Democrats - there is talk of Iraq aligning with Iran if we pull out - what do you think of that?
915749
I'm not a dem, but will answer anyhow.  Bush is commander in chief, so he will decide the military action...and we will see how his new secretary will advise.  They know better than any politicians how to win this war.  I wonder, though, that if they decide to change the course of action and fail, will the american people blame the dems?  I don't think that anything is going to change drastically before the next two years.  To do so would be political suicide...unless they decide that they will give clear goals and time frames to accomplish them.  i believe that if you give people deadlines, they try harder to meet goals.  That's how it works in the business world...
14666
If you want my honest opinion the US is in too deep to pull out in the near future.  I don't think we should have invaded Iraq at all.  If we had wanted to take care of Saddam we should have done it back during the Gulf War but George Bush Sr. was too much of a...yeah anyway, the future of Iraq is occupation by US led coalition forces.
338009
Can't see America losing the war in Iraq. Reason, we're there and now it's too late to back out. Most likely we're going to be in Iraq and the middle east for at least 20 years if not longer. The overall goal is to bring democracy to the region. Not an easy task, since most there don't know what democracy is. America will suffer a humilating defeat if it backs out now. It fought to a draw in Korea, lost in Vietnam. Now if it withdraws, that's another lose. It's not going to happen. America doesn't want to lose its international superpower status. And withdrawing from Iraq could led to that.
1061094
NO!!! I was so surprised when people began to think we should pull out!!! We cannot leave until we finish what we are there for; to get Iraq back on it's feet again.
709585
Go big.  We made this mess, we have a responsibility to clean it up.  We need to stabilize that region.  Walking away will only let the chaos we've already created escalate.\n\nIt was an incredibly stupid thing to do from the outset, going into Iraq.  Bush, and the people who supported him shouldn't be still calling the shots over there, based on their track record alone.  But, for the first time since the man took office, I find myself agreeing with him on one point.  It's a mistake to leave Iraq in this mess.  The entire region will implode. \n\nHowever, it's idiotic to say that troop levels over there are sufficient, they are woefully inadequate at best.   Big--overwhelmingly big, preferably--is the only chance we have at getting control.\n\nBTW--I've voted pretty much straight Democrat in all elections, this last one included.  The need for change in our leadership is obvious and necessary, but I believe we can't afford to compound the error we made (I say 'we' because over half of this country supported the invasion of Iraq, so much so that 'we' re-elected Bush for a second term) by leaving Iraq to it's fate.  We will never see the end of violence in that region if we don't get control of it now.  If we leave, and Iraq becomes a terrorist stronghold, how long do you imagine it will be until Israel is engaged?  Anyone fancy a nuclear war in your lifetime?\n\n\nArcticchick--you seem to have forgotten that convenient intelligence failures, coverups, and deliberate circulation of misinformation have been the main attribute of  GW Bush's administration.   Your selected excerpts do a fine job of implying that, despite the fact that their support was based on erroneous information, the Democrats are to blame for the Iraq invasion.  You demonstrate how well Bush & Co.'s tactics worked--and continue to work--on the segment of America's populace who refuse to acknowledge what terrible consequences have resulted from their support of this administration.
472676
Everyone, Settle down. Lets say if the us does attack Iran with in the next few months... there will be a few issues to arrise. \n\nHow can we maintain a constant shipment of oil and goods through the persian gulf?\n\nWhat will be the toll of a full scale in vasion on Iran?\n\nWill Isreal play a part?\n\nNow, considering our current locations you have to realize we are surronding Iran. East- Afghan. West- Iraq SW- Persian Gulf (Which contains US Navy Bases) We have an extremely good capability on the assault on Iran because there Ballistic Missile program doesnot hurt the US (It can really successfully target Isreal and european countries. And due to lack of accuracy there missiles can not really successfully target iraqi or afghan US bases though possible) \n\nThe actual use of US Soldiers will most likely be minimal in comparison to the Iraq effort. Most of Iran's time money and effort has gone into three things, Ballistic Missiles, Navy equip and Nuclear engineering. They are still very Third world in other aspects of military life. \n\nNow, as far as China is concerned they have recently tried to deal with russia in regards to oil (very lil US oil comes from Iran) so they can circumvent Iran. Also, China is trying to increase Sino-US relations as far as terrorism is concerned so they will most likely not take any sort of side in this conflict.\n\nRussia, they might be overall neutral but slightly more Bias towards Iran due to the fact they still have deep issues with the US. They might help Iran but the aid would be minimal incase of conflict because they do not want any open-press coverage of something like that.\n\nIsreal- The questions with Isreal's involvement are more less simple but the answers are TBD. Will Iran try to strike Isreal in last effort? Will Syria get involved(with their own goal ie: taking back the homeland) if Isreal does?\nHow will Jordan come into play, or will they not?\n\nSaudi Arbia, UAE, Quatar, Bahrain and Oman- All of these countries success lie with in US/european markets. I whole heartedly beleive they will try to stir some propaganda about this NOT being a religous war so they can gain more money and profits. Thank god for greed.\n\nPakistan- Due to the border relation with Iran will Pakistan be Neutral? They cant go against the US, They are to close of an alie. But If they did non can gurantee India would not attack them and end them for good.\n\nThats all I am gonna cover if you have any other ?'s, as always, Just Ask! : )
849044
Do not.\n\nI do not want to concede a victory to terrorists. We can eventually withdraw a majority of our troops, but only when Iraq is positioned to handle their own security.\n\nEven then, I think Iraq would be a strategic location for an American military installation to keep an eye on oil shipping channels, keep Iran in check, and generally have a presence in the middle east.
106646
We will come home from Iraq when the Iraqis are ready to take control of their own country and will not slip back into the way things used to be.  Anyone who thinks that as soon as a democrat becomes president, they will just end our efforts in Iraq is very mistaken.  So you people think that after the progress that we have made, we should just pull out now without completing the job?  Anyone ever heard of Vietnam?  The one war we weren't completely committed to?  And how does it compare with the other wars that we have been in and did the right way?  Which war do we look back on now with the most regret?  Vietnam, because we went in half-assed and lost thousands of soldiers for nothing.  Compare that with WW2 where we lost many more soldiers, but finished the job.
1184240
If I might ask, when exactly did anyone tell us to leave? Please give me a reference to a speceific report or news broadcast that says so.\n\nOk here is a quote from the article you were talking about, thank you! It was from Jalal Talabani as you stated who was the Iraqi President until the first election.\n\n"'We think that America has the full right to move some forces from Iraq to their country because I think we can replace them [with] our forces," Talabani said. "In my opinion, at least from 40,000 to 50,000 American troops can be [withdrawn] by the end of this year.'\n\n"That assessment differs dramatically from those offered by Bush and by U.S. military commanders in Iraq.\n\n"Bush has carefully avoided setting a timetable for reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, currently about 140,000, and the Pentagon plans to maintain or slightly increase the force level in anticipation of an Oct. 15 referendum on Iraq's new constitution. White House officials say that Bush's strategy for eventually withdrawing troops hinges on Iraqis' approving the constitution and holding successful elections in December."\n\nYou are not wrong that he talked about some troops leaving. But it was not a matter of telling the U.S. to get out. Of course you knew that I would find an inaccuracy as you said in your message to me. But that doesn't mean you can't admit being slightly wrong and that maybe you can learn something, or you can just ignore me and forget about it.\n\nHere is the explanation. Talabani was making a suggestion that we COULD relieve our forces, not that we should, nor was he making a demand. He was going to replace them with American trained Iraqi forces anyway. So that wouldn't really change a thing. President Bush and he agreed that there should not be a rush or timetable placed on the matter and that they could make a decision about that when the time came. He said at that time that it would be well after the election. We are at that point and now we are close to pulling out that many troops.\n\nIt was a suggestion. We would like to leave just as bad as they would like us to not be occupying them any longer, but Abass said that he is afraid that if we leave too early, his peace efforts with the Palestinians, Isreal and the Hamas would cause the new Iraqi government to crumble.\n\nHopefully we will pull out soon!
957442
Listen, I don’t think going into Iraq was are best decision, but its too late to complain. We got ourselves into this mess so now we must finish it. If we leave now it will lead into a catastrophic war resulting in millions of lives being lost, it is 1938 all over again. President Ahmadinejad is Hitler. \nLet me explain:\nWe attacked Iraq, not because of terrorism or 9/11 but for oil and to establish a democracy in the middle east or is it because they’re “Muslims and we’re Christians” but lets not go there.(Remember, Christians and Muslims have been fighting since the birth of religion) Because of our attack terrorism has increased five folds since 9/11, so obviously we’re not over there to stop terrorism. Saddam was the key to keeping Iran in check, he was a counterweight to the Iranians. They balanced each other out. When Saddam was captured the Iranians began to see the situation as a opportunity for them to gain power. Syria joined in. Now think about it, Iran at this very moment are acquiring nuclear weapons (Russia is supplying them). Iran and Syria(Egypt is involved as well) have this great plan. They believe that anyone who isn’t Muslim must die. In fact, Ahmadinejad recently wrote a letter to Bush warning us of this. They are threatening us with nukes and we must not stand for this. \nIm getting tired of writing so im going to sum it up. If we pull out, Iran and other terrorist groups will look down on us. They will have no respect for us and it will encourage them. They will begin with taking back Iraq and soon move all over the middle east, they will wipe out Israel and then aim for the rest of the world. There wont be anyone in the middle east to stop them, as of now we are the only ones holding them down. If we leave it will make it a lot easier for them to obtain nuclear weapons and will lead to the end of the world as we know it; they will succeed and millions will die. For us its not just about staying in Iraq, we must take action. We must attack Iran, Syria, and get a hold on Russia. If we attack Iran about 50,000 of our solders will die and ill be happy to be one of them. If we don’t attack, millions will die, take your pick.  \n\nI have a lot more to say but im tired, its late, and i type ever slow so I wanted to be quick about it, email me if u want to know anything.
838125
YES, pulling out of Iraq now would be tantamount to the US Government pulling out of South Vietnam in 1975 and letting the Communist North Vietnamese coming across the border and killing 2 million South Vietnamese who had either worked for us or help us in the war and the \nPol Pot regime who killed another 2 to 4 million Cambodians.You are not wrong. What would happen \nwould be a signal to the Islamo-fascist terrorists that this country is ripe for a take over by them. We CANNOT LET THAT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1018754
Badly, very badly.\n\nAll three sides, the Sunnis, Kurds and Shi'ites will fight like dogs, and eventually the United States will not be able to stop it. Those Iraqi troops we trained will also come back to haunt us too. This is a bad situation, and all the weapons in the US arsenal will not be able to solve it.\n\nOn the upside, I think it would have happened one way or the other, contrary to liberal public opinion....sad situation, time for us to leave!
106571
Good god NO. If we attack Iran Syria will invade Iraq and our troops there will be flanked from the east and the west, not to mention what other Arab countries would jump in. Our troops in Iraq would get slaughtered.
87620
The odds are that a coalition will end up attacking Iran.  They can do alot to "placate" the world, but every day we wait they are getting closer to destabilizing the entire region.  Those who think the military cannot handle another engagement, bullpuckey.  We can call up ALL reserve and guard troops, we can start conscription, and we would WIN!  I hope like hell this does not happen, but America will not be bullied, or allow one country, JUST like Iraq, to threaten the WORLD's (not Cheney's or Bush's) oil supply.  If it was disrupted for any length of time, with a regional war, or by the theocracy in Iran(backed up with Nukes), the WORLD economy would go into instant depression.  \n\nThen who would we blame???  People forget that the entire WORLD needs peace and free access to resources, that way we all can prosper!
1033914
Well I'm all for removal of the troops but I see 2 problems with this (going by only what you have told me btw)\n\n1. We can't make deals with the insurgents. That is for the new Iraqi government to do, not us.\n\n2. The question remains: are they willing to recognize the new Iraqi government as the sole controlling power within Iraq even after we leave?
806938
I think I understand what your asking.  Now that Democrats have control of congress and if the next election is successful for them.. what will happen?  I don't know that answer, but hopefully the next two years will have brought Iraq the independence it needs to govern and protect itself form the insurgents.  So that if we do pull out more aggressively all of this wont have been for nothing.
80538
I think there's a distinct possibility that the Republicans could lose their majority in the House and Senate.  Iraq stands at the top of a growing list of concerns that Americans have about the leadership of the country.\n\nIraq has become a quagmire with no good solution in sight.  To stay invites more of our young men and women to lose some part of the life they could have had without fighting such a needless battle.  To leave now suggests those who have already lost did so for no good reason.  \n\nThe question many Americans ask is: who got us here?  It's too late to punish President Bush; even if they wanted to, John Kerry never seemed presidential enough to do the job.  With the mid-term elections just ahead, they may likely look to those who have championed Bush's cause again and again and take it out on them.  All the Democrats need are enough candidates who can tell that story and Bush may find his last two years in office a whole lot different than the first six.