What do you think the results for the GOP in Nov will be?

[Kasz216]

madskillz said:

Kasz216 said:

madskillz said:

halogamer1989 said:
I just have one thing to say to Dems who want immediate withdraw: they say that Iraq wasn't needed b/c the terror was in Afghanistan. Granted the Taliban was in control of Kabul and al-Qaeda using that nation as a base. However, when Saddam gassed his own Kurdish minority with sarin and anthrax WMDs, (WMD is not defined as solely nuclear), they wanted the US should stand still. Now the US was stupid in giving him those to fight Iran in the 80's. My point is they say that Iraq wasn't part of the War on Terror. Well unless the definition has changed, gassing your own citizens damn sure sounds like terror to me.

Bin Laden was never in Iraq, and al-Qaida was never in Iraq before the invasion. Bush had his eye on Saddam since he threatened his daddy back in the day. He needed a reason - a motivation to invade. So, we looked to the CIA and other sources for links to Iraq and 9/11. Nada. So, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and linked Iraq to the terrorists who did the attack, even though none of the hijackers were from Iraq.

Bush had his eye on one thing - making his buddies money. Read this sometime ... it's very, very eye opening.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

This is the best way to sum up why we need to leave Iraq. We should leave as soon as the U.N. steps in to help. We should also provide some troops and plenty of financial support.

We need to continue the fight in Afghanistan/Pakistan to get al-Qaida. I'd support using more troops in Afghanistan with faster deployments and returns back to the U.S.

 

Why would the UN agree to step in?

What do they benifit by it?

Also... maybe it's just me... but just about every mission involving UN troops seems to be like 80% US troops anyway.

The U.N. allowed the action based on Colin Powell's speech to the council. They weren't gonna let the U.S. just invade. So, they duped Powell into it and he regretted it.

The U.N. has the resources to make a real difference in Iraq. Sure, the U.S. made the mess and it will take the world helping to end this situation. The U.S. backs the U.N. with troops heavily, but other nations who are in the U.N. aren't thrilled with the U.S.'s direction in Iraq and won't agree to shed blood unless the U.S. does things the U.N. way.

Had the U.S. listened to the U.N., we'd never have jumped into this quagmire to start off with.

Well yeah. You don't have to tell me that. There wasn't a single time that I thought the war in Iraq was a good idea. Still don't think it's a good idea, just think if we pull out now, Iraq is going to suffer even more.

I don't see the UN agreeing to replace us and instead if we leave the whole country breaking into a bloody civil war that will make Sadam Hussein and US occupied Iraq look like paradises, possibly leading to ethnic genocide.

We screwed it up so it seems like our responsibility to stay there until it gets "fixed" or the government tells us to leave. It might cost us a lot of lives and money but it was out mistake in the first place.

To just say "Well that was bush, we have a democrat as president now! You are all on your own!" just lacks personal responsibility to me.

If you break your neighbors window it's your responsibility to pay the guy back, no matter how expensive it turns out the cost of that glass was.

If the UN actually wants to step in sure, but that's likely going to mostly be at our manpower and dime anyway, but slightly less so whatever.  I don't see where the benifit would be for them, and the security council and general UN doesn't act unless it's beneficial.  Look at the unfixed problems in africa for proof at that.

At least the African Union tries to do something.