user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : No, I actually want the US troops to stay in Iraq for the purposes of nation-building
Oh indeed, American troops should stay in Iraq.
Voted : A phased withdrawal over time is best
A phased withdrawal over a one or two year period would be best. Not a cut and run, not an open ended commitment, but a planned, gradual, phased withdrawal of troops.
skylab- you really think Iraq will be stabilised in two years?
Sorry, I don't think so. The USA is obligated to a long term commitment. Just like you stuck to it in the Balkans with nation-building. These things take time. It was always going to be a long-term project. The American desire to see results straight away is unrealistic. And yes, it will be difficult, but you know what? Tough. The US has an obligation now.
Voted : A phased withdrawal over time is best
EURO, it's really easy to say that when you don't have friends parked in the morass. I do, nine of them. And, for the record, I don't believe that we can pull out either, not because of the "nation-building" aspect you state (equally ludicrous, IMO), but because, should we tuck tail and run, America wouldn't have an ounce of respect left in the world community. We'd be looked at as cowardly imperialist dogs, who dropped 140,000 troops in Iraq, blew the country's infrastructure to hell and back in the cause of bringing democracy to the country.
Truthseeker- You scoff at the notion of nation-building?
Okay, but what do you think the Balkans would be like today if the US and the European powers did not stay the course for the long term commitment that it has given? Would you say the Balkans would be better or worse without the nation-building?
EURO, possibly the same. But, in all honesty, I'm not concerned one way r another with the concept of nation-building. I'm presently more worried with the nations that are being destroyed by this war. Mine and Iraq. You're right. Iraq is where we're stuck, for the next ten to fifteen years.
And this is *not* an obligation the American people *asked* for. We were attacked on 9/11, and our government, probably at the behest of various special interests who stand to make money, chose to attack a country that had NO INVOLVEMENT WHATSOEVER in the attack. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were SAUDI NATIONALS, but the only military forces we've put into that country are support troops for the ones in Iraq. (BTB, several Saudi royal family members are STILL DONATING MONEY TO AL QAEDA AND VARIOUS ALLIED GROUPS.)
Apologies to anyone reading, for the shouting. It seemed necessary. EURO, I'm NOT going to revisit this ballot. Consider yourself the default winner, but know this- NO ONE IS WINNING IN THIS.
euro here's the thing though. in a democracy or a representative republic, the majority is supposed to rule. correct? if i'm correct, a majority of the american people were against the invasion of iraq from the start -- that majority only increased in percentages.
so in reality our government acted against our wishes. so what you're basically saying is "tough luck." sorry but that's not how it works. our wishes were ignored. our current administration and in effect, our entire government violated our trust. while i totally and without hesitation have sympathy for the iraqi people, the fact is, americans in a vast majority did not want this war. so why should we continue to rebuild iraq?? just because we "should?"
i don't know. all i know is the u.s government should be replaced through election -- get rid of them all and start from scratch. that's my opinion. as for staying in iraq -- no way.
With all due respect the last time I checked Bush was re-elected fair and square.
But regardless it doesn't matter whether it was supported or not, the fact is the US is there now, and walking away from that mess that was created would be really counter-productive. It's like "oh what were we thinking? oops. Oh well, you clean it up." It's so arrogant for any nation to do that, and many have through out history. And I think even countries that always opposed the Iraq war should also get over themselves and help out more for the sake of the Iraqi people.
And do you really think the US nation-building achieved nothing in the Balkans. There is so much more stability in the Balkans now because of that long-term commitment. Look at where US foreign policy has been good and useful, and emulate that in Iraq's situation, wouldn't you say?
And if the US leaves what do you think? Everything will be better? Or do you think Iran and Syria, heck now even Turkey, will be jostling for power grabs. Think I'm exaggerating? Then look how Syria has been exploiting Lebanon's lack of stability in past decades. This is not an exaggeration, this is crucial sticking point in international politics.
An unstable Iraq is also an unstable Middle-Eastern region. It makes absolutely no sense for the US to leave pre-maturely.
What do you think is worse for the USA's reputation? Messing up Iraq and then trying to fix it afterward, or messing up Iraq and then leaving without caring to fix it? I would think the latter is worse.
The United States has done some good things in its history. And each success case it has took a long term commitment. The US has never had a quick fix, so expecting one over Iraq was from the beginning unrealistic.
There's been little talk of withdrawing from Afghanistan for instance. This is because Afghanistan requires a long term commitment too.
With Iraq, yes going in was a mistake. But what's done is done, and now we, and I mean not only the US, but every single nation in the world, should be working to make the best of the terrible decision that was made.
The US can start by inviting the UN in. From there I expect nations to get over the fact that they opposed the war from the beginning and actually think about the well-being of the Iraqi people, and thus the nations of the world should help the US stabilise Iraq.
If left to the Iraqis, there will just be a brutal struggle for power. This is why an objective force needs to help set up a federal structure, and also invest money into reconstruction and at the very least make Iraq less insecure than it currently is.
With all due respect the last time I checked Bush was re-elected fair and square.
by EUROTOPIA on Sun Dec 02, 07 7:02pm
^ sure, the 2nd time. but that doesn't translate into a majority supporting the war. maybe you can find some polls to see what the percentages were on supporting the war from the get go. his election has nothing to do with whether or not he listened to the will of the people. come live here and then you'll know. and with all due respect, he started this mess and it's an american issue, just like for the british, their involvement is their issue. you're entitled to your opinions but i seriously don't think most americans do or ever did support the invasion.
you talk about america's reputation. yeah -- it sucks right now! thank bush.
We caused the mess in Iraq, we have an obligation to fix it, I have so much compassion for the Iraqi people , they have gone through hell, imagine bombs falling out of the sky on your city, having your children blown apart, I can't imagine such a thing. I don't want our troops there but in a way understand what you are saying Euro.
It's a bad situation and I don't know the answer. I only know I hate Bush for putting us and the Iraqi people in this hell on earth.
^ us meaning our troops
It isn't an American issue. It's an international issue. It's gotten to the point where I think every country should feel obligated to help the Iraqis out, not just the US.
totally disagree. then let other countries pony up cash to pay for it and soliders to patrol and doctors to give medical care, etc. etc. so??
When it comes to things like international conflicts, I don't care for claims of not being responsible.
When a natural disaster happens, countries help each other anyway, even though they know they didn't cause the suffering. Refusing to help the Iraqis because of a grudge with the United States is all egotism. The bottom line is the Iraqis need help, and the entire international community should be providing it. To get into arguments over who didn't cause this or that, and no one would have helped the Balkans. The bottom line is helping people, and that should be placed above ego.
Sitting around doing nothing, making snide remarks of "I told you so" or "Should have listened to me" or "I'm not the cause of it", - none of that helps the Iraqi people.
^ Also will benefit international community, I hate to say this, but Iraq has oil, the world needs oil and if for no other reason that should be an incentive for other nations to help.
^that's not the right reason but it's the world we live in.
Voted : comment
A large part of our (USA) troubles is uncontrolled Illegal Immigration.
OOPS, wrong ballot.
My cousin (20 years old) is back in Iraq for the second time, by his choice. He is there. We are not. He sees many good things because of our involvement. He believes in that obligation. He sees positive and favorable outcomes. But, those who want only to condemn President Bush donot want to believe any of this. Pity.
Nation-building, as used by the administration, is meaningless buzzword. It may not even be a realistic concept within the middle east.
However, leaving now would be a very bad idea. But remember, our presence in Iraq is not based on the mission of nation-building. We'll stay for as long as the American public elects officials who are for staying the course. Getting elected (staying in office)will ultimately determine how long America stays in Iraq.
In other words, the decision to stay will be based on the public's will to stay. I don't see the public willing to spend trillions of dollars on this project.
iraq is lost, get the hell out and try and rescue afghanistan before it goes down too.
|
|
