For those who think we should stay in Iraq, if the Iraqis oppose to our occupation do you think we should?

I think my view can be summed up in this statement:

"For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess -implying the implausible:

that if we stay it won’t be a mess."

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, NOT on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis."

-Ron Paul

The lone voice of truth in congress. God have mercy on our nation when he is no longer able to speak for us.

Mistake in the first place???? Remember 911? OK now we did what we did, right or wrong. Did the world think we would just sit there after we were so viciously attacked? They were so very lucky....very very lucky. Did Hussein deny the wrong doing or did he aggravate the situation further? Did he give any condolence or offer to help track down the criminals who caused the terror? NO. He did not. Instead, the world news was filled with more terror and him in the middle of it. Well done George Bush. You won the war in three days, years and years ago. Now you need to make a new policy. Invite the Iranians to govern the Iraqis in exchange for the heads of the people who brought this on the world. Give the Iranians a nuke power station so that it can be inspected by our own people, not Russians or French. With very little effort, we could come out of this war, and even look good. And get rid of that idiot woman what's her name, Velveta or something like that. It's an insult to most nations just to have her show up.

I don't think we should stay in Iraq because it was an illegal to begin with according to Rep. Ron Paul. I think they view Americans as invaders. When has an occupying force ever been looked at in a favoritable light. France did not look at the Nazis in a favorable light when Germany occupied France. The Iraqi people have right to governm their nation any way they like and the United States has no right to input their beliefs on other people. Advocators of early Democracy like Rouseau, Locke, Washington, and the American founding fathers argued against this as they rebelled against an oppressive government. U.S. should set an example of freedom and act like a Republic instead of an Empire.

Both parties the Sunni and Shiite want us to leave and stay at the same time. The only way the want us to stay is if they can control where we go and who we fight. They both want to use us as a pawn against the other. The want us to leave because we won't comply to there pawnship. Some Sunni groups, for example, privately favor a continued American presence as a counterweight to Iran's influence among Shiites. Yet several leading Sunni politicians signed a letter to Congress insisting on a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal — in part to needle al-Maliki on an nationalistic issue.

Shiite parties, in turn, believe the agreement would shore up American support for al-Maliki ahead of parliamentary elections next year — a goal they seek. But Shiite leaders are also anxious to take over full control of their country.

Meanwhile, recent Iraqi military successes against al-Qaida in Mosul and Shiite extremists in the south have convinced some Shiite politicians they don't really need America.

"Iraq has another option that it may use," al-Maliki said recently. "The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil."

I will keep my answer simple, and based on the "It was a mistake to go, so it's a mistake to stay"

Saddam to us was a dirtbag, and he didn't run his country and think the way we think. Iraq was a sovergn self sustaining nation, and not one we had to babysit-(by the way, I don't agree with us babysitting other countries). Iraq was not a threat to anyone on US soil.

Now lets compare...

Bush to us is a dirtbag, and he doesn't run our country the way we think. America is a sovergn (could be self sustaining nation if we could just drill for fricken oil), and not one the UN needs to babysit. We are a threat, and proving that daily by threatening, and overtaking nations with which don't want to merge into our system.

Even though Bush is extremely unpopular, how would it feel to have China come in, and tear down our government, and kill anyone who tried to stop them?

This is exactly what were doing around the world!

Mistake to stay?

Depends on your perspective. If you believe in a new world order government then we stay, as this is the only logical reason, and outcome possible of what were doing, and why.

We overthrew Iraq, so we could make them part of our system. This isn't a war for oil, as Russia is getting that, just as they did when Saddam was ruler. I am convinced that Iran is next, as they are a part of the "Axis of Evil."

Who really gives a damn if Iran has nukes? Pakistan, and India have them. They have these, and they are radicals to us. They know not to use them. It's a deterrant not a offensive weapon. Iran talks tough, but isn't stupid. They know that the first time they nuke anything will be the last, and death of them all, as Israel, and the US will turn their world to glass.

A one world government is the scariest thing I can imagine happening to America.

So many 'patriots' are being duped into 'defeating terrorism' just because they were told that Muslims are out to get them.

I'm not normally a scripture quoter but for this the Bible says it best...Don't worry about the speck in your neighbors eye...worry about the plank in your own!

If:

A) our resources were so vast that 2 or 3 trillion dollars was a drop in the bucket,

B) the Iraqi government really, desperately needed our help

C) no other country would step up to help in our absence

D) our OWN Citizenry were immenently exposed to despotism in the wake of Iraq's demise, and

E) our journalists weren't silenced by agenda driven media moguls to the extent that few tax-payers -- saddled with the trillions in debt borrowed from foreigner nations...

then, maybe. But err on the side of caution, especially where warfare and occupation are concerned.

Saddam was a flea on a wooly mammoth compared to Hitler, who had grown stronger with each nation conquered. Saddam took tiny Kuwait and the world did the right thing and drove him out (should have TAKEN him out).

He had neither the vision nor the military structure of the Third Reich's military strategists and hardware suppliers.

We say the war is NOT about oil. I concede this much: we're not there for the spoils, as the conquistadors were.

But if even half our non-finite energy potential were already realized by 1989, the world wouldn't have assembled to defend Kuwait. Why not? Because Saddam would never have invaded.

Energy is energy. Tar is tar. Gold is gold. All are different but we equate them as inseparable.

Energy comes from tar (my name for fossil-gunk... I mean, petroleum) but tar got its energy from sources that were as renewable then as they are now. If we agree that each barrel of oil represents the product of a hundred acre/years of life, then we logically, also, agree that we're using it a lot faster than it can be replenished. I disagree.

We should be out of Iraq. Those of our troops still gung-ho to and committed to foreign causes will always have the option of offering service to whatever coalition might relieve us when we finally call a spade a spade - a childish and irrational travesty.

...

It won't ensue, there are a ways too many those that are inflicting issues. Corrupt politicians, undesirable squaddies, enemies And that's on us and them. In WW2 we compelled the eastern to enhance right into a democracy, and that they nevertheless are right this moment. They even call their shape the Mcarthur shape. in the tip they needed it. Iraq doesn;t

Go back to 91 when we liberated Kuwait. Prior to our actions, Bin Laden offered to take care of Hussein, but the Arab League, and espcially the prince of Saudi Arabia wouldn't allow it. They were afraid that the outcome would be disaterous for the Middle East as well as the League.

That's when the US gained an enemy in Osama.

Saudi Arabia asked for our help. We went through the UN, formed a coalition and stated our mission was to rid Kuwait of Hussein. We did that, and when we then went after Saddam, the UN stopped us.

That was a mistake, a big one.

So instead of going against the UN and our stated mission, we stopped and participated in creating multilateral resolutions to punish Saddam and to stop his acts of agression and inhumane treatment to those who shared Iraq's borders. Those resolutions stated that if he did not comply the consequences was invasion of his country. That was a unanimous decision by the perm members of the UN.

As is well known, he was in violation of the resolutions for over 10 years. Clinton tried to deal with him through 2 terms. He tried everything short of invasion to make Saddam cooporate.

In the meantime, Osama was being vocal about his feelings of the US and telling us he was tired of our interference in the Middle East. He felt that the US had already humiliated him (Kuwait) and wanted revenge.

We didn't listen to him and that was where we made our biggest mistake.

By that time, we had two powerful enemies in the Middle East. Both with unlimited resources at hand to bankroll retaliation. I feel that we have effectively handled the problem with Bin Laden. Even though he has not been captured, he's not able to operate with freedom of movement. He's a hunted man and will die that way.

So why is not logical to think that since Osama has been curtailed that he wouldn't seek out our other enemy for aid? That plus the fact that we KNOW for a fact that Hussein had WMD at one time, had in fact used them on his own people. We did fact find some, not the massive quanities we expected, but it doesn't take massive quanties of sarin gas to kill a whole lot of people. AND we dickered with the UN for 3 months or more before we invaded. In that amount of time he could have gotten rid of WMD. But all this speculation and supposition on the part of the American people, who are influenced by the media, who doesn't know anymore than the people do, is all wasted time and effort. We can argue until we die that Saddam did or did not have WMD. We don't know if he did and we don't know if he was planning anything with Osama or not. Anything we have to offer is 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc..hand knowledge and has been presented to us by the media and two biased political parties.

To me the bottom line is the UN resolutions. I think that based on that alone, we-the coalition-had reason to invade and it's the only fact I trust. However, when Saddam was captured and handed over to his people to be tried, I think our mission was complete. But you and I don't know what's going on there. We're not privy to such information and I think for the American people to have such a strong stance one way or the other is wrong. How can we make such a dire decision based on what little bit we know. We're not told the truth, so how can we believe that we're qualified to make that sort of decision?

Our military is there, it's a mess, and we've got to try to handle it the best way we can. I don't think the Iraqi people are against us being there as a whole. Notwithstanding individual experiences. But there again, we're not there, all we have to judge is what the media and politicians offer us. Taking all that into consideration, I'd have to say that I feel that we should let the military leaders do their jobs, and make the decisions. Politicans have no business making military decisions and politics should not interfere with military operations. Again, we're here, we're not there, so we're not the best judge of what should be done.

That article is awesome. It really says it all.

For the person that says we should bomb Iran, you really need to think about the consequences of that move. Iran supplies China with oil. If we were to successfully bomb Iran, which I don't think we would be, then China would be dependent on us for oil. Do you really think China is going to let that happen in light of the fact that we owe them BILLIONS? Not hardly. In my opinion, the first bomb would not hit their soil before China would launch against us. Think about it.

As for Iraq, those people DO NOT WANT US THERE. Period. What do you think would happen if someone came here and tried to tell us how to live and run our country? Wouldn't happen.

We should have never gone to Iraq. We definitely shouldn't stay.

I'm affraid that immediate withdraw will just make things worse. Nevetheless I agree we need out. What we need is a PLAN. I don't know what the answer is. It may mean that we have a small but perminate base like at Gitmo in Cuba.