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

Army is planning to maintain current U.S. troop levels in Iraq until 2010

  1. Oct 13, 2006 #1
    I hope they have a plan to get our troops out of there if necessary.:rolleyes: They are asking too much from too few for too long.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220816/
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 13, 2006 #2

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Soldiers from the post here in town are leaving this week - it will be the third tour for some of these folks.

    Better news the next week when some others from the post get back. Except that you usually seem to have two or three that wind up facing a trial for their conduct over there.

    I wonder what kind of reception the report from Baker's Iraq Study Group will get from Bush. Both options, talking to Syria and Iran about a regional solution to Iraq or 'Deploy and Contain', sound pretty far away from Bush's 'Stay the Course'.
     
  4. Oct 14, 2006 #3

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Why would the army even consider putting a date on their plans - why not say the US will occupy Iraq indefinitely. Does anyone think that on Dec 31, 2010, the violence will magically stop and Iraq will be a peaceful democratic society? Regardless of the merits, the US will be held responsible for the deaths of 10's or 100's of thousands of Iraqis, and not only the Iraqis, but many people outside the US will hold the US responsible. In the long run, the security of the US has been compromised simply by the act of one man and his ambition to go to war.
     
  5. Oct 14, 2006 #4

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    astronuc: I do!
     
  6. Oct 14, 2006 #5

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I very much want and hope that Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy. However, it is difficult to see that as an outcome given the current situation. I would like to see democracy happen without the carnage.
     
  7. Oct 14, 2006 #6

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That story has been mentioned in other threads - e.g. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=50169&page=3 , post#39.

    The number of 655,000 is based on a statistical sampling method, and its accuracy is not known. Other estimates are about an order of magnitude lower, ~60,000 or less, which is still a lot IMO. Certainly the Bush administration rejects such a high number. I wonder if we will ever know. :frown:

    Huge gaps in Iraq death estimates - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm
    Analysis
    By Paul Reynolds
    World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

    However -

     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2006
  8. Oct 14, 2006 #7
    There are a number of reasons why the count from the Iraqi Health ministry may be in question.

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0922-02.htm

    And earlier on in the war:

     
  9. Oct 15, 2006 #8
    this would explain the way things have paned out much better then a mission of stopping a WMD program or toppling an evil dictator.
     
  10. Oct 15, 2006 #9
    ??? What WMD program would that be??? How things panned out would have been the same regardless.
     
  11. Oct 16, 2006 #10
    if the main objective of going in iraq was to stop a WMD program, there would not be close to as much resistance in leaving after the program was concluded to be non-existent. if the idea was just to have a large force in the middle east, it would explain why the objective in iraq has changed from MWDs, to capturing saddam to fighting terrorism to a humanitarian cause of stabilizing the region with such ease.

    im not saying the us army should 'cut and run', im just saying that if WMDs were the goal, there would have been some plan to withdraw after completing that goal...or at least some change in action after that objective resolved
     
  12. Oct 16, 2006 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :rolleyes:

    If that isn't the worst euphemism I've ever seen. Humantiarian cause . . . at the point of a gun. :rolleyes:

    I have no doubt that Bush et al see their actions that way. Perhaps in some bizarre way that was the intent, and for the most part, the troops who are not engaged in combat do seem to helping the Iraqi people. However, the net effect of the invasion/occupation in Iraq, has been to distablize the area and turn it into a major war zone with a great loss of life (collateral damage to Rumsfeld).

    One cannot effectively promote democracy at the point of a gun.
     
  13. Oct 16, 2006 #12
  14. Oct 16, 2006 #13
    Oranges and Apples, Iraq didn't attack the USA.

    edit: Come to think of it, too bad the results in Iraq didn't turn out the way they did in Japan. We weren't trying to give Japan anything except a crushing defeat.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2006
  15. Oct 16, 2006 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Nevertheless, we did impose democracy at the point of a gun. We've also done similar things (if not democracy, imposing freedom or food or peace itself) in a number of other places - not to mention being lambasted for not doing it in others. Heck, this is America - have people forgotten how our country got started?

    The point being - it may sound like an oxymoron, but it is often both a valid and viable solution to problems. Whatever the circumstances, it is a fact that the US has successfully promoted democracy at the point of a gun in several circumstances.

    I really hate argument-by-one-liner. Life isn't that simple and pointing out things that are oxymorons at face value is never as clever as it first seems.
    We most certanly did have specific demands and place specific constraints on how their country was reconstituted.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2006
  16. Oct 16, 2006 #15

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Umm . . . genocide and ethnic cleansing of the native population. BTW, they were not invited to be part of the American democracy, nor were African Slaves and their decendants, nor were women, nor were poor whites. Basic rights and participation in the political process came as a result of struggle against the establishment (often considered the conservative establishment), e.g. abolition movement, women's suffrage, the civil rights struggle in the 1950's and 1960's.

    And many more failures. Also, it would appear that the US has supported many more dictatorships than democracies, e.g. Iran (Shah), Cuba (Batista, then Castro), Philippines (Marcos), Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile (Pinochet), Argentina . . . .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#History
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010306/
    http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3720724.stm
     
  17. Oct 16, 2006 #16

    Office_Shredder

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The reason it worked so much better in japan is because.... wait for it...

    Japan actually surrendered. Iraq clearly hasn't, either formally or in spirit.
     
  18. Oct 16, 2006 #17
    That was kinda my point before someone went of on a tangent about one liners.:rolleyes:

    We totally crushed Japan and that is what we will have to do to bring Democracy to Iraq. Lets face it ,at this point we don't care what kind of govenment Iraq has as long as we can maintain a military presence there.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2006
  19. Oct 17, 2006 #18

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    As for democracy in Iraq, I seem to remember that the US government had to approve of candidates. Now if the US government is deciding who can and cannot run for political office, that doesn't seem like democracy, which is something more than having the opportunity to vote.

    An indefinitely military presence and more or less control of government seems to preclude democracy and instead seems to indicate an Imperial occupation. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Oct 20, 2006 #19
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Army is planning to maintain current U.S. troop levels in Iraq until 2010
  1. 9000 U.S. Troops Dead? (Replies: 13)

Loading...