that may be the best U.S. result ever.
ETA:
Oh. Nevermind.
We needn’t worry about Iran. I’m betting Israel puts the smack down on 'em before the US can even blink at the provocative act. And they’ll do it quick, too, because they’ll want to keep their attention on Egypt.
Only if the primary goal was to kill Iraqis. Now I personally do think that was a major goal; but most people don’t want to admit that.
This is possibly one of the most shameful things I’ve seen written on this board. Disliking Obama is one thing, but accusing the man of not caring about the death of Americans is just despicable. You’re no better than the worst that either end of the political extreme can produce.
My comments weren’t personal against Obama or even a political party.
Decisions the President makes can and often do get people killed. Especially men in the military. Pulling out of Iraq now is a huge gamble. We can’t afford for that country to disintegrate. That region is to volatile and dangerous. Iran has been meddling in Iraq for ten years. We can’t sit by and allow Iraq to turn into another Lebanon. If necessary a future President will send troops back and there will be a lot of deaths.
Maybe the gamble will pay off. Perhaps Iraq will become the first great Arab Democracy. If so I’ll be the first to congratulate our President and shake his hand.
My family has a long history of military service. My dad fought in Viet Nam. His brother was in the Pacific in WWII. He got a steel plate in his head for his service. My grandad was in France in WWI. We’ve fought a lot of wars politicians in various countries helped start.
Why not, exactly?
I hate the paternalistic attitude. So many assume these backward people are incapable of running a government without our help and direction. They had a civilization long before America was even a thought. Whatever Iraq will become, it will be their job to sort it out. We scrambled it into a mess with little form . They will make something out of it .
A big part of our leaving is Iraq would not exempt our soldiers from Iraqi prosecution .
Shockingly thoughtless, however, and based on nothing more than hatred of the man.
This is the same paternalistic bunk that was the basis of colonialization by England, Spain, France, Portugal, et al. So what gives us the right to remain in a country that doesn’t want us there? That’s not called ‘stabilizing the government’; it’s called ‘occupation’. Since when do we have the right to usurp the local government’s powers unless there is an ongoing war with clear objectives? Terrorists are there because we are there. That’s been made clear by experts in middle eastern affairs. Hopefully, a future president will be better at analyzing the data he receives and not rely on people on his staff to further some new world order agenda.
It’s quite clear that this would not be the case.
What’s your point? My family has served in nearly every war going back to, and including, the revolution. I’m the latest, having served in Vietnam. It doesn’t make it noble, and I thank all the gods that my kids were smart enough not to buy into the militaristic lunacy of recent years.
Cool. 800 billion dollars for nothing. It’s not like we needed it at home anyways.
I don’t understand this sentiment. Are you saying that because we’re pulling out of Iraq that it was money wasted?
Maybe this poster agrees with Bachmann that Iraq should reimburse the United States fully for the amount of money that we have spent to liberate (them)
I mean, that’s not just some whack-doodle saying this, right? It’s being said by a GOP candidate for president. So it must represent the actual thoughts of at least some folks on the right.
Maybe we could make Iraq pay reparations. I mean, it’s not like that idea ever lead to anything bad, right?
What makes you think that that is something that we would want or that would benefit us? We’ve given the people of Iraq every reason to collectively hate our guts; an Iraqi democracy would be implacably hostile to us.
No; the point is that the war was entirely a waste.