PRIVATE POLL: Question; Do You Think We Should Get Out Of Iraq, Or Stay There?

[Pale Rider]

I haven't voted. I don't really like the choices.

However, I think the generals should decide.

What is the choice that you'd have liked? In your words...

[avatar4321]

What is the choice that you'd have liked? In your words...

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

[Kathianne]

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

I agree. From what I've read, which is quite a lot, the draw down on the surge begins in Jan. By June, at the latest, barring no unforseen problems, the draw down begins to extend to those numbers beyond the surge. There isn't a 'time table' but it's been laid out, in both the MSM and by Petraeus.

[Mr. P]

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

Understand this AV..it's NOT the generals that make a decision to deploy. Why should they make one to leave?

[Pale Rider]

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

In my opinion, Generals are good for giving advice on "how to win a war." I don't think it should be up to them "why to fight a war."

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

[gabosaurus]

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

**bows to Pale's astounding logic**

[Kathianne]

In my opinion, Generals are good for giving advice on "how to win a war." I don't think it should be up to them "why to fight a war."

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

You're now convinced that the war was wrong in the first place? It doesn't matter a whit then if the 'job is done' or not. The troops were fuked in the first place. It doesn't matter how many AQI they killed. It doesn't matter about Saddam. None of it matters, in your opinion?

[Pale Rider]

You're now convinced that the war was wrong in the first place? It doesn't matter a whit then if the 'job is done' or not. The troops were fuked in the first place. It doesn't matter how many AQI they killed. It doesn't matter about Saddam. None of it matters, in your opinion?

No, I don't think we should have gone in there. It wasn't our job. If the rest of the world didn't give a damn about Saddam and what he was doing, and weren't willing to go in WITH US, and STAY WITH US, then we shouldn't have been there either. Other means should have been used other than a full blown invasion by the USA. That is NOT what our constitution says we should be doing, and that isn't how this country operated in the past, and now it's turned into nation building. When did we get in that business? Who authorized that?

So what about Korea? They're late on their nuclear dismantling. Should we invade them? And what about Iran? Invade? So what about the new killing in Kenya? Should we invade? Why don't we just invade anybody and everybody? Why stop at Iraq? What was so special about Iraq? Oh yeah... oil.

[5stringJeff]

In my opinion, Generals are good for giving advice on "how to win a war." I don't think it should be up to them "why to fight a war."

It should be up to them to say whether we've done what we set out to do. However, it's obvious that we have done that, as there is a government, and army, and a police force in place.

If troops have died in vain, it won't be because we pull out, it will be because bush sent them in there when we shouldn't have gone in the first place, and then subsequently fucked up the aftermath even though we did.

I still agree that we should have gone in the first place, although I think that we are to the point where every extra day we are there is a day too long.

[trobinett]

Yea, we should hold off on the invasions for awhile.

Maybe a few well placed nuke's IS the answer to the worlds problems.

We did the right thing, we did it for the right reasons, and though there has been life lost, many more have been saved.

Looking back serves no purpose, and will not change a thing.

Looking forward does serve a purpose, and brings worth, and goodness to a deed well done.

[LiberalNation]

Our job is finished now, so we should leave. What happens in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqis.

Depends on what our job was in the first place. If it was to stop terrorism leaving will leave an unstable country and terrorist hot bed. If it was to make Iraq a stable democracy and stop the killing then leaving at this point means failing.

But then what are winning staying.

[OCA]

Letting the generals decide. I know for a fact that I don't know enough about military and strategy to decide whats in the best interest for the US military. Although, honestly, i would love to learn more about that.

And I certainly dont want to see all those who have died to have died in vain. But i dont want them there forever.

Bush won't let the generals decide, he keeps fighting the war with more emphasis on the political than the strategical(if thats a word lol).

Lets face it, the Iraqis are not ever going to be a cohesive nation, ever. The minute we leave, whether its tomorrow or 10 years from now, the Sunnis ans the Shiites are gonna go at it for control of the country, we should just let that happen and see where the chips fall.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

He's a sorry ass,

1. Yup, that was funny.
2. Someday he'll post in complete thoughts.
3. I'd rep her, but I need to spread it around.
4. We all laugh at him.

Regards,
SirPokerofFun

BTW, you should have given a choice for cleaning up our mess from a completely mismanaged execution of a UN resolution.

1. You are full of shit.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Kathianne]

It should be up to them to say whether we've done what we set out to do. However, it's obvious that we have done that, as there is a government, and army, and a police force in place.



I still agree that we should have gone in the first place, although I think that we are to the point where every extra day we are there is a day too long.

So even though Petreaus says we should stay, because it's 'obvious' we should leave? What's wrong with this?

[mrg666]

I don't give a shit if people know what I think about pulling out or staying.

We ALREADY are pulling out, and I agree with the current strategy. A phased, well planned withdraw is the best policy.

I did like Mr. P's final solution though.

gotta agree with that keep an eye on the ball but slowly retreat