Quote Originally Posted by stroller View Post
^
Your graph still shows about 33% in favour of unilaterally invading, are there so many "hard-core nutcases" in the US?
And let's not forget that Bush got re-elected after his lies and deceptions.

The responsibility does morally lie with the US as a nation.

Finish what you started.
33% is hardly overwhelming support. And, yes, that group largely is largely evangelical Christian conservatives who would support the war no matter how badly it goes (which goes back to my point about this being a religious war more than a war on 'terorrists.')

Bush was re-elected because at that time more people were willing to give the benefit of the doubt (and mostly because Kerry was such a poor candidate). Now they are not and the recent election reflects this. The Democrats have not had a coherent platform/candidate since Clinton. So, Bush winning the election in 2004 really was more about the Democrats losing in failing to provide a suitable choice.

Are we morally obligated to continue funding and putting our troops in harm's way? No. It's time for the government of Iraq to step up to the plate and start assuming responsiblity if they wish to continue to govern (which hasn't happened a single day since the election...which is why the election was a hosejob to begin with).

There are no easy solutions. Pouring more American money and soldiers on the fire isn't going to put it out. I would argue that the chances of the situation improving are at this point likely better with us out of there than with us in there. As long as we stay and fund the mess the Iraqi government has no reason to assume any responsibility. And as long as we keep troops there we give good cause to the insurgents to keep fighting (not to mention being a great recruitment tool for more terrorists elsewhere).