Over 600: When will America pull out of Iraq?
 

Over 600 American casualties have been reached this week after conflict between rebels and Coalition forces which raises the obvious question: When is America going to pull out of Iraq? Seriously, this has to be one of the most ill-conceived wars ever waged by the U.S. First we needed to go in their to get WMDS. Oops, no WMDS. Then we went into cause a "regime change," presumably to punsih Saddam for crimes like the ever-present "He gassed his own people charge." Please. First of all, they were Kurds, in a different section of Iraq, and with different political beliefs, religions, and cultures. Second of all, American ordinances were used to committ this offense and it was with the U.S.'s approval. So, now we went into Iraq to affect a regime change, which is patently illegal under international law. That's right, Dubya is a war criminal. Now, the focus is on "stabilizing the region" and on destroying terrorists. COME ON, PEOPLE! WAKE UP! AMERICA'S PRESENCE IN IRAQ IS CAUSING CIVIL WAR! This war also has led to the spreading of diseases because nearly half the country doesn't have access to clean water and a nation in which over 80 percent of the power grid is destroyed. Not to mention the more than 4 million refugees and over 10,000 civilians killed in this misguided attempt to wag the dog.
But we can't back out, that would make it worse, or so I've been told. How? We've already turned the political landscape into a bloody, strife-filled cluster****. I wouldn't be surprised if some Shiite Islamofascist twice as bad as Hussein was elected. We've already sustained casualties in this "war" that dwarf those of Vietnam's in a comparison of the beginnings,we've killed thousands of civilians and made many millions more homeless, diseased, and starving in the name of peace. Support our troops. Bring them back.

International law is whats illigal!

ROTFLMAO! Are you seriously serious?

How can you justify a reply like that to such a well constructed argument put forwardby Statikk?

Are you taking the piss?

they'll pull out when they've killed all their allies.....

Preach it Statikk!

And PA, seriously, what's the problem with America being held to the same standards we hold everyone else too?

Well said ferill *gives a cookie*

2 cookies! i'm on a roll today!

'Are you taking the piss?'

Unfortunatly he's not. He's what us, higher class forumers, call a 'Republican'. T'is one of the most foullest of things an American can be called.

It is is it?
That law is there to prevent country's to police the world... like America is trying to now. Iraq was attacked only becouse wanted to, only becouse Bush wanted Saddam gone. The entire UN Safety board was against the war... not that Bush listnend.
He just kept looking for an exuse to attack Iraq which is to compare with a high school girl begging her parrents if she can go to a party. And when she eventualy still gets a no becouse her parrents think its not save she goes anyway becouse she thinks that rubbish and the same evening she never come's home.

Thats exactly whats happening now, Bush broke an international rule. Leaving a downright mess in Iraq for mostly nothing... Saddam should have kicked out of there a long time ago, thats true. But the way Bush did it was not the right way.

Seriously, it is illegal under international law to strive for a "regime change." This goes much further than just ticking the U.N. off(more like the ENTIRE WORLD, but I digress).
I also think its pretty disgusting how openly officials brag that Iraq is almost back to what it used to be: poor, disease addled, and utterly destitute. Also, where's the stabilization? As far as I can tell, far right and hardcore-to-the-bone Ayatollahs are stepping in to fill the power vacuum. I think it would have been better to simply drill Saddam with a dum-dum (also illegal under international law, but Bush doesn't seem to care about that, now does he?) and let Hussein's absolutely insane and paranoid brothers assassinate each other.

LOL! Yes!

Statikk... unlike me you talk plain sense and English!

Ok so protection is illigal? is that what your saying? Why are you so against us from protecting ourselves from countries like Iraq?

Saddam for the 15th millionth time was a growing threat. Notice I said growing. That means maybe not now but sooner or later he would un leash nuclear weapons on us.

Ok lets talk peace with Saddam. You know how redundant that sounds?

"But we only want peace!" yeah right! If anybody who is the enamy its ****ing Europe. You otta be ashamed of yourselves!

Protection has its place but I don't agree with the whole "best form of defence is attack" bollocks! If the whole world ran down their defence programmes, there'd be no need for defence as there'd be no need for attack... or something any way!

But there weren't any!!!!! No WMD's were found!...I have a feeling we're going round in circles here!

Ashamed for what?

Not wanting to slaughter hundreds of innocent Afgans and Iraqis at the whim of a bumbling fool?... really come on!

Excuse us for taking the mature notion that violence is a last resort!!

Sorry to bust in on your nice conversation but I just had to point out that mistake.

Oh, errrm I think that America should leave only when the UN are willing to set up a stable force in Iraq, or when a proper democracy has been established, but without any US help as we know what sort of Democracy they're running in America don't we, Mr Bush. Well done George! Can you remember how to spell crooked?

LOL! Hobo me likey!

Thats my thoughts too!

I agree with what Statikk has been saying. True I belive that we should have taken Saddam out of power but not through an insulent war while we were already fighting one on a different front (Afganistan)! Its all fine and dandy that we liberated the Iraqi's in a matter of speaking but then we go and don't do jack! Now that empty void that was sussposed to be filled with a stable government is turing into a new, possibly even worse, regime. And I still don't see us doing much about it, we're not taking care of the people and we sure as hell aren't keeping things stable.

I wish things would have gone better but now I say we get out and let the people learn how to take care of themselves.

What is with you, PA?! Of course people aren't against your protection, they're against prolonged occupation of Iraq and sometimes even the entire invasion that was launched. They have nothing to do with protecting yourselves, they have everything to do with opening other innocents to death, harm, and removing their ability to protect theirselves.

'and we sure as hell aren't keeping things stable.'

How exactly would you keep things stable against a furious onslaught of people you're trying to help?

Good question..me, I'd first get to changing my pants then distribute truckloads of riddlin throughout the crowd claiming its "candy that makes all your problems go away!"
Other then that Im out. Seriously though it wasn't this bad once we finally got into Bahgdad but I think that our prolonged stay is making the Iraqi's irritable.

Apparently the Iraqi's don't mind [this is from a BBC Poll] and find it safer with the troops. You can't exactly say they want us out just because a minority attack.

That damn BBC, which ones did they survey the ones hidding in their houses or the ones that threw granades and started screaming at them whenever they walked by?

Iraqi people are at the moment very unconstrained. After a long time of living in fear, hope, and not being able to do what they want, now they can finally do things.
Some of the Iraqi's, most probably ones that we would call "Yobs" in our societies decide to blow up objects and are not punished for it. Consider it a few people letting off a lot of steam.
Or a few people wanting the troops to leave 'em alone.

Another thing, What is with the presidency's pathological focus on starting the government in June 30th? That was a feasible date when the administration thought this war was going to be a slam dunk. Now that assaults on targets both hard and soft are on the rise and a civil war seems to be simmering along with increased anti-American sentiment it would be wise for Bush an Co. to rethink that date. I'd wait till at least the tail-end of September to try anything related to an interim government.

The interim Gov's a sham anyway. As Hobo already pointed out, the only kind of government that's going to get put into place while we occupy Iraq is a US approved one. One that does things like a proper little colony should. Regime changing and regime building is insane. The idea may be sound on paper, but how is a foreign country supposed to know the best way to run something outside the scope of their own society?

As for putting in a stable Government, I'd just like to remind everyone that Saddam was the US's idea in the first place.

And of course, if the US gov. doesn't give their constituents fake short-term fixes, how are they supposed to keep popularity up while working on real long-term ones? Not that I believe Bush considers anything past the next election day.

In response to the BBC report and a supposed minority of freedom fighters, I'm afraid that we probably aren't going to get any truly accurate data unless we're actually there. Seriously, the whole world's a "special interest group" (or minority) to Bush. Who's to say what's going on in a country that's just been raped by the powers that be?

To be honest, i always querie anything the Media come up with. Only when i actually hear somebody of that specific expertise speaking about the topic in mind and giving the facts do i believe it.

This, however, is something you don't get with Politicians. I like Tony Blair, i want him to stay in next election, plus Michael Howard is a wanker who should be shot. Opportunist twat.

I wonder if I can word my opinion on this mattah.

(I'm an American, for those who don't know.)
The "invasion" (I'm just using a popular term here) was wrong. The reasons for doing it were completely bunk. Regime change? Are you kidding me? They're free, yes, but who's to say as fact that one government is better than the other? It's relative. WMD? Well, it's proved false. The presentation wasn't even convincing. A bunch of indiscernible photographs in a White House-quality PowerPoint presentation. And to say that we were protecting ourselves from a gathering danger is ridiculous. That's like arresting someone for something that they haven't done yet.

BUT, the general consensus here seems to be that every American is a drooling retard that can't tell the difference between a gun and a lollipop. It's not completely America's fault. Hello, Britain. Welcome to the Coalition. You can't tell me that this is completely Bush's fault. I think that if we had been the lone wolf, opposition in the US would've been so strong that if Bush had decided to go to war anyway, the voters would've slaughtered him.

I think it's wrong, I think Bush is an idiot just like you do, but I don't think it's right to lump it all together into an American slam-fest.

Yes, and I may also add, as much as people may want to believe the typical American stereotypes of greed, gluttony, etc... it really isn't all that true depending on where you are. It's true, some population areas are notorious for certain behavior, and the mdeia often focuses on negativity. But there's really much mroe positive than you think.

Oh, and I think it should stay June 30th. It'd be like a birthday present for me, watching hilarious footage and reading cheesy editorials of uneducated whiners.

I also get aggravated with the typical American stereotypes...but I have to admit, over half of us do fit them. Although there are exceptions (such as myself:p), I'd say it's actually fairly accurate.

i just think bush has ****ed up hes lost the war i mean 600 dead and counting half of them probably didn't even die fighting they were killed by civillians who just shot and ran bush should just pull out and know here in australia we have this whole howard problem about pulling out aussie troops by christmas.bush thought he was doing for the "good" of the people but hes screwed up and he has to take the blame.....

but thats just my opionin:)

There is an old addage...

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

I guess Dubya wasn't taught that one as a child... but looking at who his father is its hardly unexpected is it!?!