The US Should Withdraw From Iraq

[GrassRootPolitician]

If the US was to withdraw from Iraq would not make us a coward, but we would be saving our own troopers lives, and sending more troops to other parts of the world is stupid and senseless. The IRAQ war should of never happened in the beginning. This was suppose to have been a conflict when Bush first decided to go after Saddam, AND after no WMD was discovered in Iraq plus the WTC incident....here we are stuck in IRAQ. BRING THE TROOPS HOME

[DemandCurve]

I don't think I can disagree with you there.

Bush is just plain stupid.

[GrassRootPolitician]

I always thought that the President was suppose to watch over the best interest of the American citizens, and for me to see how American citizens is allowing this Bushwhacker to focus ONLY on IRAQ is a strange piece of dumb
Bull****. Can ANYONE from ANY political party explain to me Bush's point he's trying to make? As far as Iran is concerned We need to stay out of that crisis. Holy Wars between the holy n christian nations in the middle east has
been going on before Christ, and who does Bush think he is....another Son of GOD? It makes me want to throw up on my television screen everytime I see Alfred E. Neuman (Bush), and I guess his dumb*** grin is a sign of victory huh? This WAR is turning people global wide against America, and those that is allowed to enter this country will live seven 7 years tax free.

[Vlad]

Although presidents SHOULD act upon the best interest of the American citizens, some don't. It's sad how we chose this person as our president. The Republicans are definitely going to pay for it in the 2008 election.

[MarkVI]

The President is the people's representative of the United States. He is OUR voice in the world view, he is us, in a sense.

Too bad he isn't even close to encompassing what the citizens want and who we are.

[GrassRootPolitician]

The President is the people's representative of the United States. He is OUR voice in the world view, he is us, in a sense.

Too bad he isn't even close to encompassing what the citizens want and who we are.

Hot Damn MARKVI your post told the truth, and I must add my 2 cents...Bush can't talk so he's not my voice:D But well stated Mark

[USMC the Almighty]

THE TROOPS HOME

WE DON'T WANT TO GO HOME! I'm so sick and tired of people who aren't military, haven't even been to Iraq (or outside the GZ) and think they know what's going on. GrassRoot, what makes you believe that you have the slightest idea of what's going on there. Having just returned from my second tour in Iraq as a United States Marine, I think I have a little bit better of an idea of what's happening then you do.

We are accomplishing things. We are making progress. Guerilla wars take an average 8-11 years. Patience.

[InterestedParty]

The man has spoken.

I challenge any one of you to open a dialogue with USMC and see why he feels the way he does, with an open mind.

If you truly care about what is in the best interest of our country you will do so.

I find it ironic that there are people who claim to have all of this support and concern for our men and women in uniform and demand a withdrawl from Iraq. Yet, when these men and women speakup and give their opinion all of the support stops when it goes against the persons POLITICAL beliefs.

Either you support the troops and their mission or you don't. Call a spade a spade instead of using smoke and mirrors to further your political agenda.

[USMC the Almighty]

The man has spoken.

I challenge any one of you to open a dialogue with USMC and see why he feels the way he does, with an open mind.

If you truly care about what is in the best interest of our country you will do so.

Anyone who promises to have an open mind and actually listen to the facts and experiences from a jarhead on the ground.

I find it ironic that there are people who claim to have all of this support and concern for our men and women in uniform and demand a withdrawl from Iraq. Yet, when these men and women speakup and give their opinion all of the support stops when it goes against the persons POLITICAL beliefs.

Either you support the troops and their mission or you don't. Call a spade a spade instead of using smoke and mirrors to further your political agenda.

Well said, and thank you sir. I also believe that it is extremely difficult (though not impossible) to support the troops and not the mission.

It's politics.

Semper fi.

[InterestedParty]

Not a sir, but that is alright. ;)

Anyways, I beg to differ. It *is* impossible to support the troops and not the mission. Unless of course if the mission is to be defeated. You either support the eventual victory of our mission in Iraq or you don't. You can not have it both ways. In other words, how can it be possible to support the troops and not support victory?

I have a question for you USMC. Based on your experience, if we start pulling troops out of Iraq before it is relatively stable are we putting our men and women still on the ground in Iraq in more jeopardy by thinning out the troops?

Also, what affect is all of this controversy here in the States having on the morale of the troops in Iraq? What do they say? If you could give one message to us here on this message board about what it is we could do to assist the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would it be?

[USMC the Almighty]

Not a sir, but that is alright. ;)

My apologies ma'am.

Anyways, I beg to differ. It *is* impossible to support the troops and not the mission. Unless of course if the mission is to be defeated. You either support the eventual victory of our mission in Iraq or you don't. You can not have it both ways. In other words, how can it be possible to support the troops and not support victory?

You're right, it does seem that if you don't support victory and support the troops succeeding in their mission, then how can you support them? However, I have seen a few examples where people (such as my grandmother) do not believe that the war is just, however, each week she uses around 25% of her Social Security check to buy and send us supplies, care packagesl and the like. She wants us to win, and prays every night that we do, but doesn't think we should have been there in the first place.

I disagree with her on that last segment, but I would still classify this as "supporting" us, even though she disagrees with the pretenses we went there under.

I have a question for you USMC. Based on your experience, if we start pulling troops out of Iraq before it is relatively stable are we putting our men and women still on the ground in Iraq in more jeopardy by thinning out the troops?

Oh, without question. If we're not going to commit fully to this fight (I believe we need even more troops) then we need to immediately withdraw 100% of our forces. Any strategy that resembles the "Vietnamization" right now would be disastrous not only for our military and its morale, but for the morale of the majority of Iraqis who were liberated by us and then would come under Sharia law.

Now, that's not to say that someday we won't be able to begin turning the country over to the Iraqis and begin to subsitute troops with advisors, but right now, that day seems like a long time away. There is still a lot of pacifying and securing that needs to occur before we see that day.

Also, what affect is all of this controversy here in the States having on the morale of the troops in Iraq? What do they say? If you could give one message to us here on this message board about what it is we could do to assist the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would it be?

I think you know the answer to this. Most of us believe in the mission, believe that we are not only securing Iraqi and Middle Eastern interests, but also American ones. We are certainly disheartened when we see all of the pessimism surrounding our accomplishments and missions. The number one issue the troops have with this war is how the media is misrepresenting (they call it "reporting") this war. The American public is not getting an accurate picture.

In terms of the best way to support us, I would just say to support us in anyway you feel is appropriate: fly American flags, put stickers on your car, send us packages/letters/notes, etc. Not to say at all that if you don't do these things that you aren't supporting us, but these are some tangible ways you could show your support and appreciation.

Every soldier, Marine, airman, sailor, and guardsmen has a different opinion of what "support" is, however, this Marine believes that you can support the troops by standing up for us and this war in discussions. Don't let the obnoxiously vocal anti-war crowd be the only ones who utilize their First Amendment. After all, that's what I'm fighting for.

Semper fi!

[saggyjones]

WE DON'T WANT TO GO HOME! I'm so sick and tired of people who aren't military, haven't even been to Iraq (or outside the GZ) and think they know what's going on. GrassRoot, what makes you believe that you have the slightest idea of what's going on there. Having just returned from my second tour in Iraq as a United States Marine, I think I have a little bit better of an idea of what's happening then you do.

I beg to differ.

A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq — and soon.

Only 23 percent [of troops] backed Mr. Bush’s position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately."

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/28/bushvstroops/

This poll was taken almost a year ago, and we still haven't pulled out. Think of the troops opinions now!

We are accomplishing things.

Such as?

We are making progress.

Again, any examples of progress?

Guerilla wars take an average 8-11 years. Patience.

I will have more patience once I stop hearing about people dying and once we stop spending billions a day on something that is completely pointless.

[InterestedParty]

You have no way of knowing what the troops opinions are saggy.

You are basing your opinion on a poll that could be manipulated to bring about any result that the pollster wants to achieve. Just because it says what you want it to say does not mean it is factual.

You are also using a far left wing website to justify facts that are clearly biased.

Drop the bias.

You have a soldier here that has served two terms on the ground in Iraq. *IF* you truly care about what is in the best interest of our country you will converse with him and you will listen to what he has to say.

If after conversing with him with an open mind you still come to the same conclusions than so be it. Behaving extremely in one direction or the other is not going to accomplish anything.

Bottom line is our men and women are in Iraq representing our country and they are not leaving any time soon. The question becomes, are you going to support them in their mission or do you want them to fail?

[USMC the Almighty]

First, the conditions the poll was conducted under are comical. Of course every sailor, Marine, airmen, and solider wants to leave. No one wants to die there.

Personally, I have my own qualms with how the war is being handled (too PC, too sensitive, not aggressive enough, too much media attention and clearance, the ROE are all out of whack, commanders focusing on political matters instead of military ones, etc.) You won't find a single troop in any war, ever who believed that the conflict they were engaged in was being executed to perfection. However, this doesn't mean that we are against the war.

We know better than anyone the type of people that we are fighting and thus, we know the consequences of surrender better than anyone (especially you). We are fighting radical terrorists who don't care about civilian casualties (on either end) and are only concerned with attaining their martyrdom.

It's wildly narrow-minded of you to take this "poll" force-fed to you by one of your far-left propaganda websites (yes, I am intentionally using language that you liberals use to describe Conservatives and gov't) and look at it as gospel. What ever happened to your liberal doctrines of "question everything" and all that other nonsense that you guys spew to make yourselves feel sophisitcated?

Again, any examples of progress?

We have installed a new, democratic government. There have been elections. The number of attacks per day are down. We have turned over 3 provinces to the Iraqi Police Force which continues to make progress each day. The port of Umm Qsar has reopened.

Most importantly, we have al Qaeda on the run. Bin Laden's truce offer, Zarqawi's death, the deaths of dozens of high ranking al Qaeda terrorists:

Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has ordered a withdrawal to Diyala province, north and east of Baghdad (the same province where Zarqawi got intimate with some F-16 delivered ordnance).

Masri's evacuation order said that remaining in Baghdad is a no-win situation for al-Qaeda because the Fallujah campaign demonstrated that Americans have learned how to prevail in urban warfare in such an environment. The intelligence officer was quoted as saying "In more than 10 years of reading al-Qaeda intercepts, I've never seen [pessimistic] language like this.”

Al-Qaeda's leaving Baghdad will give the Iraqi government (with American help) a chance to assert control in contested neighborhoods, which will make it difficult for al-Qaeda to re-build its terrorist cells in Baghdad. And because the media focuses on Baghdad more than anywhere else al-Qaeda will be retreating from center stage.

Furthermore, the radical cleric al-Sadr, whose Iranian-funded militia, the Mahdi army, is responsible for the assaults on Sunnis, is cooling his rhetoric and lowering his profile following Bush’s intended plans to raise troop levels. Mahdi army militia members have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad in advance of the arrival of U.S. reinforcements, further exemplifying the positive results the surge is already producing.


Iraq's economy is surging (2006 Iraq index)

-- Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.
Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.

-- Actionable tips from Iraqis have increased every month this year. In January, 4,025 tips were received; February, 4,235; and March, 4,578.

-- On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

-- Crude oil production reached 2.14 million barrels a day (MBD) in April of this year. It had dropped to 0.3 MBD in May of 2003.

-- Revenues from oil export have only slightly increased from pre-war levels of $0.2 billion, to $0.62 billion in April.

-- Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts, and was originally expected to be met in 2004.

-- The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.

-- The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

-- Iraqi military casualties were 201 in April of 2006, after peaking at 304 in July of 2005.

-- As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.

-- Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

-- As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.

-- Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

-- In May of 2003, Iraqi Security Forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.

-- The breakdown of foreign terrorists by country of origin is interesting. The largest number come from Algeria, at 20%. The next two countries are Syria and Yemen, at 18% and 17%, respectively.

-- The number of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq was estimated at between 300 and 500 in January 2004. That number increased in April of this year, to between 700 and 2,000.

-- From May 2003 and April 2006, between 1,000 and 3,000 anti-Iraqi forces have been killed each month.

-- There is plenty to pleased about here, and much progress for the mainstream media and the left to ignore.


...I've got plenty more.

I will have more patience once I stop hearing about people dying and once we stop spending billions a day on something that is completely pointless.

It's not going to happen. You can't fight a war for free. Wars cost money, both in blood and capital. Freedom isn't free.

[USMC the Almighty]

You have no way of knowing what the troops opinions are saggy.

You are basing your opinion on a poll that could be manipulated to bring about any result that the pollster wants to achieve. Just because it says what you want it to say does not mean it is factual.

You are also using a far left wing website to justify facts that are clearly biased.

Drop the bias.

Exactly. I actually laughed out loud to myself when I read where he said "I beg to differ." Like he has any clue of what it looks like over there.

You have a soldier [MARINE] here that has served two terms on the ground in Iraq. *IF* you truly care about what is in the best interest of our country you will converse with him and you will listen to what he has to say.

Bottom line is our men and women are in Iraq representing our country and they are not leaving any time soon. The question becomes, are you going to support them in their mission or do you want them to fail?

Right. Saggy, do you want us to win in Iraq? Don't give me any BS, long-winded, general answer. It's a very simple question. Give me the courtesy of a simple answer.

[saggyjones]

You have no way of knowing what the troops opinions are saggy.

You are basing your opinion on a poll that could be manipulated to bring about any result that the pollster wants to achieve. Just because it says what you want it to say does not mean it is factual.

You are also using a far left wing website to justify facts that are clearly biased.

That's a Zogby poll, which is completely unbiased. I just got the link from the liberal website. Here's a link to the zogby site:

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Drop the bias.

If I wasn't biased why would I be on a political forum?

You have a soldier here that has served two terms on the ground in Iraq. *IF* you truly care about what is in the best interest of our country you will converse with him and you will listen to what he has to say.

Just because I don't agree with him doesn't mean I'm not conversing with him. I listened to what he said and I refuted his claim that all the troops want to come home.

If after conversing with him with an open mind you still come to the same conclusions than so be it.

This is a debate forum. If I have a different view from someone I'm going to say it, and I'll provide evidence backing up my view. I do have an open mind, and I am willing to listen to USMC. Once again, different opinions don't signify a closed mind.

Behaving extremely in one direction or the other is not going to accomplish anything.

Behaving in one direction? What the hell are you talking about? I simply have an opinion that I stated, what's the problem?

Bottom line is our men and women are in Iraq representing our country and they are not leaving any time soon. The question becomes, are you going to support them in their mission or do you want them to fail?

Not supporting a mission doesn't mean I want the troops to die, it means I don't want them to go on the mission at all. Also, please provide some examples of how they are doing a good thing in Iraq right now.

[saggyjones]

Personally, I have my own qualms with how the war is being handled (too PC, too sensitive, not aggressive enough, too much media attention and clearance, the ROE are all out of whack, commanders focusing on political matters instead of military ones, etc.) You won't find a single troop in any war, ever who believed that the conflict they were engaged in was being executed to perfection. However, this doesn't mean that we are against the war.

I agree.

We know better than anyone the type of people that we are fighting and thus, we know the consequences of surrender better than anyone (especially you). We are fighting radical terrorists who don't care about civilian casualties (on either end) and are only concerned with attaining their martyrdom.

I agree with this also.

It's wildly narrow-minded of you to take this "poll" force-fed to you by one of your far-left propaganda websites (yes, I am intentionally using language that you liberals use to describe Conservatives and gov't) and look at it as gospel.

It's actually a zogby poll, which is completely unbiased.

What ever happened to your liberal doctrines of "question everything" and all that other nonsense that you guys spew to make yourselves feel sophisitcated?

This makes no sense. Of course I'm not going to question a zogby poll, it's as big as gallup. If that poll wasn't trustworthy I'm pretty sure someone would have called them out.

By the way personal attacks take away from your argument, so I would suggest not using them. Do what you want though.

We have installed a new, democratic government. There have been elections. The number of attacks per day are down. We have turned over 3 provinces to the Iraqi Police Force which continues to make progress each day. The port of Umm Qsar has reopened.

Most importantly, we have al Qaeda on the run. Bin Laden's truce offer, Zarqawi's death, the deaths of dozens of high ranking al Qaeda terrorists:

Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has ordered a withdrawal to Diyala province, north and east of Baghdad (the same province where Zarqawi got intimate with some F-16 delivered ordnance).

Masri's evacuation order said that remaining in Baghdad is a no-win situation for al-Qaeda because the Fallujah campaign demonstrated that Americans have learned how to prevail in urban warfare in such an environment. The intelligence officer was quoted as saying "In more than 10 years of reading al-Qaeda intercepts, I've never seen [pessimistic] language like this.”

Al-Qaeda's leaving Baghdad will give the Iraqi government (with American help) a chance to assert control in contested neighborhoods, which will make it difficult for al-Qaeda to re-build its terrorist cells in Baghdad. And because the media focuses on Baghdad more than anywhere else al-Qaeda will be retreating from center stage.

Furthermore, the radical cleric al-Sadr, whose Iranian-funded militia, the Mahdi army, is responsible for the assaults on Sunnis, is cooling his rhetoric and lowering his profile following Bush’s intended plans to raise troop levels. Mahdi army militia members have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints in an apparent effort to lower their profile in Baghdad in advance of the arrival of U.S. reinforcements, further exemplifying the positive results the surge is already producing.


Iraq's economy is surging (2006 Iraq index)

-- Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.
Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.

-- Actionable tips from Iraqis have increased every month this year. In January, 4,025 tips were received; February, 4,235; and March, 4,578.

-- On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

-- Crude oil production reached 2.14 million barrels a day (MBD) in April of this year. It had dropped to 0.3 MBD in May of 2003.

-- Revenues from oil export have only slightly increased from pre-war levels of $0.2 billion, to $0.62 billion in April.

-- Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts, and was originally expected to be met in 2004.

-- The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.

-- The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

-- Iraqi military casualties were 201 in April of 2006, after peaking at 304 in July of 2005.

-- As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.

-- Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

-- As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.

-- Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

-- In May of 2003, Iraqi Security Forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.

-- The breakdown of foreign terrorists by country of origin is interesting. The largest number come from Algeria, at 20%. The next two countries are Syria and Yemen, at 18% and 17%, respectively.

-- The number of foreign terrorists fighting in Iraq was estimated at between 300 and 500 in January 2004. That number increased in April of this year, to between 700 and 2,000.

-- From May 2003 and April 2006, between 1,000 and 3,000 anti-Iraqi forces have been killed each month.

-- There is plenty to pleased about here, and much progress for the mainstream media and the left to ignore.


...I've got plenty more.

I agree that all this stuff is happening, and I support going in and taking out dictators like Saddam, but I believe we handled the war in the completely wrong way. And in our position we need to get out of Iraq and let them have a civil war, because most of our troops are simply keeping the peace and not really going of the offensive in Iraq right now. I'm not discrediting troops I'm simply saying that we are slowing down the natural civil war, and once that's over and there's one group in power we can help build a government to suit our needs. Since there are two groups that will not concede anything to the other side prolonging their conflict won't solve anything.

Also, I think we should go on the offensive against groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, not just in the Iraq but in the whole middle east rather than keeping our troops sitting around in Iraq not really doing much besides fighting insurgents who aren't a threat to our country.

It's not going to happen. You can't fight a war for free. Wars cost money, both in blood and capital. Freedom isn't free.

How is this war in Iraq protecting our freedom? If it's the freedom of the Iraqi people then we need to take my plan above, let them have their elections, and help build a government with political and economic power, not military.

[saggyjones]

Exactly. I actually laughed out loud to myself when I read where he said "I beg to differ." Like he has any clue of what it looks like over there.

I read a book called The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell by an infantryman named John Crawford. It gave me an idea of how sh***y it is over there and I respect you for having experienced it.

Right. Saggy, do you want us to win in Iraq? Don't give me any BS, long-winded, general answer. It's a very simple question. Give me the courtesy of a simple answer.

Fine, here's a simple answer. We can't win. Read my post above to see why because I'd rather not retype it.

[USMC the Almighty]

It's actually a zogby poll, which is completely unbiased.

First of all, there are a lot of question marks here. What branch were the troops from? Where were they stationed? Are they reserve? Did they even see combat? What kind of rankings did they have? Were they all from the same brigade?


I agree that all this stuff is happening, and I support going in and taking out dictators like Saddam, but I believe we handled the war in the completely wrong way.

I believe the war could've been handled differently as well. But hey, that's war.

And in our position we need to get out of Iraq and let them have a civil war, because most of our troops are simply keeping the peace and not really going of the offensive in Iraq right now. I'm not discrediting troops I'm simply saying that we are slowing down the natural civil war, and once that's over and there's one group in power we can help build a government to suit our needs. Since there are two groups that will not concede anything to the other side prolonging their conflict won't solve anything.

(a) How would you know what the troops are doing there? (b) I might be inclined to agree with you on the civil war argument. I mean, if anti-American Sunnis are killing anti-American Shi'ites -- how much sleep can you lose? But the problem is that this creates instability and instability is usually pacified by a dictator. We can't afford to have a tyrant like Iran's Ahmedenjad come in and take over the country or worse, a mullah rise to power. Remember, the Nazis didn't become dangerous until they took control of a country.

Also, I think we should go on the offensive against groups like Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, not just in the Iraq but in the whole middle east rather than keeping our troops sitting around in Iraq not really doing much besides fighting insurgents who aren't a threat to our country.

You're right. We cannot consider ourselves safe until we engage terrorists everywhere and establishing a "city upon a hill" -- a functioning democracy in the Middle East will provide an opportunity for this to happen. When civilians in other Muslim countries see Iraq's freedom, economic growth, technological advancements, social reforms, political legitimacy, and the like, they will be more likely to embrace it. Right now, those oppressed Arabs in other countries don't see democracy as the shining beacon that it is, and instead they are turning to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. As much as any other war, this is one of hearts and minds. And it starts by succeeding in Iraq.


How is this war in Iraq protecting our freedom? How much freedom do you think you'd enjoy under Islamic law? THAT'S how I'm protecting your freedoms. If we don't succeed in Iraq, it will embolden the terrorists, be used as propaganda that America is a "paper tiger" (bin Laden's words, not mine) and will actually create more terrorists. More terrorists = threat to your freedom.

[USMC the Almighty]

I read a book called The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell by an infantryman named John Crawford. It gave me an idea of how sh***y it is over there and I respect you for having experienced it. Psshh, grunts Just kidding. Thank you, sir.

Fine, here's a simple answer. We can't win. Read my post above to see why because I'd rather not retype it.

It is sentiment like this that demoralizes the American soldiers and Marines. We are on the ground, putting our lives on the line, working our asses off for people back home to tell us that we can't win. We can win -- establishing an Iraqi democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself is a victory for both the U.S. and Iraq.

[saggyjones]

It is sentiment like this that demoralizes the American soldiers and Marines. We are on the ground, putting our lives on the line, working our asses off for people back home to tell us that we can't win. We can win -- establishing an Iraqi democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself is a victory for both the U.S. and Iraq.

Well I'm sorry if it demoralizes the troops but I'm not going to let that stop me from voicing my opinion.

[saggyjones]

First of all, there are a lot of question marks here. What branch were the troops from? Where were they stationed? Are they reserve? Did they even see combat? What kind of rankings did they have? Were they all from the same brigade?

"Of the respondents [there were 944], 41 percent were in the regular Army, 25 percent were Marines, 17 percent were National Guard and 16 percent were Reserves. Forty-four percent said they were serving their second tour in Iraq, and about the same number said they had spent six to 12 months in Iraq."
http://www.zogby.com/templates/printsb.cfm?id=12734

I believe the war could've been handled differently as well. But hey, that's war.

And there's nothing we can do about it now.

(a) How would you know what the troops are doing there?

Unless every news channel is lying and the few books I've read about the war (including the one I mentioned) are false and the newspapers are also lying, I have an idea of what the troops in Iraq are doing.

(b) I might be inclined to agree with you on the civil war argument. I mean, if anti-American Sunnis are killing anti-American Shi'ites -- how much sleep can you lose? But the problem is that this creates instability and instability is usually pacified by a dictator. We can't afford to have a tyrant like Iran's Ahmedenjad come in and take over the country or worse, a mullah rise to power. Remember, the Nazis didn't become dangerous until they took control of a country.

That's why we need to use economic and political influence, not military power, to set up a free market. Some sort of representative government would follow the economic prosperity that has already started, as you mentioned.

You're right. We cannot consider ourselves safe until we engage terrorists everywhere and establishing a "city upon a hill" -- a functioning democracy in the Middle East will provide an opportunity for this to happen. When civilians in other Muslim countries see Iraq's freedom, economic growth, technological advancements, social reforms, political legitimacy, and the like, they will be more likely to embrace it. Right now, those oppressed Arabs in other countries don't see democracy as the shining beacon that it is, and instead they are turning to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. As much as any other war, this is one of hearts and minds. And it starts by succeeding in Iraq.

I agree, and this can be achieved with few troops at this point.

How much freedom do you think you'd enjoy under Islamic law? THAT'S how I'm protecting your freedoms. If we don't succeed in Iraq, it will embolden the terrorists, be used as propaganda that America is a "paper tiger" (bin Laden's words, not mine) and will actually create more terrorists. More terrorists = threat to your freedom.[/QUOTE]

Well I don't see our country being taken over by terrorists due to their lack of resources and manpower and weapons, and our massive military, etc., but terrorists attacks are still a threat. That's why we need to fight terrorists groups more like I said earlier. But the Iraqi insurgents aren't the same terrorists who attacked us, and they aren't even a threat to our home country, so I don't see how the war against Iraqi insurgents is protecting our freedom.

[InterestedParty]

Alright, I'll play along... Based on your poll and manipulating the poll to say something significant which is what the titleline of the article does using their 72% figure...... the poll also says....

72% of the troops polled *also* believe that fellow citizens back home are either unpatriotic, believe that the troops are not going to be successful and don't understand the need for the US troops in Iraq.

That tells me that 72% believe that we don't believe in them. Below is the paragraph I took the figures from. Did I manipulate it? You betcha. I did *exactly* what the person who put the title on that article did.

"The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq."

What else did the survey say? Here...

"A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency."

Please explain how 72% want us to leave and yet 53% believe we should double the number of troops? How does that fit with leaving within six months to a year?

The point I am trying to make is any poll can be manipulated and "editorialized" to have any desired effect.

[USMC the Almighty]

Alright, I'll play along... Based on your poll and manipulating the poll to say something significant which is what the titleline of the article does using their 72% figure...... the poll also says....

72% of the troops polled *also* believe that fellow citizens back home are either unpatriotic, believe that the troops are not going to be successful and don't understand the need for the US troops in Iraq.

That tells me that 72% believe that we don't believe in them. Below is the paragraph I took the figures from. Did I manipulate it? You betcha. I did *exactly* what the person who put the title on that article did.

"The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq."

What else did the survey say? Here...

"A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency."

Please explain how 72% want us to leave and yet 53% believe we should double the number of troops? How does that fit with leaving within six months to a year?

Bingo.

The point I am trying to make is any poll can be manipulated and "editorialized" to have any desired effect.

Right, and that's why I find it funny that she's taking the word of this distorted poll than a Marine on the ground.

[saggyjones]

Alright, I'll play along... Based on your poll and manipulating the poll to say something significant which is what the titleline of the article does using their 72% figure...... the poll also says....

72% of the troops polled *also* believe that fellow citizens back home are either unpatriotic, believe that the troops are not going to be successful and don't understand the need for the US troops in Iraq.

That tells me that 72% believe that we don't believe in them. Below is the paragraph I took the figures from. Did I manipulate it? You betcha. I did *exactly* what the person who put the title on that article did.

"The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq."

What else did the survey say? Here...

"A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency."

Please explain how 72% want us to leave and yet 53% believe we should double the number of troops? How does that fit with leaving within six months to a year?

The point I am trying to make is any poll can be manipulated and "editorialized" to have any desired effect.

It says that 72% wanted to end the war in 2006, and if that means sending more troops then so be it. You're right, the poll is manipulated, but not in the actual results, just in the way they are presented. But that still leaves 47% who don't think we should send more troops or bomb more, so not a large majority of troops think (or thought) we should stay. Also many of those who voted to send more troops have probably changed their minds because they wanted to end it by 2006 and it's past the "deadline."

[saggyjones]

Right, and that's why I find it funny that she's taking the word of this distorted poll than a Marine on the ground.

You're one person, and you don't represent very many people.

I'm not a woman btw.

[Archangelwolf]

You have a soldier [MARINE] here that has served two terms on the ground in Iraq. *IF* you truly care about what is in the best interest of our country you will converse with him and you will listen to what he has to say.

We can listen; by all means a Marine in Iraq should be able to voice their opinion if ANYBODY does. However, that still does not mean he is right.

Arch.

[Nammy]

You have a soldier [MARINE] here that has served two terms on the ground in Iraq. *IF* you truly care about what is in the best interest of our country you will converse with him and you will listen to what he has to say.

We can listen; by all means a Marine in Iraq should be able to voice their opinion if ANYBODY does. However, that still does not mean he is right.

Arch.

I don't think that anyone can disagree with that.

[Archangelwolf]

Again, I cite Dwight Eisenhower, who in '52 ran for President on a platform to bring troops home from an unpopular war.

All throughout Eisenhower's administration, the generals and military on several occasions were too quick to jump into going into war. Thank God cooler heads prevailed; and we stayed out of World War III.

There is a reason that the military has never had the final decision on when America goes to war. Thank God for our Constitution.

Arch.

[InterestedParty]

Again, I cite Dwight Eisenhower, who in '52 ran for President on a platform to bring troops home from an unpopular war.
Arch.

Let me repeat what I said in the other thread.

Eisenhower INTENTIONALLY LEFT up to 5000 of our men behind in North Korea and the USSR all because he wanted a "honorable armistice" with the North Koreans, Chinese and Russians. I should know, my Uncle was one of the soldiers left behind.

About the 5000 number figure-Read the section titled Investigation in Progress located at

http://aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

It is the Senate Select Committee website for POW/MIA's

Eisenhowers role as President during the Korean Conflict is located at

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/AMH...2/chapter8.htm

You will see page numbers for each secton. Scoll down to page 244 and 245.

Finally, read the testimony of Retired Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso to the Senate Select Committee on November 10, 1992 where he testifies that along with Eisenhower, he agrees to ignore and hide the fact that there were still known POW's alive and in the custody of the North Koreans and their allies.

Scroll down to Testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Phillip Corso, USA, Ret. about 3/4's of the way down the page.

http://www.aiipowmia.com/ssc/ssc49.html

And.... to put the icing on the cake, you should read about the
"sightings" of POW's decades after the Korean Conflict ended.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2fKorean%20War

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...2fKorean%20War

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...Dwight%20David

How about this;

House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Statement of Donna Downes Knox
Korean/Cold War Family Association of the Missing

http://www.aiipowmia.com/koreacw/knox.html


I could give you numerous links to access, but these should suffice.

Eisenhower was the worst example you could have used. You know, I can overlook the fact that you may not know history as well as you think you do. What I can't overlook is you elevating Eisenhower to some level of a example of glorious leadership who cared about the men serving in the military during his Presidency.

[USMC the Almighty]

We can listen; by all means a Marine in Iraq should be able to voice their opinion if ANYBODY does. However, that still does not mean he is right.

Arch.

It just means I'm more informed and have better first hand knowledge of what's going on. In addition, as a commissioned officer, I have access to classified intel.

[USMC the Almighty]

Again, I cite Dwight Eisenhower, who in '52 ran for President on a platform to bring troops home from an unpopular war.

All throughout Eisenhower's administration, the generals and military on several occasions were too quick to jump into going into war. Thank God cooler heads prevailed; and we stayed out of World War III.

There is a reason that the military has never had the final decision on when America goes to war. Thank God for our Constitution.

Arch.

In addition to Interested's great post, I'll again note the irony of you citing Eisenhower as he was also the president who first sent troops to Vietnam.

[marilynj55]

Of interest:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17270.htm

[Lilly Marlene]

I just now heard about (R) Christopher Shays' idea. He is a person who thinks we should stay in Iraq "until we get the job done", yet he is up for this: a plebiscite of Iraqis ...if 60% or more want us out, then we leave.

Should be a piece of cake, since 83% of Shi'ites and 90-something % of Sunnis want us to leave according to the most recent poll.