Leave Iraq immediately, and a while ago if possible.

Round 1
Ragnar_Rahl: "Just an FYI, as my profile will tell you, I support the "war in Iraq." So why am I arguing this? Quite simply, because the goals were achieved a long time ago, and every second we stay now makes the situation (for America anyway) worse.

The justifications for entering the war were the following: Iraq was a danger due to WMD's (admittedly there is very little evidence of this aside from large containers of chemical materials that are useful for making them), but it was widely believed at the time, Iraq could be made into a beacon of democracy and freedom for the Middle East (proving rather difficult, even if you ignore our serious shortages in those goals and the somewhat contradictory nature of them), and Saddam Hussein was a genocidal tyrant who ruled in a manner harmful to American interests (true, and it was definitely our mess to clean up).

Iraq has held an election, it solved little. Scratch goal two unless we have better plans. Iraq has been checked for WMD's, none are there (except the ones provided by Iran recently, which only go up as our invasion goes on). Goal one is as accomplished as it will be. Saddam and all his party are dead or disgraced- goal three is clearly accomplished.

So what are our troops doing there? At present, fighting an "insurgency" i.e. people resisting the conqueror. If we are not there for conquest, insurgents are not our enemies, and the fact of their existence is a sign that it's time to leave. If we are, we picked a helluva expensive conquest without much reward.

Yes, the Iraqis will fight each other when we leave. Guess what: That's a positive for America. Fewer of them will have time to fight us. We can't stop it anyway, unless we exterminate at least one side (obviously undesirable); sticking soldiers in the middle just makes it take more ammo and costs US lives. When they've learned not to fight each other, that's a positive too: They aren't gonna have power projection to attack us, and in any case will probably be sick of the hardship of war and want a taste of the Peace with America economic pie.

For those afraid Iran will get too much influence... how? Frankly I'd like to see them try, seems to me they'll just burn themselves if they stick a hand into the fire we'd be leaving next door.

And finally for those afraid of losing control of Iraqi oil- The rise in oil prices resulting is much cheaper than a war, and the oil there will be quite available later when they are sick of fighting each other."

iamsano: "What an idea ladies and gentlemen???? alright Ragnar%5FRahl my name is sano and hope we will have a good debate here. first you said that the objectives of the war have been achieved by the US and i strongly disagree with you. Iraq was believed to have weapon of mass destruction which was then proven wrong later..That is fine.. and then as we all know America has always gone for democracy and has that been achieved so far in Iraq? I said no and you should know that democracy is not just abou having an election. I was so shocked when you said that Lets us leave Iraq and it is ok if Iraqis kill each other... that was quite bad my dear and how will people then see America? the credibiliy of the America and so on... America has a big role to play in Iraq now and you cant ask them to leave now.. I would like you to define what you mean by now??? today, tomorrow, next month... what do you mean? How about the Iraqis' security??? dont you care about that??? that will even create more terrorists groups at the end... alright i am waiting for your first argument and yeah will then let you know of mine... Thank you and have a nice day"

Round 2
Ragnar_Rahl: "You seem to agree then that the "security from WMD's" has been achieved, since you are under the impression that no such WMD's exist, so that's one matter resolved.

Democracy may indeed be "not about having an election." But do you wish to say what it is about precisely? According to the Oxford English dictionary, it is about "government through elected representatives" (which it has, as it has had an election and those elected are governing it, to that extent they are capable anyway.) It is about "Control of an organization or group by the majority of it's members (which has certainly been achieved to some extent, as the majority of Iraqis have controlled the situation by allowing the violence to continue). It is about "The practice or principles of social equality..." I rather think the Iraqis are becoming more equal in the amount of terror and poverty they live in.... They have equality up to their necks! So which definition of democracy has not been met?

I should note it is utterly false that "America has always gone for democracy." Saddam Hussein is only one of a long list of dictators who the United States has propped up, including the likes of Mobutu Sese Seko, Ngo Dinh Diem, and whoever was in charge of the Taliban. Our own Constitution is an explicitly antidemocratic document.

Why is it not okay if Iraqis kill each other? They are attempting to kill us. They are thus our enemy. When our enemy's enemy is also our enemy, it's basic military strategy to step out and let them fight each other, so as to defeat the survivor later.

What "Big role" do you expect them to play? Iraqi security? As I have already outlined, our presence does nothing to aid Iraqi security, it simply adds more meat to the blender. The recent advances in lowering the death rate is because they have already "ethnically cleansed" their neighborhoods, and thus are reaching equilibrium. Which means that our presence only provides a continual target.

By "now" I mean we send the ships/planes now, and the retreat order now, as in today preferably, and as soon as enough ships and planes get there to take everybody home, everybody goes home. We have some fast planes and ships :D

How exactly will more terrorist groups to attack the US be created in Iraq when they no longer look down the barrel of our guns? The terrorist presence has risen, not fallen, since our entrance, and therefore the facts on the ground oppose your argument. Especially when you consider that every dollar and soldier not used in Iraq can be used to fight terrorism somewhere else."

iamsano: "First of all, i never seem to agree that the security from WMD has been achieved so far because it was all based on false statement. That is the main why the whole world did not support the united states to go to Iraq. You can not talk about anything being resolved because it was not there in the first place.

Secondly about your whole idea of democracy... can you please show me any step being done in Iraq so far? because if America had to leave, there are things to be achieved. you cant just attack a country and just leave like that my dear and if that is the case it goes against the laws. Thirdly how do you expect the iraqis to have a fair election when America leaves now... there is no security, no financial aid and nothing.. how will they succeed?? I am not saying America should be in Iraq forever, but this is not the time. They should bring back peace and security before leaving and that is just a must.

I am shocked again to hear you saying it is ok for the iraqis to kill themselves.. seems that you have no feeling and that will even make things worse. They are killing american and that is what you been talking about.. no analysis from you at all. Can you please tell me when did Iraq attack AMERICA ? never happened my dear... even all the terrorists attack we had in the past, there was no single iraqi. AND I am quoting from you "Iraqis are becoming more equal in the amount of terror and poverty they live in" and that does not make sense.. is this your democracy.??

It also seems that you dont know about your constitution.. i believe America is a democratic country and could you please tell me how is it possible then to have an antidemocratic constitution there?? non sense again. it is cool for you to tell me what you mean by now?? that does not make sense and can not work. America cant just withdraw from Iraq like that. where is the credibility of America? this will even make people hate america more.. and create more instability in the region.

America cares about peace, democracy and that is why we have seen their representative in Pakistan talking to Musharraf, in Burma talking to the military junta, In indonesia to solve the East timor case and many others.. When september 11 happened it was on America soil and not in Iraq. As Bush mentioned, they need time to do the job and we have seen improvement. we have seen people going out and even going for work in Iraq. we have even seen Iraqis going back home and it seems you do not know about that. Leaving Iraq now will prove that America has completely failed and we do not want that.

Leaving Iraq without solving anything is just like creating another terrorists state and that is not the goal of America. We want peace in the world. we should be a good example in the world. WE Cant just destroy the whole country and leave just like that. that will be like living in the jungle where there are no rules and laws. we have laws to be respected.. human rights and so on... The soldiers are doing a great job there and should finish the job.

America has been successful in removing the taliban for instance in Afghanistan and restore democracy and it is the same thing we want in Iraq. thanks and have a nice day.. No personal feeling.. just wanna have a good debate and never feel bad alright. Thank you again"

Round 3
Ragnar_Rahl: "A concern that is shown to be false is resolved, including one about WMD's.

I already told you what "steps toward democracy" have been taken- an election has been held and the majority rules, as opposed to previously the minority. This does not mean I particularly like it, but it's clearly occurred. If you have a different definition of democracy (your prerogative as a democrat I suppose) it is incumbent upon you to provide it.

You can certainly attack a country "and just leave it like that." If you do not possess enough of an issue with your enemy to justify to yourself leaving it in ruins, you have no business in a war. It's that kind of mixed emotions at war that led Woodrow Wilson to facilitate Germany's rebuilding, and led to the rise of Hitler. When your enemy has been disabled, you do not attempt to gain his forgiveness, he attempts to gain yours for the offense you fought him over. I see no law forbidding this. Can you tell me what law forbids the military integrity of treating your enemy as your enemy?

What precisely is a "fair" election? The one last held had no one prevented from attending the polls. True, many people chose to boycott the election, but that was their choice. Is it "unfair" to take the consequence of your actions when you have done nothing to correct them?

How do you intend to achieve "peace and security" with soldiers? There is only one efficient way for soldiers to do that- The complete liquidation of whoever is disrupting the peace and security. I highly doubt you would support this goal when you realize the massacre necessary to attain it.

To say I "have no feeling" because I have no compassion for my enemies is hardly justified. I never said Iraq itself attacked America itself. What I said was Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac who attacked Iraqis, we eliminated him and those loyal to him, and then insurgents attacked America (specifically America's soldiers), some because they were loyal to him, some because they misinterpreted our presence due to incompetence and imprecision in execution, some just because they hate anyone not like them. None of which is relevant, because defense of a third party is equivalent to self-defense so long as it is also in self-interest. The relevant facts are, we stepped in to eliminate a genocidal dictator (whether that was our goal or not, it remains the justification), we met resistance, that resistance was unacceptable.

And no, it is not my democracy. You are the democrat. I am not an advocate of democracy. If you support equality unconditionally, then the quote "Iraqis are becoming more equal in the amount of terror and poverty they live in" is a satire of your views, if you do not, it is incumbent upon you, again, to define the democracy you support.

America is not a "democratic country," it is a republic. Though often it resembles a democracy at times, the fact remains that representation is not exactly proportional to number (i.e Bush for example won in the electoral college at least once without winning the popular vote, not sure the second time.)

The constitution is antidemocratic because it requires, not a majority, but carefully constructed version of a supermajority, to amend. It is, in short, a mechanism to establish certain principles as immune as they can be from the fickleness of the populace at large.

How would withdrawing cause us to "lose credibility?" I say we lose credibility every time we treat our enemy as something other than our enemy. Besides, most people in the region WANT us to leave for some strange reason, so it won't make much of a difference in the hatred, hell it might even tone it down for a while. I can't see how removing fighting men (whose purpose is to create instability by ending lives and destroying things) is supposed to increase instability).

Last I checked nothing's getting solved in Pakistan or Burma, (I'm not familiar with East Timor but that was last an issue a while ago if I remember right).

Somehow I've seen a lot more Iraqis wanting to leave than go back home (we simply block immigration). People going out to work proves nothing, they kind of have to no matter how dangerous it is after a certain period of time.

How will leaving Iraq prove we failed? Failed at what? We certainly didn't fail at getting rid of Saddam and his party.

Simply because we have laws does not make it our duty to enforce them everywhere else, at the price of enslaving our taxpayers to the rest of the world.

And lastly, if you think America has successfully restored "democracy" or peace in Afghanistan you're nuts. America has no say at all in what goes on in Afghanistan outside the capital, most affairs are run by feudal-style warlords. Not a great example :D."

iamsano: "What kind of election are you talking about?? no foreign observers at all and people dying the election day... is that what you call democracy? it has not been successful because millions of iraqis did not even vote.

How do you expect to have a good and fair election with violence going on.. America should try its best to stop the violence in the first place. People must have jobs, peace in order for them to be thinking about elections.. I have nothing against your definition of democracy and i am using that defintion itself to show you that nothing has been done in Iraq. Democracy as you mentioned power of the people for the peole, by the people and so on. is that the case in Iraq now?? of course no and it is so obvious.

You can attack and just leave like that and that is just non sense. You can just attack because you want to as i said and if that is the case, we will never have peace and you will also never rest in peace. America has spent billions to fight terrorism and we have seen that in Afghanistan.. today we have more peace, we have an elected government there and basic human rights are being respected and not like when we had taliban in place...

Maybe saddam was an enemy to America but not the Iraqis people. America supported saddam in the war against Iran and they were good friends before. no matter what a preemptive attack is not accepted under the international laws and that was why no country really supported America in the war.

Damaged is being caused to the iraqis innoncent peopple who have nothing to do with America or the policies conducted by saddam... America promised to these people and needs to do something.. you might have any feeling toward this and that can be understood but this the logic and that is what they should do.

When Bush was going to Iraq, he said we want to introduce democracy, free the iraqis, restore and security and have the united states really done that? NO

Good question what is a fair election and could you tell why people boycott an election??? is there any motive behind that?? they dont do because it is fun but because there is nothing to vote for. The election day 25 people lost their lives and how to do you expect people to go and vote while there is no security and not enough information. I believe that is not what is happening in the US.

How do we achieve peace with american soldiers?? no by killing people and i am a realistic... When these soldiers are there, they taking care of the country and protect the people and they have done good job with that. we have more peace today because the american soldiers my dear. they are training the Iraqis army too which is a great job. They help to fight against those terrorists groups killing innoncent people. That is what they are doing...

Good point and you can even see here that you are not making sense. you said that you have no feeling toward your enemy and that is fine. You also agree that Iraq did not attack America and that is good. Your enemy then was Saddam and not the Iraqis people. Saddam is gone and the Iraqis people also welcomed America to remove him and that is done... so why dont you want to help those innoncent people then??? since they are not your enemies

Lasty, I am out of word when you say America is not a democratic country... big shame my dear.. it is a republic of course we know that but what are the constitution based on??? freedom of speech. human right, gay marriage, election, and so on... what are these??? These fall under democracy and you can check this out http://en.wikipedia.org... and i am sure it will help you... check government and politics.

withdrawing without anything will make you lose your credibility globally.. maybe you dont care about that but the US government does a lot. That is why you see them in the middle east trying to solve problems. America has spend lots of money in the war and it will be a shame to leave without achieving anything.

Burma has been sanctioned by Europe and US and they still keeping pressure on the military leader.. In pakistan we have president Musharraf now trying to play with the constitution and the US has asked him to restore democracy and held the election as soon as possible.

Failure is there no matter what.. by leaving now ... saddam is gone..hahaha but iraq was then better in saddam's time my dear compared to now... people could go out, do their business and we had peace in the region..... do we have that now??? no and that is why we say america failed... America did not go there just to remove saddam and that is why you still see American soldiers going to Iraq.. saddam was removed long time ago but we still sending our military. America just leave now there will be chaos and complete break down of the security. America didnt do anything in afghanistan....hahaha funny... when they taliban, people were excecuted in public, people could go out at night, no school and stuff and today we have all that and you are telling me america didnt do anything.

Thanks man and yeah good debate... lets hear your conclusion"

Round 4
Ragnar_Rahl: ""Foreign observers" are necessary for elections now? If so, American elections don't count either, last I checked we don't use "foreign observers" at our poll booths. Neither do most other countries with elections. And people dying the next day doesn't mean much unless they died BECAUSE they voted. "Millions of Iraqis" CHOSE not to vote. Many more millions of Americans choose not to vote, yet you seem to consider America a democracy. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Violence goes on all the time in all sorts of countries. Are France's elections invalid whenever they have a riot? What about the elections that resulted in electing those who eliminated segregation? If you dismiss all elections that occur in a violent environment or appeal, the logical consequence of your "People must have jobs, peace in order for them to be thinking about elections" is that America should reinstate segregation and the unemployed have no voting rights.

How can Iraq not be considered "power of the people by the people for the people?" The people are committing violence, they get a violent country in return. They are voting with their guns and getting precisely what they ask for, except America leaving (which yes, polls indicate, they are asking for). The only thing in Iraq not under control of the Iraqi people is US troops. The logical consequence if you demand democracy is to leave.

I did not say "you can attack just because you want." You can attack because the party you are attacking attacked you or someone else.

As I mentioned earlier, your news from Afghanistan seems to be lacking. Elections have been charged with fraud, human rights abuses by taliban resurgence and warlords are rampant.

You don't think Saddam was an enemy to the Iraqi people? Why did the Iraqi people pull down his statue once he was out of power then? Why did they execute him when they had the oppurtunity? I think sending thousands of your own people to the gas chamber makes you an enemy to them. Supporting him in the Iran-Iraq war was similar to supporting the Soviets against Hitler- the leaders were under the impression they were picking the lesser of two evils. I don't know whether they were right in either instance, but it is not grounds to continue the alliance when the situation which necessitates it is removed.

Iraq was not fundamentally a "preemptive attack," it was, again, defense of a third party. Besides, there is essentially no such thing as international law, as the UN has no law enforcement agency.

What exactly did we "promise" to the Iraqi people? I do know that unless Bush is more insane than we thought, whatever promise there was was set on the condition that those people not fight us ( a condition not met) and on the condition that the Iraqi government get on schedule to start taking care of itself (a condition not met).

Saying you "want" to do something is not a promise.

Boycotting the election was not a result of the violence (and 25 people dying does not explain millions not voting). The Sunnis gave explicitly their reasons for boycotting the election- They were not the majority, therefore they did not want democracy.

There might be security in the US (in some places) but there certainly isn't enough information, at least not in a format most potential voters understand.

We do NOT have more peace today in Iraq than we did earlier in the war. The Iraqi army isn't doing that well, although I don't blame the training methods for that, I blame the difficulty in enforcing the enlistment commitment (they keep training people who don't stick around).

Simply because someone is not my enemy (and some of the Iraqis, keep in mind, are, because they are killing US soldiers, and some of them side with Hussein) is not a reason I should help them. The ONLY reason the US can have for helping Iraq is if Iraq helps us in return.

Freedom of speech is not based on democracy (after all recent polls indicate the majority doesn't really support it). You can have a dictatorship with freedom of speech, and the Greece had a democracy without freedom of speech. Besides, the Patriot act, if you check it, means we really don't have free speech. "Human rights" depending on what you mean, are also not fully enforced in the US- the rights to life, liberty, and property are all unduly abridged. None of which, by the way, is based in democracy- the ideas were invented in a monarchy. The constitution has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage (it says nothing about marriage at all), and as you put it earlier, elections are not proof of democracy. Iran has elections too, but it is not a democracy, it is an ecclesiocracy.

Withdrawing now does not mean withdrawing without accomplishing anything. We removed Saddam and co, that is an accomplishment. We removed basically all possibility of Iraqi power projection (i.e. the capability of Iraq operating militarily anywhere outside of Iraq. That is an accomplishment.

You can talk about "sanctions" in Burma and "asking" Musharraf to restore the Constitution all you want, but what has it accomplished? Both Burma and Musharraf are doing precisely as they please at the moment, and will continue to do so unless we invade. Would you like to invade? I wouldn't, burma and pakistan won't attack us, and the people there don't seem to have the resolve to pitch in with any sort of revolt, so it would be too expensive.

Iraq was better under Saddam- for who? The Sunnis maybe. Not the Shiites, not the Kurds, both of which Saddam wanted to slaughter, the second of which he was doing a rather good job of. Just because the military was continually sent after Saddam's elimination does not prove it should have been. It simply demonstrates Bush had the wrong priorities.

We do NOT have everything you described in Afghanistan, except again in the capital. The rest of the country is still not safe to go out at night, people are still executed in public I'm sure (not that that's necessarily a problem, as long as it is a criminal you are executing :D), girls still can't go to school (schools for males exist now and did under the Taliban). The main accomplishment in Afghanistan was to lower Al Qaeda funding from that source a bit and drive Osama out of it."

iamsano: "Thanks a lot and yeah it is always a pleasure to reply.

Let start with your first question.. foreign observers are necessary for elections in Iraq for instance or any country where situations are not stable.. you are talking about a country where democracy is new and fair election too is new to them. we need people to report on the election, we need people to be there so the election is not manipulated... that is what has happening in all countries where situations are not good enough.

America is a stable and advance country and has know democracy for centuries.... you cant compare America to Iraq my dear or any developing country.

Many Iraqis chose not to vote and why was that??? you never answered that question.. why most people in America dont choose not to vote or any other stable country.... people in Iraq didnt vote because the situation and the condition they were in did not allow them. They had no security, no peace, and the internal problems.. Those things need to be solved first and then people can think about voting and stuff.

Many more millions of American chose not to vote.. when did that happen?? I am not an American and maybe you can tell me that. I have searched it through google and dont think it ever happened... maybe you can inform me on that. Look at America, for how long now people have been campaigning for 2008 election and the population has enough information about the people they want to vote for. Is that the case in Iraq??? answer to that... when did you see people campaigning in Iraq?? never and why was that???

Violence and war is a different case.. Iraq has been destroyed by war and people in Iraq are under bad conditions.. When did the riots happened in France?? it was after the election and the losing side did that. How long did it take??? not even more than a week. How about Iraq now??? they have been under violence for more than 5 years.. Even looking at France, people vote and did not just stayed home and refused to vote... why was that?? why didnt they do like the iraqis??

When i say people should have jobs, you seem to not understand that. Even you talking right now, if you were not fit enough, or you were in a country where there was insecurity and hunger, i dont think you would be replying to me.. for people to be thinking about voting, they should have something to eat first. That need has to be satisfied... people need jobs to support themselves.. under saddam they at least had jobs and America should create the same stablity before leaving...

you cant tell me violence is being committed by all Iraqis.. not even half.. Most Iraqis have even helping the American military to do their job. Maybe you have also never imagine of what will happen if America leaves.. maybe you never care about that.. The bush administration has at least considered that.

I did not say "you can attack just because you want." You can attack because the party you are attacking attacked you or someone else. this is what you said and if that was true, Iraq never attacked America and that is the first point. They attack Kuwait which is a neigboring country and the whole world fought them on that.. America under Bush senior did a great job in that.. now you even making my point that America has always fought for freedom.. They freed the Kuwait people. you whole point about Afghanistan is not true. we have a peaceful afghanistan today compared to what we had during the taliban time and thanks to the US. The Alqaeda is less powerful now because they are hiding and since the bombing nobody is even sure if Osama is still alive... no new tape or him and nothing.

i NEVER said saddam was not an enemy to the Iraqis people. I said the Iraqis people are innoncents and they are not America's enemies.

you seem not to making point.. you want America to leave and what are you solvig at the end of day.. because in a debate, you have to be doing something and you cant just say what you feel and keep quiet.. you are not solving anything. you want the military to go back and then what?? what have you done so far...

Thanks.. I believe America should restore security, peace before leaving..."

Round 5
Ragnar_Rahl: "If you mean by "foreign observers" people to report on the election, then we had those during the election. Reporters from the US are plentiful in Iraq, and many parties kept watch on it.

I did answer the question of why many Iraqis chose not to vote (even though the majority did vote, proof that voting was not impossible regardless of conditions). The Sunnis dislike the idea of democracy, therefore they did not vote. Simple.

See http://www.census.gov... for evidence that only 64 percent of eligible Americans voted in the 2004 election. That means MILLIONS did not.

Campaigning has more to do with misinformation than real information, for example Mike Huckabee advertises an opposition to taxes despite having raised them many times as governor. Besides, simply because Iraqis don't campaignt the same way we do doesn't mean they don't campaign. See all the graffiti on the walls there? That's a political campaign. Probably about as informative as the average US campaign too.

By the way, the voter turnout in Iraq's last election was 58%. The voter turnout in France's last election was 59.9%. So whatever your protests, the French did about the same as the Iraqis in that regard.

People are not starving widely in Iraq it seems (mainly due to subsidies I'm sure) whatever their joblessness. Besides, unemployed people have MORE reason to go to the polls than those who are employed- they hope to fix the problems that elections supposedly fix in order to get a job. America cannot fix the unemployment rate in Iraq anyway unless all of a sudden attacks stop, in which case our corporations will probably be glad to step in to the fresh new market with jobs. It is incumbent upon Iraqis to make this happen, the US can't, and indeed our presence makes it less likely.

I did not say violence was being directly committed by all Iraqis. However, most Iraqis don't seem to be doing anything about it. Nobody snitches when someone plants an IED for example, despite the fact that this has to occur in pretty plain view. If you passively accept your neighbors' violent actions and do not attempt to stop them, you have no business asking someone else to.

Up till now you never said anything about America fighting for "freedom." You said they fought for democracy. There is a difference. So no, I was not making your point. And they fought in Kuwait to preserve, not Kuwait's freedom alone, but America's freedom- because America had roughly free trade with Kuwait and wished to preserve it. America's freedom, not Kuwait's, was the motive. Kuwait's was a side effect.

I don't know where you are getting this data on a "peaceful Afghanistan." The news doesn't support it, Wikipedia doesn't support it, human rights groups would laugh at the idea. Al Qaeda might be less powerful in Afghanistan, but they are gaining ground in other places (and by the way several new tapes of Osama's existence have been released to news agencies since the invasion, and CIA itelligence leaks report a sheik granting his request for permission to kill up to 3 million Americans in a nuclear attack at any time.)

I thought I made clear why the military should leave- our presence cannot secure Iraq, and we have no business doing so when that aids our enemies. Leave the problem on Iran's doorstep, and they'll be too busy with that to pose a threat to us."

iamsano: "Thank you and yeah it is time to summarize everything and also make a comparative analysis of both side...

Ok on my foreign observers in Iraq, you said we have Americans there doing that. I told you 25 people died during the election day and you never said something about that. You have less people voting and the only thing you said was that people chose not to vote and you didnt give me any reason for that.

Oh the sunnis dislike democracy and that was why they didnot vote... wrong analysis my dear... In Iraq you have the shiites, the sunnis, the kurds and the problem is these people are not united under the statusquo because each tribe or race is trying to have the lead. The UN sent representatives to see the situation and to report too. Ony 64% voted in 2004 in America but you really forgot about under age people too. You have millions of children who cant vote and maybe you have not thought about that. Majority of people who register voted and of course you will never have a 100% record in any election but we need the majority to be able to vote in a safe situation.

Campaigning has more to do with misinformation but it is necessary and you cant deny that. Leaders need to do it in order to let people know what they are capable of doing. You cant say that campaiging is wrong..

hey dont give wrong information please... the voters turnout in France was 85% that is estimated at 44.5 million registered voters.Sarcozy won with 53.3. percent while the opposition ended 46.7 percent. check out http://www.nytimes.com...

Maybe you never understand when i say that America has always gone for freedom and democrcy. I meant America has always asked non democratic countries to be democratic. I gave you the example of Burma and you seem to not know about it. I gave you the example for East Timor and still nothing from you. You kept talking about Afghanistan and yeah I can say you don't much about it. During the Taliban time, men were forced to have long beard for instance or be executed, women were denied education or public appearance. We had human right abuses and no systems in place. And today they have a government, they have constitutions and laws are there to protect the people. The country might not be 100 percent perfect now but it is far better than the taliban's time. It is no more a home for terrorists as it used to be.

It is good America went to Kuwait for its own interest but they at least did something to free the Kuwaitis from the Iraqis.. that is freedom. They have brought democracy to Afghanistan and yeah maybe not yet perfect but they are on the process.

They are on the process to bring democracy to Iraq too and that shows that they are for democracy as I said earlier. Al-qaeda is gaining ground in other places and where are those places??? Never mentioned. The only place they can now have power is Iraq and that is if America leaves now. That will be an opportunity for them to recruit people in iraq and misled them by showing them that America is bad and so on. That is what alqaeda does and they will have better prove to show to the Iraqis that America is bad by just telling them that their country has been destroyed and left out without doing anything.

Hahahha you talking about Osama tape, we have had more than 10 tapes of Osama and we never see his new image.. it is all about old ones and of course nobody has given up fighting him but it shows that even if he exists he is powerless.

To conclude I am gonna show on what ground you failed this debate.

1-You said America should leave because they have no business there and it is ok to just attack an enemy and leave. You also said it is ok for Iraqis people to kill themselves but I have shown you that the Iraqis people are not America's enemies. I have also shown you America have something to do there because they need to restore peace and security before leaving. Saddam and his government have been removed and that has been good. Iraq has been destroyed and that is bad. As I mentioned I am not saying America should be there forever, but this is Not the right time to leave.

2-Secondly, you have never talked about how do you expect Iraq to be when America withdraws now?? You have never cared about that. Iraq now has so many problems and once the US leaves, it will be chaos and everyone will try to get at the top. I believe the withdrawal should be done gradually. 3-I also talked about the credibility of America and you seem to never care about that. The soldiers are doing their best there and the only reason and we have seen them doing everything to restore peace. We have seen them fighting against the terrorist groups there. They are training the Iraqis national army and that is a good thing. 4-You have not also shown how leaving will not affect America in the long run. You said they will be busy killing themselves.. that is non sense.. they will forming terrorists and fight against America at the end. You will then give bigger opportunity to alqaeda and we don't want that.

Leaving now is like you can not go into reverse when your car is already going forward at 60 mph. You could put the brakes on and wait for the car to slow down before going into reverse, but if you slam the brakes too quickly, the car behind you might hit you. So it is with the Iraq War: We need to put on our brakes and eventually go in reverse and allow Iraq to be a sovereign nation, but leaving too soon could be a cure that is worse than the disease. I never supprted the war in the first place, but we have to go with the fact now.

Thank you and i really appreciate debating with you. Sorry if i have offended you.. I am a learner... Thank you"