Reply #3: I would like to think not

[atreides1]

But to keep troops in harms way, because of the possibility of a civil war in Iraq isn't, at least to me, an acceptable excuse
to use against immediate withdrawal.

Whether we stay or leave there is still the chance of a civil war, and I don't see how allowing more US troops to die is going to stop that from happening.

The mentality of "we broke it, we should fix it" is also BS, we broke Vietnam and it wasn't until a few years ago that we even started trade with them, and we still haven't offered to "fix" what we broke.

Personally I believe in a controlled withdrawal, pulling units out a little at a time, but to be accomplished within 6 to 12 months.

Those that are against an immediate withdrawal, cannot rant and rave about how they won't let their children enlist, if they are willing to see US troops continue to die or to be wounded, then I would expect them to set the example by encouraging their children to enlist also.

I guess that some who are against immediate withdrawal do have a loved one in the service, and those men and women might be in Iraq.
To them, I salute you, you have principles and integrity. Knowing that your loved one is in harms way, and can become a casualty or a fatlity, to still insist on a slow withdrawal shows your convictions.