The US Should Withdraw From Iraq

[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 War

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

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

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.