Welcome to Gaia! ::

I agree. While our presence in Iraq keeps the terrorists busy over there instead of over here, if we leave, we risk losing Iraq and having it fall into the hands of said terrorists.

Instead of making a false peace with these dangerous people, we should confront these people who hijacked a legitimate religion to justify their acts of violence. Remember; they struck first. We didn't start it. So even if we never went to the Middle East at all, how does an isolationist policy prevent attacks by a group of radicals who kills without instigation?

By this point, I've stopped caring. Do what you want in Iraq, just don't make it the focus of the damn election. Yes, I understand it's important to the people of the U.S., and people are dying in Iraq. But what about the national debt? If one of the countries that we owe pulls it in now, the entire country's screwed for who knows how many years. If something happens in Iraq, it's not the entire U.S. that's screwed. Yet people are more willing to let candidates focus on Iraq rather than what they'll do to help the deficit.

Also, Castro1993: So, just because someone lives in the U.S. they have more of a right to live than someone in Iraq? That's not very fair. You want to destroy an entire country just because the U.S. government decided that they didn't like how it was run? It's not the Iraqis' fault that the U.S. decided to invade them. You want to punish the majority, when it's the minority that's causing the problems. That's a worse mentality than the one that started this stupid war.

Oh, and also, most of Iraq is actually peaceful. It's only 10% of Iraqis who are terrorists (or less). We made a promise to protect them. It would be terribly wrong to kill half the innocent population. Not only that, but we have also made a promise to never use a weapon like the atom bomb again, ever since the incident in World War 2.

In that second paragraph, I was actually responding to the girl who said to just hit Iraq with an atomic bomb. That's a punishment, I think. Looking back at the paragraph, I shoulda made that clear. I'll go change it. n.n"

<.< Sorry. I... wasn't really thinking when I wrote that part. n.n"

I kind of think it's been long enough. It's getting very old every time to look at the front page of a newspaper, catch bits and pieces on the news that *Insert number* got killed by * Insert some sort of bomb* or *Another number* died in an amount of time frame. I guess I'd have to look more into it since I don't so much to be able to say it I could say for sure I don't think there's much left of a reason to stay.

Obviously we should have done something, otherwise they would continue with the attacks.

I'm just wondering how thickheaded Iraq could have been to terrorize us, because of a religion.

And yes, I believe that was the cause of them attacking us. I can't recall exactly, been sometime since I've discussed it, but Muslims in general hate and are supposed to kill Christians. It's a war that's been going on for a long time now. To me that makes the most sense. If that wasn't the reason, what? Were they board, spun a wheel and which ever country the arrow landed on was who was getting terrorized for 20 years? Did they think they would take over America? Other than religious issues, it just doesn't make much sense eh? .____.