Should we withdraw troops immediately?

[pattylou]

Take the poll.

 

[pattylou]

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.

 

[ComputerGeek]

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.

 

[pattylou]

Yeah, I missed the similarities between 1 and 3. thanks.

 

[ranger]

Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We can't just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we don't 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?

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

 

[Pengwuino]

Someone please remind me why did we go in the first place?

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

 

[Skyhunter]

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

Could you provide a source for that claim?

 

[edward]

Should we not stay there and fix the mess we started? We can't just go and mess someone's place up and then just walk out. But if we don't 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?

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 ??

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

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.

 

[flotsam]

Capitalism cannot leave oil and money., Hiow will the rich brainwash the poior.

 

[ComputerGeek]

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

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.

 

[kleinwolf]

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 between the different possbilities, and hope, thos responsible one, won't 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...)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

Everything that opponents of a pullout say would happen if the U.S. left Iraq is happening already, says retired Gen. William E. Odom, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. So why stay?

By William E. Odom

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this: [continued]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer.

From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1954, and received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970. [continued]

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86

 

[russ_watters]

the selective memory of Republicans is amazing.

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

No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided...

Could you elaborate on that? Who would the combatants be and why would they start fighting?

 

[kleinwolf]

Can You Please Be More Explicit When You Type "the Job Is Done"...?

 

[ComputerGeek]

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
No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.

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.

 

[ComputerGeek]

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?
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=about.viewcontributors&bioid=86

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.

 

[Art]

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
No, it wasn't his primary concern, but he did spend 4 paragraphs discussing the condition of the Iraqi people.

He mentioned them in passing as an example of how brutal Saddam was but apart from that the link you supplied is excellent as it encompasses just about every lie and misdirection the admin used to convince the american people of the supposed need for the attack on Iraq.

In fact if they were to indict Bush for misleading congress and the american people this would be a great reference document.

 

[Art]

300,000 innocent civilians murdered.

To reiterate another poster's request will you supply a source for this statement please?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

I say we stay there until everything is under control.. or until the terrorist actions have died down or been defeated... reason being; I view the world as a whole, i don't recognize nations and politics, it just blurs true perception. We need to work together as a people of Earth to take care of problems. Yes the administration made a blunder by going in on false claims (possibly... or did Saddam have a master plan? He is a bright guy you know) buttttt... now that we are there... we cannot cut and run. Iraqi's are humans, Americans are humans, we are Earthlings, we need to help each other... mistakes aside.

 

[Mercator]

I voted to stay. I am a pragmatist. It would be difficult to find someone more opposed to the invasion than me, but now that the damage is done, it would be even more irresponsible to leave the mess that is made for a powerless Iarqi government. The Iranians are already saliving. The world, and Europe in particular should get over it's outrage over Bush's mistake and think about the long term.

 

[Polly]

But the point is staying will not in anyway make a difference to what is inevitable, as very well expounded in Ivan's article. There is a Chinese saying, you cannot sustain a collapsing tidal wave.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, for now it seems to be an indefinite occupation.

As for Pengwuino's comment on the 300,000 Iraqis dying (many being killed) under Saddam Hussein, that is a number that has been oft repeated in the media.

Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI) provides information about the humanitarian situation in Iraq and its context. It aims to raise awareness of the effecs on Iraq of the sanctions which were in place until May 2003, and previously campaigned on humanitarian grounds for the lifting of non-military sanctions. CASI does not support or have ties to the government of Iraq.

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html
Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children from 1990 Through 1998: Assessing the Impact of the Gulf War and Economic Sanctions

http://www.casi.org.uk/

"Denial of Water to Iraqi Cities" discusses the apparent tactic of US troops to cut off the water supply of cities under attack.
"The Lancet Iraq Mortality Survey: The UK Government's Response Is Inaccurate and Misleading"

Perhaps the number of non-military (non-combats) killed by Saddam's regime will never be known. And likely the number of non-military (non-combats) killed by US and coalition forces will also never be known.

It would also seem that destruction of Iraq's infrastructure during the First Gulf War also has been a contributing factor to mortality of Iraqs civilian population.

I don't know at this point if WWIII can be avoided...

Very pessimistic statement. It is difficult to say how a full scale conflict would develop - the major powers have a vested interest in maintaining world trade and economics. Perhaps there will simply be an on-going 'asymmetric' conflict between those angry at the US and the US (and US allies).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Could you elaborate on that? Who would the combatants be and why would they start fighting?

In the middle east, the only certainty is chaos. I can probably imagine a hundred different scenarios in which the war evolves into full scale civil war, and as it has already done to some extent, spreads beyond the Iraqi borders. I had hoped that the bombing in Jordan would help to change hearts and minds in that so many innocent Muslims were killed, but in the end there are just too many people who hate the US and are willing to die in order to take us down. Now that Bush has lit the fuse - kicked the beehive - we can only wait and see where it leads.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

In the middle east, the only certainty is chaos. I can probably imagine a hundred different scenarios in which the war evolves into full scale civil war, and as it has already done to some extent, spreads beyond the Iraqi borders. I had hoped that the bombing in Jordan would help to change hearts and minds in that so many innocent Muslims were killed, but in the end there are just too many people who hate the US and are willing to die in order to take us down. Now that Bush has lit the fuse - kicked the beehive - we can only wait and see where it leads.

Right Ivan... it's a world problem, and shouldn't just be left to the Middle East, at some point in time, problems need to be dealt with. We're going to be here until a comet hits or aliens take over.lol.. we might as well start breaking down our barriers.. unfortunately, as Einstein would say, "humantics" get in the way, and we must war with each other... just like when you were a kid, you got in a fight with someone, then you made up with them and were "okay". This seems to be the only method that solves large scale , for lack of better terms, hatred in this world. Someone mentioned earlier, about looking at the longterm. That's the best way to look at it. We tend to, as humans, get lost in our emotions of the moment, and forget about using our logic clearly.

 

[Skyhunter]

I say we stay there until everything is under control.. or until the terrorist actions have died down or been defeated... reason being; I view the world as a whole, i don't recognize nations and politics, it just blurs true perception. We need to work together as a people of Earth to take care of problems. Yes the administration made a blunder by going in on false claims (possibly... or did Saddam have a master plan? He is a bright guy you know) buttttt... now that we are there... we cannot cut and run. Iraqi's are humans, Americans are humans, we are Earthlings, we need to help each other... mistakes aside.

As you mentioned in response to Ivan, it is a world problem.

Advanced communication has made the world a very small place.

We should have involved the world from the beginning. But as many here will argue, going that way leads to inaction. I personally believe that the threat of military force was sufficient to motivate not only Saddam Hussein, but the world community as well. Of course Bush had no intention of using the legitimate threat of military force as a powerful diplomatic tool. Once he had authorization he made the decision to invade. Discarding the tool.

Only a few nations, most notably Great Britain, offered any significant assets toward Bush's folly. As the Downing street memo points out, Great Britain was mainly concerned with the legality of participating.

As long as Bush is in power, it is an American problem. Few other nations are willing to help us.

I suggest we use the threat of pulling out, as a motivator to get the rest of the world to help out.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

Exactly, and it is amazing how Bush and his supporters defend the mess they’ve made.

Our presence only causes more instability, and prevents Iraqis from getting anywhere. The elections in December will mark a point when many troops should be removed. The insurgency will stop when there are no troops to attack. If the government is Islamic, so be it. If individual militias continue to compete with one another for power, let them try to work it out. If all hell breaks lose, then it can be readdressed as a UN peacekeeping effort.