should george bush listen to voice of the people should we stay in iraq
or leaving does leaving mean worse problems

Bush listen the the voice of the people? Like that'll ever
happen. He should though.
Unfortunately we need to stay and clean up the filthy mess we left in
Iraq. We never should have gone in the first place.

Leaving would mean greater problems. This is not a war that we can
afford to lose and saying that we should leave because we removed Saddam
(after all isn't that why we invaded? NO!) is wishful thinking at it's
most dangerous. Do I agree with the way the war is being fought? Not
exactly, no but much like my favorite sports teams and the men who run
them I have to figure that they know things about Iraq and terrorists in
general that I don't know about.

Amen derf!

well that goes both ways..its really difficult to say...because if the
troops leave maybe the militia will cut back on attacks.....and finally
their people will know they have to really fight for themselves and to
not rely no more on our troops.....the longer they stay the more
anomosity they have towards U.S. im relly against more troop movement
towards iraq....but if you really think about it....if we only had a
handful of troops there its just a heartfelt and pity situation....cuz
they would have no more brother in arms to help fight along side
themselves.....so its sad either which way.....there is no glory in
fighting any war....the only honor is serving besides those who cannot
tell their story.....

why would he listen to the people? The people are somewhat divided and
most people know nothing about the mechanisms of terrorism and politics.

oh and prob know even less about national security

Well said Islandking!

is it not right people in america vote did eletion not come from voice
of people

people should have more of a say but unfortunately they do not have as
much as I think our forefathers intended. Politicians are supposed to
represent us but who do they represent? Everyone has different feelings
or opinions on many different polictal issues. Can they follow
everyone's wishes? I think not. It's tough and there's sadly lots of
corruption.

Islandking: Yes! You're so right about how our presence feeds the
animosity towards the US.

Derf: I agree that an immediate abandonment would cause greater
problems, but i don't even understand what you mean by "not a war we can
afford to lose" - how to you even define winning and losing in a
situation like this?

Establishing a somewhat stable government there would be a victory to me
- regardless of that governments position on american policy.

welcome to government 101 bush was elected to be our voice of this great
country.has a plane hit a building in your neighborhood latley?when was
the last time a government building bombed in the us?do you worry about
a car bomb when you go to the store.just think about it.if we pull out
of iraq will we have more problems?what would happen with iraq's
government without the us influence?what would happen to iraq?just thank
our us service men&women for what they do for you every day!!!!

democracy won't last a year after we leave whether it is now or in 10
years.

Massagetrade, you make a valid point about winning being hard to
define in this war. However our enemies have stated that their goal is
to topple western goverment and impose their own sort of thoecracy on
us, those who disagree can die or remain silent. I think that that is a
fairly good description of what losing this war would mean.

Does winning this war mean killing every man, woman, and child who is
Muslim? I hope not. Does it mean we convert them to Christianity?
Again, I hope not (I'm sure I'll have enough of a problem getting into
heaven without MORE competition and no I'm not implying that Muslims
will not go to heaven). What does it mean? I'm afraid I don't know
what winning this war will mean; but I'm more afraid of what losing this
war will mean.

This 'war' cannot be won. It would be impossible to rid the world of
terrorism.

Gina - It's my opinion that when the people of America voted, they were
denied their rightful victor.
I mean, two times in a row? I seriously doubt the American people
voted for Bush the second time around. To me it all looked rigged.
Here in my town, my vote along with thousands of other votes, weren't
counted until 2 weeks after election day.

When Bush's daddy refused to go on to Bagdad in the first Gulf War, when
our troops were within 75 miles of Bagdad, does anyone remember, or were
you even alive, what reasons he gave to the American people?

He said it was a quagmire, with no way out, and no way to win!
Learn your history, his son didnt listen! Look how many Americans have
died. I joined the Army in 1979, to go fight terrorism and the Iranians,
nothing has changed since, do you really think it will change in the
next 30 years?

Something else to think about, are you ready for your son, who is 10
years old now, to grow up go to Iraq, and die? At the rate things are
going that is a very likely scenario!

sorry about my grammer! LOL

For sure! Bush's daddy had his head on straight, which is more than I
can say for little Bush. He's made a BIIIIIIG mistake!

Derf, when you first said "losing this war" i didn't know you meant a
struggle against that element of radical islam that would see america
destroyed. I thought you were just talking about the current mess in
Iraq.

Different people have different opinions on how interwoven those things
are (war in iraq and 'war against islamic terrorist') - but i think the
current administration tries to get support for the iraq war by preying
on our fear of islamic terrorists.

If the real goal was to 'win against terrorists', invading iraq was the
worst thing to do - and we knew it at the time - the CIA advised the
white house on this. Our actions - perceived by others as a hostile
invasion - just feeds the fire for those people, gives them more popular
support, gives them more recruits, more people willing to finance them,
etc.

We can't defeat 'terrorism' with bullets or tanks. We can defeat
terrorism by working towards a saner world, by co-operating with other
governments; for muslim terrorist, we should seek to bridge the cultural
divide between moderate Christians and moderate Muslims. This might
take a generation or longer, but it can be done - look at history. An
ever increasing portion of the muslim world would disavow the terrorist
and help us 'fight' against them. i know there are powerful forces
working against these ideas, esp. in the way people are brainwashed over
there, but they just can't be destroyed with tanks.

There's a place for military force - but only a very small place for it
in the mis-named 'war' on terror.