we would all be happy because the troops are there for no normal reason and the only thing hapening is they are getting kild

The oil companies would see it as a reason to raise the price of petroleum, so you'd notice that pretty fast. The 700,000 may stop growing so fast because there will be no more airstrikes (the predominant cause of civillian death in Iraq), but then again the resulting violence may more than make up for that. The media will lose interest in Iraq, and all those people dying will cease to exist in the eyes of many. There will be a LOT of angry people who hate the American military (as if there isn't already). The refugees will keep on coming, and if you thought governments like the Taliban in Afghanistan were extremist, you should wait and see the government that eventually gains power in Iraq. It'll either been extremely right-wing and controlling, or it'll be weak and corrupt like the government in Somalia. You'd just mess things up more, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for change. For a start, the American soldiers could start being a little respectful and can stop breaking into innocent people's homes with no good reason (which happens a lot, a major social taboo in a society like that). You could stop using landmines and cluster bombs. You could also stop lumping everybody who hates you into one big group call 'insurgents', because I don't like you very much, but I'm no insurgent. Deal with each group individually and you might even reach some level of diplomacy. If you're people can pull out and leave a relatively healthy (if Iraq will ever be healthy after what's happened to it) country behind, perhaps your people will be respected just a little bit more in the Arab world and the world at large.

I believe the presence of all the allied troops act to control the chaos. But this fire will have to burn itself out, whether troops are there or not. Iraq has a large army and police force. It is time for them to be independent. I favor pulling out and letting the fire burn, even if it burns hotter, it will burn out faster. I have often thought that Israel might be vulnerable to Muslim wrath when we left, so leaving a few ships in the region (we always have ships in the region) may temper the spread of any additional violence. Support the Troops, Bring them home!

Well. It's a difficult answer. The region is already destabilized. A coup d' etat has already occured, and now civil war has emerged. The Iraqi security council will be forced to step up. I believe that they're taking advantage of American assistance (nothing wrong with that-I would too), and they're simply double checking everything. In the mean while, American soldiers are being killed everyday...and for what. We all have our own views on this war. And I believe that we shouldn't have been over there in the first place. I could recall the first assault on Iraq. Bush had the troops secure the oil sites...and Saddam had his troops blow them up. Right then I knew what this was about. And as for the "War on Terror"; Bush should've known that the war on terror could and cannot be won. There will always be someone who believes that violence will promote change...to the ideas of one...and not the many. So in other words, we must combat terror...but it's the one war that wont end. At least not in this time. As for us pulling out. There is actually nothing we can do. Either way, there is no positive outcome. But the soldiers coming home is much better than stabilizing the region. I have faith in my military, but with bad leadership...even a mighty force such as this can be ineffective. Bush should've got the que to leave when everyone else did. That way, things wouldn't have got this far. Hezbollah in the west side of the middle east waged war against Israel. The radical muslim community growing tired of western influence. Everything seems to be tense in that region...and we have no place in it. Not on an account of our own, but that of our leaders...beyond this country. But rather, in other western countries. I see a war in the future between the west, and the middle east. And if we don't stabilize things in the far east...we're looking at World War III. So far war and aggression hasn't done anything except create more violence. So this is the age of diplomacy. However, things are so bad now, that no one will listen to the other. The United States of America, along with NATO forces are fighting in Afganistan. That part of the war I do support. We must strike those who struck first. But the situation in Iraq wont ever get better as long as we're there. We must let the Iraqi people settle things. The war is lost in the middle east...but is brewing the far east. Therefore we should focus on that area. Because unlike Iraq...if China and N. Korea fight...Japan will have to run to America. Thus the far east is destabilized. Our enemies in the Middle east will likely allign with hypothetical China and N. Korea. Japan, N. America, Britain, and the rest of NATO will most likely allign, as they are bound by treaty like China and N. Korea. I know it's far off...but it IS a theroy after all.

I don't know. That's the trouble, nobody knows. The trouble with the stinkin future is that it's tough to predict. What moves do we have left? We've painted ourselves into an ugly corner, and every choice looks bad. One thing I think would help is if we could actually acknowledge that it was a mistake to invade Iraq in the first place. That would at least reduce the amount of energy being expended in justifying the past, and perhaps allow us to see the situation with fresher eyes. No matter what happens, the path to stability in Irag will almost surely be unpleasant, violent, and lengthy. Probably the only thing we'll be able to salvage is the lesson learned. Of course, that won't help the Iraqis much.

Total and utter collapse. Imagine digging a hole in the side of a mountain and then leaving without shoring up the walls.