A good reason to pull out of Iraq?

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Yahoo news Article

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Department officials put a pricetag on two major US overseas military operations, saying that commitments in Iraq cost some 3.9 billion dollars per month..

 

Yeah, the US has so much money that we can blow 4 billion a month over in Iraq. Now consider that some people say that the US might need to maintain forces in Iraq for as long as 5 years.

A potential $180 Billion dollars wasted with no real benefit to one single American unless you count the businesses who are making money off the situation..

 

Not to even mention the fact that US troops are still getting killed in Iraq, even after the war was deemed over by Bush two months ago.

[Guest Vyce]

*sigh* Look - I'll explain this to you AND to John Kerry (who's apparently enough of an idiot that he thinks we need to pull out NOW).

 

Regardless of whether you think the war was correct, or whether or not you think we should be in Iraq......we HAVE TO STAY THERE.

 

Otherwise, the nation is left in extreme chaos and will likely be immediately swallowed up by Islamic fundamentalists, which is the last thing we want.

 

So, we're stuck for a while. Whether any of us likes it or not.

[Guest JMA]

I have to agree with Vyce here. We can't allow a theocracy to pop up again. Nor can we afford to allow those who spread anti-American propaganda to be left in charge.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

It would be worse to leave Iraq now than to have not invaded there in the first place. If leave their country in the state it is now, then the American hate is going to be multiplied ten-fold.

 

Also, do you Americans reckon that this news will affect Bush's popularity?

[Guest Ripper]

No, it won't. That guy can start kicking babies and still get re-elected.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Wouldn't be so sure about that -- recent polls show a popularity dip.

 

But I think W. has learned the mistakes of his father. I'm interested to see how Bush II will handle his '04 campaign as opposed to Bush I's '92 effort...

[Guest Ripper]

You mean you don't think he will start giving speechs that sound like a bad stand-up act where he says stuff like "These two MORONS, Bill Clinton and Al BORE"...oh, tag.

 

Really, whoever was writing his speeches that year should be shot.

[Guest godthedog]

Wouldn't be so sure about that -- recent polls show a popularity dip.

 

But I think W. has learned the mistakes of his father. I'm interested to see how Bush II will handle his '04 campaign as opposed to Bush I's '92 effort...

bush won't HAVE to campaign well in '04. he can have a worse campaign than gore did, fuck up worse than reagan in the debates, and still get reelected.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

But how come? Forgive my ignorance, but from over here, it seems as though Bush has been the worst president in ages? Although to be fair, there's a similar situation in the U.K due to the stupidity of the opposition.

[Placebo Effect 0]

Bush will get reelected because the Democrats have no balls and have been getting politically smashed since Bush went into office.

 

The main point I'm always thinking of when it comes to the war is that what is America going to do if the newly freed Iraqi people want to elected an anti-America czar to leadership? Are we going to tell them, "You have the right to vote, but only those who WE approve are allowed to hold the position?"

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I just hope we don't go after more countries and begin "fighting terrorism" at home. We've demonstrated now that even with today's technology there's no way we can track down one solo guy.

 

You know how they keep saying right now this economy is the result of the last president? I'm going have to store that in a lockbox when the next guy comes in and is saddled with huge debts for running all these nations out in the middle of nowhere.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Bush will get reelected because the Democrats have no balls and have been getting politically smashed since Bush went into office.

 

The main point I'm always thinking of when it comes to the war is that what is America going to do if the newly freed Iraqi people want to elected an anti-America czar to leadership? Are we going to tell them, "You have the right to vote, but only those who WE approve are allowed to hold the position?"

More than that, if recent reports are true then if one of the candidates is anti-American then they will be more likely to be democratically elected than a pro-Amrican puppet.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

More than that, if recent reports are true then if one of the candidates is anti-American then they will be more likely to be democratically elected than a pro-Amrican candidate.

Corrected your post because you're going to catch holy hell from the right here and be shown 500 pictures of various Arab people kissing Bush posters for implying that a pro-USA politician is a "puppet."

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

More than that, if recent reports are true then if one of the candidates is anti-American then they will be more likely to be democratically elected than a pro-Amrican candidate.

Corrected your post because you're going to catch holy hell from the right here and be shown 500 pictures of various Arab people kissing Bush posters for implying that a pro-USA politician is a "puppet."

Don't bloody change the fact I can't spell "American" though, do you

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

I can think of about 9 million better ways to spend 4 billion a month over the next 5 years.

 

I suppose allowing the US to go to the crapper just because we can't let Iraq get taken over again is a swell plan. If thats the case, we'll never leave Iraq because the first second theres no US presence in Iraq, someone will pop right in there and take over again no matter how long we stay there and how much trouble we go to avoid it.

[Guest Vyce]

But how come? Forgive my ignorance, but from over here, it seems as though Bush has been the worst president in ages?

I will forgive you, because he's not.

 

Don't believe everything the BBC tells you.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I will forgive you, because he's not.

 

Don't believe everything the BBC tells you.

Depends on how you measure your President.

 

It certainly has been a while since we've gone to war with a different nation every 1.5 years or so.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

But how come? Forgive my ignorance, but from over here, it seems as though Bush has been the worst president in ages?

I will forgive you, because he's not.

 

Don't believe everything the BBC tells you.

Hey, I'll believe my propoganda, you believe yours

 

I'm just saying that because all the publicity about Bush reported over here, through all media outlets, have been dismissive of Bush's work. So, what good has he done for the nation?

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

It's not that he's been the worst. It's just that the biggest moments of his presidency have been basically going to war and killing things. Add in that we live in really creepy times post 9-11--both for being forced to recognize the dangers of terrorism, and for some of the extreme domestic 'solutions' taken towards rooting it out--and it's kind of a shaky period. It's a much bigger concern when lives are at stake, American soldiers and civilians dying, et cetera, than when the biggest story of the presidency is his sexual infidelity/perjury/what everyone remembers about Clinton. As far as Bush goes, I dislike his administration moreso than I actually dislike him, and I've been more turned off by its choices in the past few years than his. Though I don't really know where you draw the line, but I can take my guesses.

 

I'm also going to apologize in advance for the horrible grammatical structuring of that last post. My editing has gone awry this evening.

[Guest DrTom]

I suppose allowing the US to go to the crapper just because we can't let Iraq get taken over again is a swell plan.

"Go into the crapper?" Christ, we HAVE the money. As soon as billion-dollar figures get tossed around, everyone seems to propose clamping the checkbook shut. I look at it this way: we don't put a dollar figure on our own freedom, so why should we do it when we're giving it to another country?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

It's absolutely and utterly absurd to leave Iraq now. We'd be begging for another 9/11.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

It won't happen:

 

1. The money is not THAT much. Even if 4 billion a month is true (and I doubt it will always be that high), it's only a fraction of the annual US defense budget (which I'll assume much of this is coming out of).

 

2. This is Bush's best chance to leave a mark as a statesman and nation builder. If he can make good on rebuilding Iraq and establishing a stable democratic government, it will be a big boost to his international image and vindication for his decision to go to war.

 

3. Abandoning Iraq now would not only flush the US's geopolitical credibility completely down the toilet, it would leave Iraq is horrible shape; perfect conditions for an Islamic regime or "warlordism" to take over.

 

4. One of the main defenses used by the US as to why no WMDs have been found is that they need more time to look and it could take a long time. So if they give up on Iraq now and they are in fact correct about WMDs, that means they are leaving some potentially dangerous weapons in the country somewhere, for someone to get a hold of.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

1. The money is not THAT much. Even if 4 billion a month is true (and I doubt it will always be that high), it's only a fraction of the annual US defense budget (which I'll assume much of this is coming out of).

 

I doubt it does; most of that goes to construction and R&D, if I'm not mistaken. Just more debt, who cares? Bush wasn't gonna balance the budget anyway.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Where any other countries going to send troops to Iraq?

[Guest DrTom]

Right after we send more to LIberia, probably. <sigh>

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

There are troops from other nations in there. And Iraq doesn't need any more troops occupying it.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

"Go into the crapper?" Christ, we HAVE the money. As soon as billion-dollar figures get tossed around, everyone seems to propose clamping the checkbook shut. I look at it this way: we don't put a dollar figure on our own freedom, so why should we do it when we're giving it to another country?

For the same reason these so-called conservatives aren't always the most charitable.

 

Like the guy who doesn't put money in the old man's hat because "he just won't get a job," we need to look out for ourselves at the minute. We are under no obligation to grant freedom to people in other countries, especially when we can barely afford oppertunity for our own.

 

I'm all for wiping out a theocracy, can't say I'm wild about adopting it as our little pet project. We obviously have to do something with it, but I think this is an example of what happens when so much of the world flatly rejects supporting your war.