Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Army General in Iraq rebuffs calls for pull-out

  1. Politicians

    3 vote(s)
  2. Our armed forces who are fighting in Iraq

    8 vote(s)
  1. Nov 18, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    Looks like one again, the democrats are trying to fight our military and demanding a surrender.

    Do we listen to politicians or our men and women fighting for freedoms you take for granted?
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 18, 2005 #2
    I don't know about that guy. It seems fairly odd that a Maj. Gen. would say not to pull out because his men would have died in vain and yet completely miss that if we don't pull out he'll just lose more.

    It seems that he's assuming that if you just stay then eventually you'll accomplish something and your (now higher) losses won't be "in vain".
  4. Nov 18, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Quiters never win, what can ya say. Our whole school system over here seems to be a failure yet i don't see any schools giving up and shutting down.
  5. Nov 18, 2005 #4
    No WMD. Saddam and the Baathists out of power. Iraq has a sovereign democratic government.

    Mission accomplished. All we are doing there now is making things worse.
  6. Nov 18, 2005 #5
    And your poll is a joke.
  7. Nov 18, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Basically the same as half the liberal polls... oh oh ok i get what your saying.
  8. Nov 18, 2005 #7
    Hi Pengwuino.

    I listen to the military. I notice that the politicians only changed their tone when they were pretty sure that the majority of US citizens wanted us out of Iraq. Disgusting.

    Yesterday (in the Wp thread) I quoted the military as saying that those left in Fallujah were "insurgents and their sympathizers."

    Seems to me some of those sympathizers probably had children.

    Seems to me the military is saying that they are comfortable targeting whoever was in fallujah, even if it meant children being subjected to WP..

    Do *you* listen to the military?

    Would you like a link to the thread/post?

    Thanks for the poll. In regards to Iraq, I doubt anyone here would listen to politicians over the military. Interpretation about what the military is saying, however, is bound to vary.
  9. Nov 18, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    patty... you do know in your heart that that is a HUGE logic jump don't you???
  10. Nov 18, 2005 #9
    I don't, no.

    I can't imagine the mental blocks needed to be put in place by aggressors, to allow the use of white phosphorous - by calling the remaining people in the city by the labels of "insurgents" and "their sympathizers." The blocks necessary to not recognize there are children (even if that recognition is only at a subconscious level). And those children are understandably present --- if they are the children of "sympathizers."

    At some point you have got to identify with the people you are maiming. Unless you wish to be a monster.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
  11. Nov 18, 2005 #10
    Not as huge a leap as calling the phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq "surrendering to terrorists" and "handing the country over to murderers".
  12. Nov 19, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, you completely misunderstand the mentality from which he is arguing. It's common for people who have never been in the military, though. It's the same as why Clinton completely lost the respect of the military when the US pulled out of Somalia after the "Blackhawk Down" thing. People just don't understand that those in the military really do value their mission and quitting without finishing is failure - even if it means more soldiers will die if they stay. For those in the military, keeping the casualty count down is secondary to completing the mission.

    Soldiers sometimes die, guys. They know it when they sign up for the job. They accept it and people should respect that they are willing to make that sacrifice to complete a mission.
    Lemme help you figure out the problem with that. Sometimes it is impossible to separate terrorists from their kids. Sometimes those terrorists even strap bombs on pre-teen kids and send them into restaraunts. The point is, it is the terrorist parents who are putting the kids in that situation, not the military fighting the terrorists.

    If you don't understand it when explained like that, flip it over and see how absurd it would sound: What if the American soldiers brought their kids with them? Who would you blame for the kids deaths if they did?

    And yes, I know many of them lived in Fallujah. But that does not excuse the parents from putting their kids in that situation. The US military would not have gone there if there weren't fighters there.
  13. Nov 19, 2005 #12
    What exactly is the mission?

    I thought we were after OBL and his terrorist organization.

    Has it been redefined now to defeat the Iraqi' insurgents that don't want a foreign power occupying their country?

    If completing the mission is the number one priority, the soldiers must feel disgrace for not being able to get OBL.

    Do they blame Bush for diverting assets from the hunt for OBL in order to invade Iraq?

    They completed the mission. I saw the banner on the aircraft carrier.

    Why does the administration keep moving the goal posts?

    This war is insane. There is nothing good going to come from us remaining there. Any good we could have done was squandered by the way the CPA conducted the occupation. Now our soldiers are targets for Iraqi wrath. Operations like the attack on Fallujah are not going to endear the Iraqi people to our soldiers.
  14. Nov 19, 2005 #13
    In addition to everything Skyhunter has said, 80% of the Iraqis have in a recent poll indicated that they want the coalition forces to leave. Being a cruel, unclever disinformation-teller is one thing, but being a cruel, unclever and thick-skinned disinformation-teller? Do you have any respect for other's SOVEREIGNTY? For god's sake, quit thinking about AMERICA AMERICA AMERICA all the time, learn to think about OTHERS!!

    reason of edit: fear of being banned.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2005
  15. Nov 19, 2005 #14
    But Russ, there weren't any terrorists in Fallujah. There were insurgents, and their sympathizers - according to the military.

    Why are you bringing terrorists into this?
  16. Nov 19, 2005 #15
    Additionally, it sounds like you are disturbingly comfortable with the idea of using WP in an area where children could be hit.

    It's their parents' fault after all, that the kids are there, so no point in trying to do the decent thing for the sake of the kids. Is that about right? And, if I understand, the justification for allowing the kids to be hit, is because those parents are such sickos for having the kids there in the first place.

    Would our soldiers bring their kids along to Iraq? No. Do our soldiers have their kids on bases in the US? Of course! So why don't you 'turn it around?'

    If Iraq invaded us, and was attacking our freedom fighters (insurgents, soldiers), would some American kids be present at those attacks? Yes. Some kids would remain on some bases, under some scenarios. You can't call the people in Fallujah heartless for having their kids present.Furthermore, using labels to de-humanize these fellow people is wrong.
  17. Nov 19, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

  18. Nov 19, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    I think what you actually mean is they want revenge.
    :confused: So is it the parents fault for living in Fallujah and raising their kids there? Or are you saying it is their fault for not overpowering the insurgents (notwithstanding the most powerful military in the world can't)? Or is it simply that because they don't like having their country occupied by foreign armies they and their children deserve to die?

    It will be interesting to see if you maintain this point of view (that being in the presence of ECs makes you a legitimate target) if terrorists detonate a bomb in a local restaurant in your town because a US soldier is having his dinner there.

    As Patty pointed out the war against terror spread to the war against insurgents and now it seems to the war against people who sympathise with the insurgents so from trying to kill one man (OBL) and his few hundred supporters it appears you now have several million to kill in Iraq alone and as the US's actions in Iraq are creating sympathy for the insurgents worldwide you'll be able to take your war global soon.
  19. Nov 19, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    To say otherwise would contradict his commander-in-chief.

    The lives lost since 2003 have been lost in vain - many because the US military was ill equipped despite Bush's claim that his administration was doing all it could to support the troops. It certainly wasn't.

    There was no occupation plan. The troops lacked proper armor. The intelligence was poor. And the CPA was relatively inept and incompetent.

    And the troops are not fighting for our freedoms - that is tired, old and false rhetoric from the Bush administration.
  20. Nov 19, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    No officer gets to be a general without "friends" in congress. It is the law that all promotions above Brigadier General have to be okayed by congress and an individual has to have someone to carry water for him if he is to beat out the competition.

    So while generals and other soldiers affect to be nonpartisan, for that is the US military tradition, in fact they are just as political as they can be.

    And to characterize a general's pronouncements as "our troops fighting in Iraq" or however Penguino put it, is the worst kind of slanting. It makes the poll worthless as an information gathering tool.
  21. Nov 19, 2005 #20
    Another thing that makes it difficult to know what "our troops" are saying, is the scripting, and embedding, that is going on. I have no good idea what the consensus opinion is, among people in the armed services. I don't trust reports like the recent casual talk Bush had with the troops, for obvious reasons (scripting.)

    For another example, there are troops that are killing themselves when they return home: http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20040316-040640-6755r due to emotional stress. Others kill themselves rather than return to battle: http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/202803.shtml
    Which soldiers exactly should we be listening to, to get an accurate assessment of how the war is going?

    Yes, I am cherry picking. So are the people who want to use military statements to bolster what a great thing this war is.

    I'm happy to listen to the military when deciding what we should do. I'd like to know that what I am hearing, is a fair assessment.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook