I have absolutely no problem with our troops being in combat. However, I DO have a problem with some worthless rich boy who bought his way into office sending thousands of young men and women to die for nothing (unless you count oil). There are reasons that justify an occupation of Iraq. However, none of these reasons influenced Bush's decision to invade. And now that it is clear that we aren't helping anything, and really can't help, it's time to cut our losses.
I support a removal of the troops not because of the death toll, but because our soldiers are dying for a problem that can only be fixed by the Iraqi people themselves. We are doing and can do nothing in the long run. We may do some small good, but the civil war simply can't be prevented. It's just like Vietnam in that aspect. There are much more imminent threats, and the money spent on this pointless war is simply unjustifiable for an economy that is struggling to stay afloat. Long story short, there are far more reasons to leave Iraq than to stay there.
And to bimma85, I respect your position about honoring the decisions of the soldiers, but look at it this way. After the Vietnam War, a vast majority of veterans said they were glad they had gone and that they would go again if asked. I think we can all agree that Vietnam was a collossal failure. The point is, on the whole, the soldiers almost always feel that their efforts are worht it. Perhaps the sentiment of soldiers is not the best indicator of a conflict's success.
. thx in advance.
