How many is to many in Iraq

[BGMCFAR]

Normally I'm consevative ,but in this case one is to many I think its time to ..count our losses and get out of Iraq Ithink it was stupid to go in inthe first place if you don't have a plan to get out. sure don't see any of these congressmans and Senaters families volunteering to go and get shoot at or carbombed. How many is to many:

[Bettina]

Normally I'm consevative ,but in this case one is to many I think its time to ..count our losses and get out of Iraq Ithink it was stupid to go in inthe first place if you don't have a plan to get out. sure don't see any of these congressmans and Senaters families volunteering to go and get shoot at or carbombed. How many is to many:

 

Lets assume we leave Iraq. If we do then we might as well get out of Afghanistan too because the terrorists will simply shift their focus to our forces there. I'm not exactly sure what will happen next, but I'll bet there will be large scale genocide. Shiite women and especially Shiite children will be hunted down, tortured, raped, and murdered by the hundreds. Radical Islam will grow unchecked driving the peaceful ones to join or die. The Taliban will be back in power along with their fundamentalist ideas and their schools will again be filled with boys taught to hate you and me, while girls and women will be banned to their homes...in burkas.

 

So, all of it would have been for nothing. Terrorism will continue to grow unchecked with scary weapons and they can go right back to hating infidels again. Who will stop them? The other cowardly countries will just sit back and try not to poke the every growing hornets nest.

 

Bettina

[Pangloss]

sure don't see any of these congressmans and Senaters families volunteering to go and get shoot at or carbombed. How many is to many:

 

Actually Virginia's newest Senator has a son in Iraq. Of course he was just elected in November, beating out incumbent George "Macaca" Allen.

 

I seem to recall there being a presidential candidate who has or had a son in Iraq. Unfortunately I can't recall the name at the moment. I want to say Sam Brownback, but in checking his Wikipedia article it doesn't mention it, so my memory may be playing tricks on me.

 

As for the House, I believe a couple of current House members have actually served in Iraq during the current conflict, having also been elected recently. But of course they also weren't there when the run-up to war came down. I don't know if any sitting House members who were there during the run-up also have family members who served (didn't Michael Moore mention one in Fahrenheit 9/11?).

 

At any rate, it's certainly an understandable sentiment, regardless of its technical accuracy.

[Sisyphus]

Bettina, are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan?

[Gypsy Cake]

I'm British. Most of my country do not only hold your sentiments but also that we've simply followed the US lead on this. I wouldn't want to say whether we should or shouldn't have gone in but I strongly believe that now we have we must stick it out.

 

Our politcians prematuely entered Iraq and Tony Blair especially didn't gain enough support from the general public. But there you go.

 

If we leave now then we leave the country in a more volatile and terrorist threat than when we went in. And therefore to maintain our integrity amoungst the international community we must complete our goals.

[Pangloss]

<moderator hat>

 

Gypsy Cake, be sure and indicate to whom you are replying when you post a message, especially in a thread that's been out of circulation for a few weeks like this one. It's possible the person you're talking to may not realize that you're talking to them because when they click on the New Posts button for this thread it will jump straight to your post, obscuring the previous posts.

 

</moderator hat>

[Gypsy Cake]

Kk. Sorry. I'm new to this game.

[Pangloss]

And you're doing just fine -- that was an interesting post.

[John Cuthber]

"And therefore to maintain our integrity amoungst the international community we must complete our goals."

What were these goals?

IIRC the major "goal" was to ensure that Saddam (who is now dead) didn't use his weapons of mass destruction (which never existed).

 

The longer we stay there the easier it is for the likes of Bin Laden to say "look they are our enemies- they invade the countries of our brother Moslems".

Only a tiny minority of Moslems are out to destroy the West, but the longer we stay in Iraq (and Afghanistan) the more difficult we make it for the moderates and the easier we make it for the radicals.

Many of those in the international community think that this "war on terror" is just stiring things up.

[Pangloss]

That's a bit disengenuous -- other goals have been clearly stated. Those goals, even if unrealistic, have meaning and cannot be easily dismissed by uttering the demogogic phrase "weapons of mass destruction" -- a phrase which related to our reasons for invading, not our reasons for staying.

 

Be fair, please.

[Gypsy Cake]

What were these goals?

IIRC the major "goal" was to ensure that Saddam (who is now dead) didn't use his weapons of mass destruction (which never existed).

I think since we've caused such mayhem the goals have changed. I don't think we can really pass the responsibility of stabilising Iraq to anyone else really. If we leave, then the country is in a worst state than when we went in; there really is no "political" benefits that can come from leaving.

 

The longer we stay there the easier it is for the likes of Bin Laden to say "look they are our enemies- they invade the countries of our brother Moslems".

Only a tiny minority of Moslems are out to destroy the West, but the longer we stay in Iraq (and Afghanistan) the more difficult we make it for the moderates and the easier we make it for the radicals.

Many of those in the international community think that this "war on terror" is just stiring things up.

 

I understand what you're saying, but if we leave then we're giving a country to Al Qaeda/other terrorist organisations.