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

News Should we withdraw troops immediately?

  1. Immediate withdrawal of significant (>5%) troops

    13 vote(s)
  2. Withdrawal of troops based on timetable of achieved goals; those goals specifically identified

    15 vote(s)
  3. Gradual withdrawal of troops oiver a period of time (independent of achieved goals)

    12 vote(s)
  4. No promise of withdrawal of troops "until the job is done."

    17 vote(s)
  1. Nov 18, 2005 #1
    Take the poll.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 18, 2005 #2
    Sorry, some of the wording is poor.

    "No promise of withdrawal of troops "until the job is done"" basically means bush's position.

    Option one basically means Murtha's position.

    Two and three are in-between.
  4. Nov 18, 2005 #3
    Number 3, but I want a short time table.

    Murtha is more on 3 than he is on 1. he wants them out as soon as possible, but not so fast as to cause chaos.

    Number 1 would be the republican straw man resolution put up today.
  5. Nov 18, 2005 #4
    Yeah, I missed the similarities between 1 and 3. thanks.
  6. Nov 18, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We cant just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we dont leave, that means more casualties. I heard the toll is like over 2000 right now for US troops. Its like everyday I watch the news, and I see things like "2 Marines dead".

    Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?
  7. Nov 18, 2005 #6
    I support Murtha's position.

    I especially like the idea of having a rapid response force. We should be able to expand the base in Kuwait since they owe us.
  8. Nov 18, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    300,000 innocent civilians murdered.
  9. Nov 18, 2005 #8
    Could you provide a source for that claim?
  10. Nov 18, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There were no WMD and the whole "grave and gathering danger" excuse was manufactured, so why did we go?? Iraq had just signed large oil contracts with ,France, Germany, and Russia.

    As long as Bush is in office there is no way we are going to pull out without assuring that the bulk of the Iraqi oil will go to the USA.

    This is the nine jillionth time I have said this, but stop and think, would we
    have invaded Iraq if their only natural resourse was broccoli ??
  11. Nov 18, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I voted number two, but it does need to be clear that the US will get its troops out eventually, even if the goals aren't met. I don't particularly care what kind of government they end up with, but hardliners in the Iraqi government ought to be more pragmatic about their situation, rather than pushing for policies almost guaranteed to stir up ethnic conflict.
  12. Nov 18, 2005 #11
    I would qualify that to read:

    As long as the members of Cheney's energy task force get to remain in charge of the oil. I don't believe they care that much about America's energy problems. As long as they can keep up their record profits, they will sell the oil to the highest bidder.
  13. Nov 18, 2005 #12
    Capitalism cannot leave oil and money., Hiow will the rich brainwash the poior.
  14. Nov 18, 2005 #13
    oh, is that the excuse now? Show me in all the reporting back in 2002, where did Bush say "We have a moral necessity to get rid of Sadam because he killed hundreds of thousands of his citizens"

    the selective memory of Republicans is amazing.

    here are the reasons we went to war:
    1:The administration told us Sadam was creating a nuclear weapon
    2: The administration told us that Sadam was creating tons of nerve gas
    3:The administration told us he was actively consorting with terrorists

    Then we went in and found nothing... so it became about stopping injustice, the attack on the kurds in 88 (using US made nerve agent I might add), and now it is "we must stay the course". Tell me, what course is that? We are smacking our heads on a wall and Bush is telling us to keep doing so and eventually the wall will give way.
  15. Nov 18, 2005 #14
    I mean if US retracts from there, in first analysis, I think we, (meaning here Europeans), will suffer the rage of vengeance from the Irakii people...so if you could please stay there for a while, we would be more confident. It is clear, for obvious financial reasons, if it happens to be too expensive, nobody in the US will even take care of that possibility...By chance I don't have to choose betwen the different possbilities, and hope, thos responsible one, wont be forced to use nuclear power...(to be honest I think it's too late...but I don't know which side of the "wargame" has it...)
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2005
  16. Nov 19, 2005 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What’s wrong with cutting and running?

    I have argued that once we were committed to the war, we had to stay, but now I'm not so sure. I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided, and there are no good options, but maybe this is the best option?


  17. Nov 19, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Indeed. I remember him talking about the Iraqi people. You don't? Reread his speech from Oct 7, 2002:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html [Broken]

    No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  18. Nov 19, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Could you elaborate on that? Who would the combatants be and why would they start fighting?
  19. Nov 19, 2005 #18
    Can You Please Be More Explicit When You Type "the Job Is Done"...???
  20. Nov 19, 2005 #19
    I do not recall him discussing the iraqi people much until he needed to. I would also not bother to trust ANYTHING from the White House right now, or did you not hear about the McClellen rewrite of the press briefing transcript? Sure, it might be OK, but now that we see changing documents of record to fit their misinformation is not below them, I have to be skeptical of documents they publish.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  21. Nov 19, 2005 #20
    The moment that we went in there, a civil war was unavoidable. We cannot change how the Iraqi people feel about each other, and just like when Tito died, leaving the fate of Yugoslavia to what we see today, the toppling of Sadam will inevitable leave Iraq in a similar state of affairs.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook