• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Will The Next President Pull Out Of Iraq?

Will the next president be forced to pull out of Iraq?


  • Total voters
    29

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Some folks are saying that regardless of who is elected president in 2008, the United States will be pulling out of Iraq in 2009.

They point to the fact, not always reported by the media in America, that Iraq is in a civil war. The current number of troops in Iraq cannot stop it. And America needs its forces elsewhere anyway. Hence, the next president, regardless of party, will have no choice but to cut and run.

Do you believe it is essentially true that the next president will have no real, practical choice but to pull out of Iraq?

What are the prospects for a Republican president in '08 if no Republican candidates can escape the stigma of being the party that lead us into Iraq?

If there is a Democrat President in '08, what are the prospects for the Religious Right and its social agenda?

What will happen to Iraq after the American withdrawl?
 

Chanan

New Member
Sunstone said:
Do you believe it is essentially true that the next president will have no real, practical choice but to pull out of Iraq?

What are the prospects for a Republican president in '08 if no Republican candidates can escape the stigma of being the party that lead us into Iraq?

If there is a Democrat President in '08, what are the prospects for the Religious Right and its social agenda?

The religious right and its social agenda are just as much a danger as the islamic extremists. The difference is that they are constrained by our legal system whereas the islamic extremists are not.

Based on current polls, the republicans would lose a goodly number of the seats in the senate and congress, as well as the white house if an election took place today. If we become embroiled in Israel's war as well, Hillary could be sitting in the oval office.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
Some folks are saying that regardless of who is elected president in 2008, the United States will be pulling out of Iraq in 2009.
Yes. The whole invasion has been a total and complete disaster, and there is no saving it, now. Iraq has been in civil war for a year, inspite of the "three monkey" American response to this reality, and will continue to be in civil war until we get out of the way and let one side or the other win. Four hundred and fifty billion of our tax dollars have been completely wasted and America and the world are far less safer for it. Thanks George W. - all this just because you're a moron who just couldn't ever concieve of your being wrong. In the end the only people who made out on the whole mess is Halliberton (what a surprise!).
Sunstone said:
Do you believe it is essentially true that the next president will have no real, practical choice but to pull out of Iraq?
The American people have finally figured out that the Iraq invasion was another huge and costly blunder with no positive possible result just like Viet Nam and Korea were. Once again, we will be forced to accept another humiliating defeat because we can't seem to understand what the word "war" really means, and because we can't seem to mind our own business.
Sunstone said:
What are the prospects for a Republican president in '08 if no Republican candidates can escape the stigma of being the party that lead us into Iraq?
We are in far greater danger in America from the systematic robery of the middle class by the wealthy and their paid toadies in public office then from any Arab terrorists. As the American people begin to get past the Iraq disaster, and to recognize the even WORSE economic disaster that's coming to America thanks to the policies of these neo-con republicans, I think the possibility of a republican president is going to get very slim, indeed. Unfortunately, the democrats are only slightly less responsible for this, and so they will of little use in actually correcting the America's drive to self-destruction.
Sunstone said:
If there is a Democrat President in '08, what are the prospects for the Religious Right and its social agenda?
The religious right has never been taken seriously by anyone but themselves. The only reason they were in the spotlight at all, was because they happened to come into play as political spoilers, and because George Bush is a moron. But now that all of America has seen what a truly horrible mess Bush and the republican party have created, I don't think the next elections will be close enough for the religious right to act as spoilers, anymore. And as they are otherwise irrelevant to most Americans, they will be returned to that position.
Sunstone said:
What will happen to Iraq after the American withdrawl?
All out civil war will ensue, many more Iraqis will die, and eventually one side will win. And no matter which side that is, they will blame America instead of themselves for the horrible suffering that has befallen them in the last decades, and they will join other Arab nations against us.

So absolutely nothing will have been gained by our invading Iraq, except that Halliberton and the Bush/Chaney clan cronies in Texas will have become very, very rich.
 

drekmed

Member
It would be political suicide to pull the troops out of Iraq before order is either restored, or the Iraqi army is able to hold it's own.

While the approval rating will increase immediately after a premature removal of troops, they will fall drastically once the current Iraqi government is deposed. It will be replaced with an Extremist Islamic dictatorship that will provide a safe-haven for al-qeida and other terrorist organizations. This could cause massive instability in the surrounding countries, and since those countries are the main oil suppliers of the world, it will cripple the world economy.

I hate that we invaded Iraq. I didn't support that decision, and I hate that we still have troops in Iraq. However, if it were up to me, I would send more troops over there to impose order and secure that country properly. 300,000 troops on the ground, that is about twice what we have now. This would allow us to train more Iraqis for their military and police forces, as well as give us enough troops to lighten the burden on the troops we currently have there fighting the insurgency.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
drekmed said:
It would be political suicide to pull the troops out of Iraq before order is either restored, or the Iraqi army is able to hold it's own.

While the approval rating will increase immediately after a premature removal of troops, they will fall drastically once the current Iraqi government is deposed. It will be replaced with an Extremist Islamic dictatorship that will provide a safe-haven for al-qeida and other terrorist organizations. This could cause massive instability in the surrounding countries, and since those countries are the main oil suppliers of the world, it will cripple the world economy.

I hate that we invaded Iraq. I didn't support that decision, and I hate that we still have troops in Iraq. However, if it were up to me, I would send more troops over there to impose order and secure that country properly. 300,000 troops on the ground, that is about twice what we have now. This would allow us to train more Iraqis for their military and police forces, as well as give us enough troops to lighten the burden on the troops we currently have there fighting the insurgency.
The problem is that doing so will not solve the problem. It will only prolong the inevitable. As long as we're there, they will hate and attack us. And the moment we leave, civil war will break out. This course was set when we made the decision to remove Saddam.

What you say may happen, but we can't afford to stay there indefinately. And we won't. The failure has already happened, we lost this "war" before it started, and we just haven't recognized it, yet.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Phil, I was thinking about this today.

I don't think that the next President will pull us out of Iraq.

We're there to stay for the forseeable future. If there is another conflict, we need Iraq as a staging area. We can get along without it, but Iraq is just too valuable to give up.

Iraq is bad for us diplomatically in the world now, but if we leave it in anarchy, it'll be used as a strike against the US for a very long time. If we stay and fight it out for the long haul, at least we can say that we did our best to clean up the mess.
 

almifkhar

Active Member
no the next president will not pull out.

rice says over and over again a new middle east. besides the war on terror is like that of the war on drugs, it was desgined to be perpetual. the civil war fixing to jump off in iraq was desgined by us for a paticular reason
 

drekmed

Member
PureX said:
The problem is that doing so will not solve the problem. It will only prolong the inevitable.
Yes, it will, but what choice do we have? We have to stay until the Iraqi military can fend for itself. The more troops we have on the ground, the faster we can leave.

As long as we're there, they will hate and attack us. And the moment we leave, civil war will break out. This course was set when we made the decision to remove Saddam.
Once again, I agree with this statement. However, right now only a small percentage of Iraqis hate us and are attacking us. If we were to leave today, a much larger percentage would hate us even more than those who currently do, because we abandoned them. This would make them much more receptive to an anti-American terrorist group their country to fight us.
Civil war will almost certainly be the outcome of us leaving, whether now or later, it is already starting to happen. That is why we need to stay long enough to strengthen the Iraqi military to the point where they can keep the growing sectarian violence from being too devistating. This is also why I believe we need more of our own troops there now; so that we can deter a massive civil war until the Iraqi army can win it themselves.

What you say may happen, but we can't afford to stay there indefinately. And we won't. The failure has already happened, we lost this "war" before it started, and we just haven't recognized it, yet.
No, we can't afford to stay indefinately, and yes, we failed the moment we went in without a plan for a post-invasion. We may be too late to completely fix Iraq, however we have to try, and the only way that we can come even close to getting it right is by having many more troops there, for both security and training. We have been in Iraq for over 3 years, and it does take a while to train enough military forces to the point where they can hold their own.
As much as I would like to have our people home right now, we simply can't leave yet. We dug ourselves a really big hole, and it must be filled before we walk away.

What I say, I say knowing that many of my friends, and a few family members, are there now and will have to go back over to Iraq, but there is safety in numbers and the more we have there, the safer we can make it for our people, and the faster we can bring them home for good.

Drekmed
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
Will The Next President Pull Out Of Iraq?
No, the next president will most likely continue to impregnate the situation.
 

Jon

Member
Alot of the problems could have been stopped before they started if the U.S allowed the Iraqis to rebuild their own country.
There is too much money to be made by U.S companies.
If you gave the iraqis jobs, at the beginning there would have been less tensions
the terrorists could have exploited.
The term "Hearts and Minds" are lost to the U.S government.
If all you are there to do is make huge profits on the backs of the iraqis, you in the end will have the world as a battlefield.

Start putting people to work with good paying jobs, build hospitals with "Free"
health care, build schools for the children, start reversing the hatred with kindness.
If the people are for you, then they will help you stop the terrorists.
Untill they see you helping their country, there will be no end to the hatred.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
drekmed said:
Yes, it will, but what choice do we have? We have to stay until the Iraqi military can fend for itself. The more troops we have on the ground, the faster we can leave.
The Iraqi military will never "fend for itself" because it's as divided as the rest of the country. What's missing isn't military force, it's a cohesive goal. Iraq is a divided nation, and neither side is willing to work with the other. That means that Iraq is essentially already in a state of civil war. In fact, if the violence escalates much further they may force us out. We don't have the ground troops to deal with an all-out civil war, and we don't have any more people to send into such a civil war.
drekmed said:
Once again, I agree with this statement. However, right now only a small percentage of Iraqis hate us and are attacking us.
Perhaps you missed the massive demonstrations recently in Iraq, against the United States military presence there. Getting us out is the one thing most Iraqis agree on. In fact, our military presence in the middle east is the basic cause of a great deal of Arab anger and resentment against us. That, and our constant support for Israel are the two reasons they hate the U.S. government. Most Arabs actually LIKE Americans. But they hate our government policies and actions, and most of all, they do not want our military on their soil. And that's true of all Arab nations.
drekmed said:
If we were to leave today, a much larger percentage would hate us even more than those who currently do, because we abandoned them.
That simply is not true. They will hate us because we invaded them in the first place, thus causing the conditions that have made civil war inevitable. They don't want us to stay there and "protect them from themselves". Would you? We're not helping them in any way. They NEED to have their civil war and to finally resolve their differences so they can finally begin to rebuild. The longer we're there, the more Iraqis die while nothing gets resolved. That's why they want us out, and that sentiment is becoming a ground-swell.
drekmed said:
This would make them much more receptive to an anti-American terrorist group their country to fight us.
They need to resolve their own internal power issues, and to begin rebuilding. They aren't going to be interested in attacking us, or in people who promote attacking us. Later, they may become a problem, but that was ALWAYS possible, and always will be possible. We can't MAKE people love us. No amount of force will ever do that, especially when they have such good reasons not to. We have to get out. It's BECAUSE we caused this is mess that we will not be able, or even allowed, to fix it.
drekmed said:
Civil war will almost certainly be the outcome of us leaving, whether now or later, it is already starting to happen. That is why we need to stay long enough to strengthen the Iraqi military to the point where they can keep the growing sectarian violence from being too devastating.
If a full-scale civil war breaks out, we won't have the power to stop it. We'll have to leave for our own safety. This is what's beginning to happen right now.
drekmed said:
This is also why I believe we need more of our own troops there now; so that we can deter a massive civil war until the Iraqi army can win it themselves.
We don't have those troops to send. And we don't have the will to generate them, either. The American people have realized that the whole Iraq war was wrong, and that it's been a failure. They won't support throwing more lives and money at it, and they'll refuse to elect any politicians that propose doing that. It's done, and once again we've lost.
drekmed said:
No, we can't afford to stay indefinitely, and yes, we failed the moment we went in without a plan for a post-invasion. We may be too late to completely fix Iraq, however we have to try, and the only way that we can come even close to getting it right is by having many more troops there, for both security and training. We have been in Iraq for over 3 years, and it does take a while to train enough military forces to the point where they can hold their own.
More training is irrelevant. They've had plenty of time to train. That's never been the problem. The Iraqi army is as divided as it's citizenry. The nation is divided, and the division has not been resolved politically. The civil war is inevitable, and the Iraqi army is PART OF IT. They will never be strong enough to stop it.
drekmed said:
As much as I would like to have our people home right now, we simply can't leave yet. We dug ourselves a really big hole, and it must be filled before we walk away.
There is no filling it back in. This is what we need to understand. Just as in our own lives, we don't get to "undo" our mistakes like that, and the same goes for the mistakes of our nation. I think it's time for America to impeach Bush, to put Rumsfeld up on charges for war crimes, and to face the rest of the world and publicly admit to the terrible thing that we've done, and then ask the world for it's help in helping the Iraqis resolve their issues with as little more loss of life as possible. This is what a good man would do, if he were really a man, and had done such a horrible misdeed. But of course America won't do this, and so will have lost both it's self-respect, and the respect of the world.

Too bad, too, because most Arabs genuinely like Americans as people. If our government could act in such an overtly humble and wise manner toward them, it would go a long way in lessening the desire for violence against us in those countries. And we also should stop being Israel's toadies. I never understood why we let Israel lead us around by the nose, the way they do.

But I'm dreaming. We'll never do these things; our political egos won't allow it.
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
The video that anyscientologist posted of the c-span 9/11 Symposium suggested a plan that will go in effect where another planned terrorist act should seal the efforts to promote Marshal Law which will then suspend laws and rights of the states and of the constitution, which will in effect suspend presidential elections for the next term which would keep GW Bush sitting right where he is today. The “war” in Iraq was and is meant to be a 10 year objective regardless of what our nations and our military soldiers expect or desire. If this is indeed what is going to happen, the OP question may already be answered or the question may be moot.
 

kai

ragamuffin
if the next president pulls out of Iraq it will be harder to for the one after him to go back in. an Iraqi civil war will be a victory for the extremists Iraq will become a Isamicfascist state and will have to be confronted all over agian. quoting Bush, its easy to pull out and get it off the tv ,but yo have to be in this for the long haul
 
kai said:
if the next president pulls out of Iraq it will be harder to for the one after him to go back in. an Iraqi civil war will be a victory for the extremists Iraq will become a Isamicfascist state and will have to be confronted all over agian. quoting Bush, its easy to pull out and get it off the tv ,but yo have to be in this for the long haul

As opposed to being an Ameriofascist state? People of America wake up.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
kai said:
if the next president pulls out of Iraq it will be harder to for the one after him to go back in. an Iraqi civil war will be a victory for the extremists...
The extremists won the day we invaded. And we lost the day we invaded. In fact, it's exactly what Bin Laden wanted Bush to do. He imagined that if Bush would invade another Arab nation, that would trigger an all out jihad against the infidels. And Bush, refusing as usual to listen to anyone but his hand-picked toadies and his Haliberton puppeteers, walked right into it.
kai said:
Iraq will become a Isamicfascist state and will have to be confronted all over agian.
It already was such a state, but we had a firm command of the fascist at the top. We didn't need to invade and depose him, and even an idiot could have seen that doing so would be likely to lead to a civil war.
kai said:
... quoting Bush, its easy to pull out and get it off the tv ,but yo have to be in this for the long haul
Bush is a moron, who has utterly failed in every major decision he's made while in office. Why on Earth should anyone listen to him, now?
 

kai

ragamuffin
PureX said:
The extremists won the day we invaded. And we lost the day we invaded. In fact, it's exactly what Bin Laden wanted Bush to do. He imagined that if Bush would invade another Arab nation, that would trigger an all out jihad against the infidels. And Bush, refusing as usual to listen to anyone but his hand-picked toadies and his Haliberton puppeteers, walked right into it. Bin Laden will not be satisfied with this small victory only the destruction of america will do
It already was such a state, but we had a firm command of the fascist at the top. We didn't need to invade and depose him, and even an idiot could have seen that doing so would be likely to lead to a civil war. the invasion saved the Kurds, the sunnis want power back and the shia jenie is out of the bottle to blame bush is a little naieve
Bush is a moron, who has utterly failed in every major decision he's made while in office. Why on Earth should anyone listen to him, now?
he was voted in twice and hes your president ,but its your right as a free person to criticize your leaders the Iraqis deserve no less.
 

robtex

Veteran Member
cardero said:
Will The Next President Pull Out Of Iraq?
No, the next president will most likely continue to impregnate the situation.

I am concurring with Patrick here. The problem which creates speculation is why the USA invaded Iraq in the first place. Propositions include,

1) the war on terror
2) wmd
3) democracy in iraq
4) oil
5) establish a military base in the middle east to contend with future m.e. political issues by force when neccessary
6) protection of israel and us friendly countires in the ME.


There may be others but without argueing which of this list are valid or invalid we can reasonably deduce the following.

1) If the motive is a war on terror than it is a long-term project and the next president will not have a pull-out option in the backdrop of that directive.

2) if it is wmd we found none and are still there which stipulates we may use this as a starting point to check neigboring countries and moniter activities. If only checking Iraq was the primary motive than there would be a pullout as we speak. There is not.
3) democracy in iraq. another long-term goal giving the counties history, economic structure and religious influence.

4) oil= permanent occupation.

5) establish a base = permanent occupation

6) protection of israel = establish a base= permanent occupation.

If you look at the pure economics of it the conservatives of our political nation see the miltary as an investment in foreign relations. The negoication power of the USA stems very strongly on our military might. However moblization both to and from the middle east is costly. Much more economically costly than just establishing a permanent base and in a blanket cost-benefit analysis is makes more sense to set-up shop and stay there than it does to ship soldiers back and forth back and forth back and forth.

I just don't see a senerio irrgardless of what validity you assign to our initial invasion of iraq where pulling out is economically or politically feasible.
 
Top