• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How long should we stay in Iraq?

How long should we stay in Iraq?

  • We should withdraw immediately

    Votes: 9 33.3%
  • Set a timetable and get out in about 2 years.

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • Stay up to ten years.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • However long it takes to make it stable, even if we have to stay 20 or more years.

    Votes: 13 48.1%

  • Total voters
    27

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How long should we stay in Iraq? Note: Poll is only about Iraq, not Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
How long should we stay in Iraq? Note: Poll is only about Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Depends how you define "stay".

I would say that US influence will be there long after any "troop withdrawal".
 
Probably about as long as we have stayed in Japan or Germany. We would use some permanent influence in that part of the world. Its no longer convienent to ignore that part of the world.
 
Probably about as long as we have stayed in Japan or Germany. We would use some permanent influence in that part of the world. Its no longer convienent to ignore that part of the world.

What'dya mean "you people" ?
 
We should leave by noon tomorrow (EST).
 
We should never have been there to begin with.
 
Leave now. Not 5 minutes from now. Now.
 
We should leave when the job is completed, let's not have another Vietnam and allow our soldiers efforts to go in vain.
 
That doesn't really address the question.

Sure it does. Every second we've been there, every second we stay there, is a second we've wasted time and money on. Get out right this second.
 
Sure it does. Every second we've been there, every second we stay there, is a second we've wasted time and money on. Get out right this second.

Okay, but whether we should have gone in and how soon we get out are two completely different and mostly unrelated issues. I don't think enough people understand that.
 
I do not believe in anonymous poll results
The poll don't mean ****.

It's the discussion it sparks that is the focus here.
 
Okay, but whether we should have gone in and how soon we get out are two completely different and mostly unrelated issues. I don't think enough people understand that.

I understood what he meant ..but then again, I have a full complement of brain cells ;)
 
I understood what he meant ..but then again, I have a full complement of brain cells ;)

I understood what he meant too ..but then again, I don't resort to childish insults at the first opportunity ;)
 
Well it looks like we are going to be staying for a long time. Don't listen to what any politician tells you about withdrawing all the the soldiers out. We won't and can't.

So to address your question we are going to stay in Iraq for the next 30 to 40yrs I can imagine.
 
Probably about as long as we have stayed in Japan or Germany. We would use some permanent influence in that part of the world. Its no longer convienent to ignore that part of the world.

Yeah, we ignoring the major problem in the world and that is Israel:roll:. Also we have always had troops stationed in the Middle East. But not in the large numbers we do now and that is only a catalyst for worse things to come.
 
We should withdraw immediately
Set a timetable and get out in about 2 years.

Uhh where's the option for "We already HAVE a timetable, they'll be withdrawn by the end of this summer, and that's fine."
 
Uhh where's the option for "We already HAVE a timetable, they'll be withdrawn by the end of this summer, and that's fine."

Actually, only the combat troops will be out, but 50,000 will still be in and they include trainers and special ops. They should stay as long as it takes. Elections should prove interesting.
 
Actually, only the combat troops will be out, but 50,000 will still be in and they include trainers and special ops. They should stay as long as it takes. Elections should prove interesting.

As long as they aren't being fired at, and they're still welcome by the Iraqi government, I'm OK with that.
 
How long should we stay in Iraq? Note: Poll is only about Iraq, not Afghanistan.

However long it takes to finish the job.Setting a time table just tells the terrorist and any other scum to set their watches. Leaving before the job just says we are not committed in any war and just encourages our enemies to hold out.
 
However long it takes to finish the job.Setting a time table just tells the terrorist and any other scum to set their watches. Leaving before the job just says we are not committed in any war and just encourages our enemies to hold out.

Do you support a war tax then? I'm not being facetious. The war is piling up a mountain of debt for us. A country can only deficit spend on a war on a temporary basis. Piling up debt year after year will end up bankrupting us if we sustain to for too long. The war has already lasted longer than World War II. If we had a war tax, we could at least make the war stop piling up debt for us. It would not be painless. It would not be easy. But if a war is important enough, people just have to sacrifice to win it. Is that the case here? Is this one of those essential wars like World War II or is it one we were foolish to get into?

Again, these are not sarcastic questions. They're tough ones, real ones that must be answered. If we enacted a 20 cent per gallon tax, for example, to pay for the war, I don't know that Americans would support that. I think they would be disgusted with it and demand that we get out. I could be wrong. If it took us 20 years to stabilize that country, we simply could not deficit spend at the rate we are over that period of time without it ruining our economy. Then again, a war tax wouldn't be so great for the economy either.

Would it even be stabilized after 20 years of occupation and a war tax? Another tough question.

I don't know that the American public views this war as an essential one that they're willing to sacrifice for like they were for the defeat of Hitler and Imperial Japan. Up to this point, it's been almost exclusively our military families who have done all the sacrificing. It can't remain like that. The nation as a whole has to be willing to sacrifice to win this or we have to simply get out.

Is this one where we have to simply admit we screwed up and get out? Another really tough question. If the answer is yes, then we simply must get the hell out. Not an easy thing to do. But it still would be easier than kidding ourselves until it bankrupts us and we're finally willing to admit we f###ed up and get out.
 
Finally Obama will end the war in Iraq on August 31st 2010, if you don't believe than watch this video.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxG0JrWNDaU"]YouTube- Obama Announces End to Iraq War in Aug. 2010[/ame]
 
Do you support a war tax then? I'm not being facetious. The war is piling up a mountain of debt for us. A country can only deficit spend on a war on a temporary basis. Piling up debt year after year will end up bankrupting us if we sustain to for too long. The war has already lasted longer than World War II. If we had a war tax, we could at least make the war stop piling up debt for us. It would not be painless. It would not be easy. But if a war is important enough, people just have to sacrifice to win it. Is that the case here? Is this one of those essential wars like World War II or is it one we were foolish to get into?

Again, these are not sarcastic questions. They're tough ones, real ones that must be answered. If we enacted a 20 cent per gallon tax, for example, to pay for the war, I don't know that Americans would support that. I think they would be disgusted with it and demand that we get out. I could be wrong. If it took us 20 years to stabilize that country, we simply could not deficit spend at the rate we are over that period of time without it ruining our economy. Then again, a war tax wouldn't be so great for the economy either.

Would it even be stabilized after 20 years of occupation and a war tax? Another tough question.

I don't know that the American public views this war as an essential one that they're willing to sacrifice for like they were for the defeat of Hitler and Imperial Japan. Up to this point, it's been almost exclusively our military families who have done all the sacrificing. It can't remain like that. The nation as a whole has to be willing to sacrifice to win this or we have to simply get out.

Is this one where we have to simply admit we screwed up and get out? Another really tough question. If the answer is yes, then we simply must get the hell out. Not an easy thing to do. But it still would be easier than kidding ourselves until it bankrupts us and we're finally willing to admit we f###ed up and get out.

Both wars combined take up about 5% of the federal budget.
 
Back
Top Bottom