Today Iraq came out demanding time tables from the U.S., and issue that the U.S. has been debating (and hoping to resolve in the upcoming election.) So if Iraq doesn\’t want us to stay longer — how is the U.S. occupation a democratic mission as opposed to imperialistic? Iraq PM demands U.S. timelines
I\’m going to go so far as to say that this completely changes most of what the November 2008 election is based on (well issue wise.) If McCain and the republicans decide to erk toward time tables then their position will be coming very close to being as defined as the democratic \”We must have timelines.\”
Out goes the window that we could be in IRAQ for 100 or 1000 years (McCain) without the U.S. officially occupying an unwilling IRAQ.
My stance has been that since Mission accomplished and elections put in a de facto, accepted government in Iraq that the U.S. should remove itself.
This issue has a very important role in our country. Without our huge war expenses, the U.S. saves money and can issue fewer bonds, making the dollar stronger. Increasing stability / leaving the region makes it less likely that oil prices will fluctuate based on politics and whether there are timelines or not.
I say withdraw troops as soon as possible. Keep a base or two in the country sure (I mean we do it everywhere else;) a base is afterall a defendable position rather than just walking the streets of a city.