Time to get out of Iraq as well as Syria?

The US has never had any use for European soil.
Historically Americans have always been very anti-European - for good reasons.

 

Like I said .... get them out of here. We have our own laundry facilities in Europe and the U.S. (I've noticed) never seem to get the 'nicky stains' out of their underwear so we are better off without them.

It's a deal!

 

If the USG did not want Iran to run Iraq it should never have messed with Saddam.
Our "best and brightest" always get what they ask for - good and hard.

 

Whew! Talk about sour grapes! Tell them to go home and I'll be there to sing them off:

 

Europe will probably pay through the nose to keep them. Alas.

 

The hell we have. It's today's ignorant American conservatives who are anti-European, and for no valid reasons whatsoever.

 

If we don't want to fight in the Middle East, we kind of have to give up our alliances there as well, don't we? If we don't fight, others will continue to gain ground and gain control over the region, its resources and its strategic value (which is great indeed, considering the amount of shipping that goes through there). At the very least, we would end up sacrificing our economic security and placing ourselves increasingly at the mercy of adversaries and enemies, who have none.

The goal in Iraq is to have a stable government that isn't ruled by violent thugs with disruptive agendas who would pose a greater threat to peace and security around the world with the resources of an entire nation at this command. It is bad enough having Iran in that situation; they would stand to gain a great deal of power and influence if we walk away and they free expand westward through Iraq and Syria. Once Iran manages that, we're on the border with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and then hell really starts to break loose..

The Iraqi government is certainly in a tough spot right now, though. I see that they condemn the violent protests at our embassy even as they call those killed by the latest US strikes "martyrs". They're trying to please opposing sides of a conflict that is raging on their territory, afraid and probably unable to stand up too strongly to the pro-Iranian groups.

 

I don't believe that. My country has never joined NATO and I think some of the NATO members are going to leave.

 

Results have been dismal. For quite a long time.

Either take out Iran or get out of Iraq.

 

The U.S. has no legal right to "take out" Iran or to be in Iraq.

 

No other country has the right to tell America what to do.

Iran's government is a total piece of tyrannical shiit

 

I think @stone6 said it best in the other thread on this topic.
Normally if a contractor got killed it would be a local issue not an excuse for a bombing run.
If we carry that philosophy thru we should have bombed the Saudi palace over them making Khashoggi burgers.
The only question is was this a deliberate escalation or a screw up by the administration.
Based on Trumps tweets they just didn't think ahead.

 

it's never a mistake to kill Iranian insurgents fighting in a foreign country

 

Did Captain Bone Spurs tell you that?
Not a good time to be an American in Iraq. Gonna screw up Trump's plans to sell them "stuff" to replace everything we blew up during the war.

 

Well...what's your next move? We can send U.S. forces back into Iraq to eliminate the Iranian influence and fight someone else's civil and/or religious war OR we can pull our 5,000 troops out and close our embassy.
Which do you prefer? You can't pursue an isolationist policy and expect to hold-on to global influence.

 

no i am capable of thinking for myself thanks

 

Why not stay the course? You're suggesting two extremes that don't work so well practically. What we have been doing is working to suppress Islamic terrorism and avoid having the M.E. become worse of a mess, and it ensures we have some staunch allies in the region and a good measure of control over an area of vital strategic and economic importance.

 

No, we're there for more significant reasons than beating down one terrorist organization. After all, there was no IS yet when we first went into Iraq in 2003.

 

How "staunch" are they? That seems to be the question. Apparently not staunch enough to prevent an attack on our embassy.

 

But aren't we creating the cancer?

 

I was thinking more of Israel and Saudi Arabia. The problem with Iraq is it's not a stable country yet. It is still a battleground.

 

No more than Russia does when they bomb Syrians or others inside Syria.

 

Yes, I know there was no IS before we went into Iraq in 2003. The whole Iraq saga should serve as a lesson.

They attacked our troops with rockets, wounded four soldiers and killed an American contractor. Now they are attacking the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Those people are not like us. It is high time to bring this adventure in Iraq and Syria to an end and let those people determine their own destiny. The U.S. is entirely capable of defending herself without having troops on the ground in those countries.

You say we are there "for more significant reasons than beating down one terrorist organization." I translate that as meaning we will never leave there, for there will never be a good time. There will always be some reason why we are told it is "essential" that we stay.

When Bush was president, you guys excoriated him for the way things turned out. Democrats tried to cut off funding for the war. Harry Reid declared the war "lost". Remember that? Even Hillary got in on the act with "I was for it before I was against it."

Then Obama ran on a platform of ending the Iraq war, you guys cheered and elected him. After the withdrawal, he was forced to go back in because he helped destabilize Syria and armed groups like ISIS, and then ISIS blew out of control, reaching the gates of Baghdad.

Now ISIS has been beaten down, and the same people who excoriated Bush, who declared the war "lost", who supported Obama getting out of Iraq - you guys have turned into the very neo-cons who started this whole thing, the very people you guys used to hate, and now you want to stay in those godforsaken countries forever.

Tell me ... What did that American killed by those rockets die for? And what did those U.S. soldiers get wounded for?

Whenever I hear people championing these damn wars, I ask them a question, so I'll ask you: "Would you give up a son for this? Would it be worth it?"

If your answer is "No" to either question, then we should pull out our troops, and we should do it NOW.

 

Europe owes America they can sit back and let us do what we do then say thank you..

 

The NATO welfare states cannot afford to defend themselves. They can afford to pay the USG to defend them.
Will they choose to go DIY? One can hope, but do't bet on it.