Let's Set the Record Straight and Define ONCE AND FOR ALL What "Pulling Out of Iraq" Means.

[The Cleaner]

I think so many people are confused about this; does it mean pulling out ALL TROOPS immediately or does it simply mean the beginning of a one or two year long withdraw policy?

This is important because the argument is, and even Bob Sheiffer just said this on Face the Nation, a total and sudden withdraw of troops would be disastrous and would lead to chaos. But who's talking about withdrawing ALL troops? That is simply not true, and it has never happened before. In no wars of the past have we EVER pulled out every single troop at once - they've always left some troops still in the region.

I would like as many as possible here to give their opinions on this, thanks!

[KG]

1. total and comlplete withdrawal from iraq.

the US has no legitimate business keeping any type of military presence there.

and that goes for about 100 other locations across the globe.

[aquart]

2. It means we're still fighting a losing war in Afghanistan.

[NeedleCast]

3. A Plan, then a drawdown to zero

I agree with Sheiffer that the total an immediate withdrawl of all troops would be a bad idea, and it's also not logisticaly fiesable. I'd like to see a solid (democrat created) drawdown plan that takes us to zero troops in Iraq over a relativly short amount of time (six months to a year, with a year being the max amount of time I'd probably support). We've tanked things over there so badly that I think even after we pull out it's going to be a real, true mess over there for a long time to come and wouldn't be surprised at all to see a powerful bloc of hardline muslims to end up pulling a coup and setting up another Iran.

[phildo]

4. Yep. But it takes the courage to call it a loss and total waste up front.

That is what a bunch of the feet dragging is about from the folks that do not have agendas -- (e.g. oil interests, banks, and weapons contractors)

Once it can be called a loss, then you can cut out a lot of the "sunk cost," arguments -- like X,XXX troops are dead, so we cannot quit . . . well that is better than X,XXX + 1 more.

Bush/Cheney will be looked at as gross failures. The R's have to get over that.

The Dems have enabled all this as well. The D's will have to acknowledge and get over that.

My ponderings post 9-11 was what America needed was national therapy. Instead we got war. War as therapy never turns out well.

[NeedleCast]

7. No argument from me

At this point I think Bush-n-friends are either dillusional about what's going on or just don't care. They're caught in an un-winable situation with no clue how to get out of it AND save face, and I think that's the real problem. Regardless of the situation in Iraq when we pull out, AQ will declare it a victory (and it has been for them) and G-Dubs looks like a failure (which he is). I don't think Bush's ego is capale of handling that, so we get what we have now.

As a guy who likes playing poker, this is a classic case of drawing dead. Still betting on a hand you can't win with in the hopes of bluffing your way out.

[EFerrari]

5. Like there's not chaos there ALREADY?

This occupation can't end until American oil companies have finished stealing the oil profits we went in for.

[rug]

6. It means it's helicopters on the embassy roof time.

[mmonk]

8. Kucinich, Richardson as far as politicos go.

That's who is for withdrawal of all residual forces. That's why I support them. Imperialism is too 19th century and morally repugnant.

[GeorgeGist]

9. It means no ...

orgasm for the phuckers of Iraq.