• Welcome to the Zelda Sages Forums!

    The Zelda Sages Community Forums are a fun and easy way to interact with Zelda fans from around the globe. Our members also have access to exclusive members' only content. Register and/or log in now! Please note that user registration is currently disabled. If you would like to register please contact us.

Extremely Controversial Iraq War

Should the US leave Iraq?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • No

    Votes: 12 70.6%

  • Total voters
    17
Should the US leave immediately?

Is it worth it to pull out before finishing the job after we've spent billions of dollars already?

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.asp?Article=218502&Sn=WORL&IssueID=31067

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200805251030/editorial/why-have-democrats-forgotten-about-iraq.html
Really, only four types of people would say to pull out right away.
  • Stupid
  • Ignorant
  • People without the truth
  • Politicians manipulating people
Should we have gone in Iraq in the first place? No. Bush / faulty intelligence / other conspiracy theories got us there, so whoever's next will be forced to stay in Iraq, to fix their mistakes. There are many theories about what would happen if the US pulled out right away. I have 2 favorites.
  1. US pulls out. The government fails to support itself, and falls to either Al Queda, or another wahhabist sect/terrorist organization. Possable branches go of of that.
  2. US pulls out. Turkey invades northern Iraq to prevent the Kurds from within Turkey joining up with the Kurds in Northern Iraq and starting a civil war for independance. Iran takes Southern Iraq, joining (I forget whether it is sunni or shi'ite in Iran) together. Now Iran (which DOES have nukes, or at least they will soon... Don't be stupid please), moves nukes into range of, you guessed it, ISRAEL! One nuke flies. Welcome to WWIII and the end of the world.
One thing remains constant. Who's blamed in both of the situations? The United States, of course!
 
If the US were to leave immediately, pandemonium would be all but ensured.

The US has steadily influenced Iraq over the past 5 years, and without that support, the fragile balance in Iraq would be lost.

I would personally like some troop recalls, but not total.
 
wheter or not you agree with most of my ideas it is very refreshing to see that you are able to see that the negitives out way the positives for imediate pull out thank you for thinking and also rember vitnem when we pulled out millions were massacurred
 
*sigh* If the UN never screwed up in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem. But they did. Then the U.S. decided to give Israel American-made weapons to kill Arabs with. Really after that, the Iraq war was inevitable. You can kind of understand why they're upset with the U.S. after losing their holy land (to Jews, not another Islamic country), getting kicked out and forced to live in refugee camps, and being shot by red white and blue bullets.

They got in deep **** and now they can't get out.
 
[cynicism]
Silly me. I thought the Iraq Conflict lasted from March 10, 2003 to May 1, 2003. Since it's now, say, 1851 days later, I would think things should be winding down if we hadn't left already. Silly me.
[/cynicism]

Can anyone here give me the one main goal of the invasion? It's been retconned so many times I'm having trouble keeping up.
 
[cynicism]
Silly me. I thought the Iraq Conflict lasted from March 10, 2003 to May 1, 2003. Since it's now, say, 1851 days later, I would think things should be winding down if we hadn't left already. Silly me.
[/cynicism]

Can anyone here give me the one main goal of the invasion? It's been retconned so many times I'm having trouble keeping up.
Umm...Arabs lost land and now they're pissed?

American weapons killed their friends and now they're pissed?

Terrorists attack America and Israel and now they're pissed?

Everyone's pissed?
 
Wasn't it about destroying weapons of mass destruction we never really found? They obviously have them.. We just haven't found them yet...
 
Umm...Arabs lost land and now they're pissed?

American weapons killed their friends and now they're pissed?

Terrorists attack America and Israel and now they're pissed?

Everyone's pissed?
No, I mean America's goal. The insurgency is pretty explainable, but all of our 'rationales' that I've heard of have been falsified at this point.
 
We came in to save people like super heroes and now half the country begs us to turn our backs on the afflicted and run like the filthy beasts they try to make us be. We are not super heroes. We don't have to be filthy beasts. We should not abandon those in desperate circumstances. The things they suffer are unimaginable to many of our people. Instead of running from the unknown, we should stand up and face the reality of what truly lies before us.
 
Hmmm...
Well, as far as what I believe, our initial purpose for invaliding Iraq was not the best in the world. However, now that we're there it is our responsibility to keep a stable Iraq until such a time comes when the people of Iraq can do so themselves.

Not the most popular of beliefs for certain, however I can't tell you how many individuals I know with family that are serving (or have served, one actually dying in the line of duty) that stress the wonderful progress that's being made, something the media doesn't necessarily show you. The media seeks to make a story; what better story than "More Die in Iraq". To pull out of Iraq now would be to put all of the solders, families, and loved ones that were effected by the conflict to shame. Their sacrifice, for nothing. Do we honestly want to relinquish their sacrifice?
 
Okay, so we're starting with the humanitarian angle then. The following the following numbers are from a multinational media survey in Iraq, headed by the BBC in March 2007:

  • 64% described their family's economic situation as being somewhat or very bad, up from 30% in 2005.
  • 88% described the availability of electricity as being either somewhat or very bad, up from 65% in 2004.
  • 69% described the availability of clean water as somewhat or very bad, up from 48% in 2004.
  • 88% described the availability of fuel for cooking and driving as being somewhat or very bad.
  • 58% described reconstruction efforts in the area in which they live as either somewhat or very ineffective, and 9% described them as being totally nonexistent.
To take a look at the casualty estimate, The Lancet's (which just so happens to be one of the oldest and most-respected peer-review scientific journals) estimate of total Iraqis dead due to the war at 694,965. That's almost 2.75% of Iraq's total current population. For comparison, the best numbers I can find put the Holocaust's death toll at roughly 2% of Germany (Yes, I realize I am flirting with Godwin's Law. Suck it up.). No reasonable estimates put the eventual death toll anywhere under an even million given continued involvement, and before anyone says anything about the war going better, there's a nice graph I would like to share with you all that adds a little perspective to the reports of 'decreased violence':

Monthly_Troop_Deaths_in_Iraq.jpg


Three favorable months in a row do not progress make. Another graph that may prove enlightening:

Iraq_attacks.jpg


See that little dip exclusive to the graph on the left? That's the purported 'decreased violence'.

Okay, I'm done for now.

 
The U.S. jumped in the war because they had to do something about 9/11. Also: *cough*oil interests*cough*
 
The U.S. jumped in the war because they had to do something about 9/11. Also: *cough*oil interests*cough*
Roughly 50% of Americans still think there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. That depresses me to no end. Come on people, I'm serious when I say that I believe Afghanistan is a validated war. Let's not forget our own men over there!
 
Fox News said:
BAGHDAD — U.S. military deaths plunged in May to the lowest monthly level in more than four years and civilian casualties were down sharply, too, as Iraqi forces assumed the lead in offensives in three cities and a truce with Shiite extremists took hold.
But many Iraqis as well as U.S. officials and private security analysts are uncertain whether the current lull signals a long-term trend or is simply a breathing spell like so many others before.
U.S. commanders also warn the relative peace is fragile because no lasting political agreements have been reached among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities.
Talks on returning Sunnis to the government broke down this week, and tensions among rival Shiite parties remain high despite a May 11 truce that ended weeks of bloody fighting in Baghdad's Sadr City district.
Iraqis have experienced lulls in the past — notably after the January 2005 elections — only to see violence flare again.
"The security situation is much better than in the past three or four months, and I am making more money now," said Falih Radhi, who runs a food store in eastern Baghdad. "Despite this, I have a feeling that this positive situation won't last long and that violence may come back again."
Nevertheless, the figures for May are encouraging, especially coming as the United States continues withdrawing the nearly 30,000 reinforcements that President Bush sent to Iraq early last year to curb the wave of Shiite-Sunni slaughter.
All five of the "surge brigades" rushed to Iraq last year will be gone by July, lowering the troop strength to about 140,000, U.S. officials say. There are currently about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
At least 21 American troopers were killed in May — four in non-hostile incidents. That's one more than the lowest monthly figure of the war set in February 2004.
Meanwhile, Iraqi deaths were down, too.
At least 522 Iraqi civilians and security troopers were killed during the month, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press from Iraqi police and military reports. That's down sharply from April's figure of 1,080 and the lowest monthly total this year, according to the AP count.
Last Sunday, military spokesman Rear Adm. Patrick Driscoll said the number of attacks in the previous week fell to a level "not seen since March 2004," although he did not give specific figures.
At the same time, Iraqi forces have taken the lead in offensives against the Sunni extremist Al Qaeda in Iraq in the northern city of Mosul and against Shiite militiamen in Baghdad and Basra in the south.
Al Qaeda to Muslim Extremist Women: Stay Home, Raise Kids
U.S. and coalition forces assumed a support role in the three offensives, enabling them to avoid higher casualties which would have been expected had they been doing all the fighting.
With the trends looking positive, the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, said in Washington last week that he is likely to recommend further troop cuts in Iraq but won't promise more details until fall — as the U.S. presidential election campaign is approaching its climax.
But U.S. officials and private security analysts warn against rapid withdrawals and optimistic forecasts.
Former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman wrote this week that despite some improvements among Iraqi forces, both Iraqi and U.S. officials continue "to sharply exaggerate the real-world readiness" of the country's army and police.
Petraeus himself said it's unlikely that Iraqi security forces can take the lead in all 18 provinces this year, as was recently predicted by the Pentagon.
"The overall trend in Iraq is positive, but we should be skeptical about overly optimistic assessments that we've 'turned the corner' in Iraq," said Eric Rosenbach of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former staffer of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"It's more appropriate to say that we have a long road ahead of us rather than we've turned the corner."
The reason for such caution is that many of the issues that contributed to the Iraq conflict remain unresolved — notably how the various ethnic and religious groups will share power.
Last August, the largest Sunni Arab political bloc pulled out of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet, complaining it wasn't getting enough say in decision-making. Talks on a Sunni return broke down this week.
In the north, tensions between Arabs and Kurds are smoldering, especially in key cities such as Kirkuk and Mosul. Mohanad Hazim, a schoolteacher in Mosul, warned that the presence of Kurdish soldiers in his city "is a matter of great worry and concern" among his fellow Arabs.
Moreover, armed groups — including Al Qaeda — have been bloodied but not crushed.
About half the U.S. deaths in May occurred in Sunni areas, showing that Sunni insurgents remain active, even though thousands of Sunnis have agreed to work with the Shiite-dominated government.
Top leaders of Shiite militant groups that fought the Americans and Iraqis for weeks in Sadr City have escaped, the U.S. military says, presumably to regroup and fight again.
"If you look at it in terms of a video recorder, a lot of the groups have pushed pause, but that's not to say they can't push play again," said Nathan Freier, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
That possibility is greatest within the major Shiite community, where anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is competing for power against parties that have worked with the United States while maintaining ties to Iran.
Al-Sadr declared a cease-fire last August which largely held until late March, when two rival Shiite parties encouraged the government to move against Shiite militias in Basra.
That triggered an uprising that spread across the Shiite south to Baghdad, where militiamen rocketed the U.S.-protected Green Zone daily.
Fighting ended after Shiite mediation, some facilitated by Iran. The deals enabled Iraqi security forces to extend control in former militia strongholds of both Baghdad and Basra.
But the March fighting broke out because al-Sadr believed his Shiite rivals were trying to weaken his movement before provincial elections this fall.
Those elections are now expected to slip one month to November, and already many Sadrists are complaining that their rivals are again using the truce to arrest and intimidate their followers.
"If some of these constituencies don't get what they want at a rate they find acceptable, they will increase resistance," Freier said. "This is a window of opportunity that will be squandered or capitalized on. And it's in the hands of the Iraqis to capitalize on it."

I need 20 characters to submit this message!
 
International survey and peer-reviewed centuries-old scientific journals v. Fox news... that's not a particularly tough decision. I'm not even particularly inclined to discuss the merits.
 
Your "International survey and peer-reviewed centuries-old scientific journal" has nothing to do with the year "2008". Which is when the violence is going down. My Fox News article is talking about this year.

So are these:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq1-2008jun01,0,7171227.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-iraq_5sjun01,0,1000521.story
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4970162
Reread the second and third sentences of your own article, specifically the part about 'so many others before' and 'the relative peace is fragile'.

Actually, reread the whole thing. I think it might be more dismally prophetic than you thought.
 
Protecting the greater good is so frustraiting. Our country goes in there trying to improve the lives of the people in those countries, and all we get is crap. Even our own people give us crap. And those countries arn't really even doing anything to protect themselves. They just sit back and go " Oh the mighty Americans will save us so we will finally get to be able to come out of our rock, but meanwhile, while they fight, we like the shade."
 
Back
Top