Should the President Pull Out the Troops?

[C'jais]

Definately not.

 

But even now, Bush is begging the UN to come in and save his roasted butt from this mess. If it does, I can see him trying to weasel his way out of the back door and blaming the UN for any and all subsequent mess-ups down there.

[ShadowTemplar]

The dubya admin announced the other day that the american troops will stay for another 18 months or so... Commendable. Stupid, but commendable.

[Kurgan]

There are pros and cons (as I see it) for pulling the troops out of Iraq.

 

Granted I'm going from the position of a private citizen without the intelligence data or military background but still, I do have an opinion.

 

 

If we pull out the troops, I predict that there will either be a civil war over control of Iraq, or at least the "puppets" we've appointed in positions of authority in Iraq will quickly either be assasinated, flee the country or be forced to resign in the face of angry mobs who don't want them in charge anymore.

 

Also, some US corporations will lose money. This MIGHT lead to higher gas prices in America, which would piss off a lot of people. Nobody likes to pay anymore for gas than they have to.

 

 

Then again, trading dead bodies for cheap gas isn't that great of a trade off, and lots of other countries face higher prices than we do, so perhaps we'd be forced to ban SUVs and exploit alternate fuel sources, more efficient cars, etc and the end result would be less pollution. Plus it would ultimately benefit farmers (ethanol production) and car manufacturers (including some US companies) in the long run.

 

 

Pulling out the troops means fewer sons and daughters of America have to come home in flag drapped coffins or with limbs missing. I "support our troops" but not in the way that I want them to die and die and be crippled for some far off country that doesn't want us there and doesn't show any signs of being a threat to our soil or being a cause worth dying for.

 

This means less money having to be spent on the troops over there, and it means more people in the work force at home. This could mean more job competition at home though (which could be bad for some people).

 

Less money spent on the "war" means more money to spend on other things, even if it's just recycled back into the military. But this "war on terror" was the reason (stated) for us going to war in the first place, so that money could be better spent on protecting our nation, rather than attacking countries that we now know were no threat to us (no WMD, and Osama Bin Laden isn't hiding there).

 

So for now, unless I see some credible evidence to shift me the other way, I am leaning towards pulling the US troops out of Iraq.

 

Mostly because I am so saddened by the numbers of people dying there every day, Americans AND Iraqis. I don't see us being stationed there is improving things.

 

My suggestion would be to let the UN handle it.

 

That might help stop the "civil war" scenario I mentioned above. Sure, we might end up with people in Iraq who don't want to be our best buddies, but at least it would cut down on some of the bloodshed from a civil war if we just let them fend for themselves. And if the situation remains the same, at least it would let countries pool their resources and perhaps come up with a better solution for Iraq, since we and our few allies have failed to come up with one, except just have our troops sit there forever getting shot, and every so often randomly beat up some Iraqis or blow up some stuff.

 

PS: Not that it matters one bit to the current situation, but I was against the war in Iraq from the start. I would have rather they let the weapons inspections continue and done some intelligence work to determine if the WMD thing was true or not. Since it ended up not being true, surely we would have found that out sooner or later. Thus we could have saved 900+ American lives, plus however many thousand Iraqi lives. Plus all the money we had spent on it.

 

Afgahnistan I think we had far more cause to go to war with than Iraq. But there again, what have we really accomplished? It's still a war zone, they still don't have democratic self rule do they? But at least we had a cause. Still, even in that cause I would have been in favor of surgical strikes and special forces, not an all out invasion like we did. Though the Taliban were much closer to "Osama's people" than Saddam.

 

 

So bring 'em (US Troops in Iraq) home...

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Pulling out the troops means fewer sons and daughters of America have to come home in flag drapped coffins or with limbs missing. I "support our troops" but not in the way that I want them to die and die and be crippled for some far off country that doesn't want us there and doesn't show any signs of being a threat to our soil or being a cause worth dying for.

 

From what I've heard the majority of Iraqis are pleased with the American presence and their help. I know someone serving over there and they have mentioned that more and more Iraqis are supporting America and very thankful for their intervention. I’ve also heard stories of soldiers who have returned from Iraq and have expressed their frustration with the negative image the American media has portrayed of the Iraq situation.

 

If anybody has a right to complain about the war, I think these people do, because they are the ones who have had to make all the sacrifices to defend America, not only in Iraq but all other countries abroad as well.

 

Basically, the negative Iraqi response shown on the media can be likened to the images the media showed of people in the middle-east celebrating over the destruction caused on 9/11. The media showed people dancing in the streets and celebrating but that didn’t represent the opinion of the majority of people over there. I remember seeing representatives making specific comments regarding those images and the fact that they did not reflect how everyone felt about the attacks.

 

Anyone on the civilian side of the war really only gets a limited perspective of the whole picture because there is a lot of information that just can’t be shared with the public for security reasons and other information can be withheld from public release by people who don’t want their networks, for example, to become avenues for their release. That doesn’t mean that that information isn’t out there, it just means that people might need to look farther than TV news for the whole story.

 

I think pulling out of Iraq at this point would be a bad idea. The Iraqi people were left relatively exposed by the US leaving in the early 90’s when the job wasn’t done. It wouldn’t be right to leave those people left open like that again.

[toms]

Originally posted by Noxrepere

Anyone on the civilian side of the war really only gets a limited perspective of the whole picture because there is a lot of information that just can’t be shared with the public for security reasons and other information can be withheld from public release by people who don’t want their networks, for example, to become avenues for their release. That doesn’t mean that that information isn’t out there, it just means that people might need to look farther than TV news for the whole story.

 

Maybe. But i would argue that anyone directly involved in a war is also unlikely to be getting the whole picture, as they will have a very limited point of view and limited interaction and impartiality. THe US media coverage of the war was a joke due tothe fact that the only media they had in the country were Imbedded reporters (genius move by the us army) who gave a great view of life amongst the troops, but hardly gave an impartial view of events. Every other country had impartial reporters in iraq and bagdad to give different views to the reporters they had with the troops. But checking various sources is always a good idea, as most media outlets bias their reporting one way or the other.

--

I'm sure a lot of iraqis are pleased to be rid of saddam. But i doubt many are keen on the americans who got rid of him (maybe unfair, but that is life). Additionally, although there was some fear and torture under saddam, the vast majority of the population didn't experience it directly and so could probably ignore it. Since the war they have come into much greater contact with violence, suffering and the colapse of their ecomony and basic services. So you have replaced a small number of very unhappy people with a larger number of fairly unhappy people.

--

You can't bring the troops home as it will create an even bigger power vacuum and lead to anarchy. You can't stay as it is causing more pain and trouble for both iraqis and americans. Your only option is to get someone else to take over the mess... but that still hardly seems fair on them...

[AzureAngel]

Actually from what Ive recently read alot(maybe not the majority) of Iraqis do not want us there. .EDIT: Most are greatful for taking down saddam Also being friends with a soldier he particularly didnt want to go to Iraq. Bush screwed up, ok! We all make mistakes but we dont all pay for it with other peoples blood. Your logic may seem good to you but not to those dead soldiers comming home. If we pull out from Iraq there will be a power vacum and a very high chance of a civil war. Now let me ask you this. Its not the same but similar enough. Did anybody stop us from civil war? I dont want to sound cynical but if they want to fight each other who are we to stop them.

 

If we leave yeah sure higher gas prices, so go build a solar powered car

[OB1 KNOB]

Originally posted by toms

Maybe. But i would argue that anyone directly involved in a war is also unlikely to be getting the whole picture, as they will have a very limited point of view and limited interaction and impartiality. .

 

I was talking more about the good things that are being accomplished over there and the direct benefits that the people of Iraq are receiving now. They can see the happiness and the hope these people have now. If that isn’t shown to anyone outside of those who see it for themselves, then they are not getting the whole picture.

 

Originally posted by toms

Every other country had impartial reporters in iraq and bagdad to give different views to the reporters they had with the troops. But checking various sources is always a good idea, as most media outlets bias their reporting one way or the other.

 

I'm not sure I understand. What would make them impartial if they're not imbedded with the troops? They would still have an opinion on the war.

 

 

Originally posted by toms

I'm sure a lot of iraqis are pleased to be rid of saddam. But i doubt many are keen on the americans who got rid of him (maybe unfair, but that is life). Additionally, although there was some fear and torture under saddam, the vast majority of the population didn't experience it directly and so could probably ignore it. Since the war they have come into much greater contact with violence, suffering and the colapse of their ecomony and basic services. So you have replaced a small number of very unhappy people with a larger number of fairly unhappy people..

 

I'm not sure about that. For example, I heard about a bridge that was in between Saddam's palace and his son's palace. When crossing this bridge, the Iraqi's weren't allowed to even look left or right, because to the left was one palace and to the right was the other. If they were caught looking either way they could be pulled aside and shot once they got to the end of the bridge. That would affect anyone and everyone who had to use that bridge.

 

Originally posted by AzureAngel

Actually from what Ive recently read alot(maybe not the majority) of Iraqis do not want us there.

 

That still depends on the source and who they talked to. If they go to an area that is specifically loyal to Saddam, they could make it look like people are dissatisfied even if there are more areas that support the liberation. I don’t doubt that there are some people upset over there, but who they are and what they have to gain if the troops were to pull out becomes an important factor. If a civil war is likely if the troops pull out, why would the Iraqi’s who disliked Saddam, and are seeking freedom, want the troops to leave? I think the Saddam loyalists would have the most to gain from that situation because they would have a greater likelihood of regaining power.

 

I know it was just an example, but the American Civil War was a war that Americans started. In this situation it would be a civil war that America helped start in another country and then abandon them to fight for themselves.

 

I agree that it is sad when soldiers are killed, and I never thought it wasn’t. However, you’re implying that all the soldiers who have died would consider the entire war a waste of effort. If they are fighting for something they believe in, then their sacrifices are not a waste.

[toms]

Soldiers do die in wars, and if they didn't then we would be having wars all the time. Also, soldiers don't get much choice in who or why they fight, it is part of the job. That is why it is up to the politicians and the people to ensure that they are used correctly. I would say that whether the soldiers felt it was worth it or not was irrelevant.

 

I also think that, assuming all the plans work out, the iraqi people will eventualy end up better off. But at the moment they are almost all worse off.

They have things blowing up around them, no money, no power, no water, no food, and large ammounts of civil unrest. Whether they eventually end up better off will probably depend on what happens with their government... but if it is seen as a puppet government sustained by US troops then it is destined to fail, and the likelyhood either way is that a fairly hardline religious government will end up in power. So the majority may well end up better off, but i'm not sure that will be an improvement as far as minorities and the US is concerned.

 

As for reporters, well no-one is totally imartial. But, for example, the BBC had reporteres in bagdad, reporters in the field with rebels, reporters with british and US troops, so you got a whole range of views which as a whole at least added up to something mostly impartial.

By getting reporters to eat, sleep, bond and live with it's troops the US army cunningly created a media climate where the reporters had both a limited view, and an understandable attachment to their comrades.... an interesting viewpoint, but hardly an impartial one.

[OB1 KNOB]

I would think that the Iraqi people would still be better off now. Under Saddam's rule they had little hope, if any at all.

 

With America, and their allies, fighting in Iraq, the people aren't living under Saddam's rule anymore and that, by itself, seems like a much better situation.

 

 

About the reporters:

 

I think it would still depend on the reporter. Someone who is adamantly against the war could provide negative news no matter where they are. Considering that it is harder to hear about the good news versus the bad it seems that there is a large bias against the war. (And I don’t think that is because the good news isn’t there. Like I said, I’ve read/heard about soldiers returning home who are upset about the media coverage and its negative appearance.)

 

 

I think the possibility of anybody providing a totally impartial view is slim to none anyways. No matter where they are they still have an opinion.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Noxrepere

With America, and their allies, fighting in Iraq, the people aren't living under Saddam's rule anymore and that, by itself, seems like a much better situation.

 

With the constant worry about fighting in the streets and stray bullets? Not to mention a much more pronounced lack of clean water or even food? Doesn't sound like a very good situation to me.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Kurgan

Afgahnistan I think we had far more cause to go to war with than Iraq. But there again, what have we really accomplished? It's still a war zone

 

Seing that Afghanistan has been a warzone throughout recorded history, bringing peace and prosperity seems like a pretty lofty goal to me anyway. It's a 300-BC society with 1975 AD weapons technology. That has to go wrong.

[toms]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Seing that Afghanistan has been a warzone throughout recorded history, bringing peace and prosperity seems like a pretty lofty goal to me anyway. It's a 300-BC society with 1975 AD weapons technology. That has to go wrong.

 

true. (you just have to play Civ to see that... )

[MennoniteHobbit]

Anyways, this is somewhat related on the topic:

 

Today, 6/28/04, the US transferred sovereignity to the Iraqi Interim Government two days ahead of time. Here's the AT&T news article for it:

 

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040628&cat=news&st=newsd83g2gug1&src=ap

 

Also, soldiers don't get much choice in who or why they fight, it is part of the job.

 

Yet the soldiers acknowledge at the time of signing up to join the Armed Forces that they have to fulfill their job even if they don't believe in it.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Yet the soldiers acknowledge at the time of signing up to join the Armed Forces that they have to fulfill their job even if they don't believe in it.

true, but does that justify their deaths for a lie?

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

true, but does that justify their deaths for a lie?

 

That is an obviously debatable opinion in itself. They volunteer, automatically accepting whatever happens for whatever reason. It's there choice to volunteer and enlist. And some of the very vocal soldiers who've gone AWOL haven't died yet, due to the fact they neglected their duty.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

That is an obviously debatable opinion in itself. They volunteer, automatically accepting whatever happens for whatever reason. It's there choice to volunteer and enlist. And some of the very vocal soldiers who've gone AWOL haven't died yet, due to the fact they neglected their duty.

 

It ultimately lies in the responsibility of Congress and the President to make sure that the soldiers die for a justifiable cause. Still, the soldiers did make a vow to fufill thier duty, and to follow whatever the President decrees.

[El Sitherino]

but according to United States laws, the president does not declare war, only congress has that power. Yet congress didn't even vote on it, it was Bush himself who started the war. And he started it based on lies and deception.

[Tyrion]

Originally posted by InsaneSith

but according to United States laws, the president does not declare war, only congress has that power. Yet congress didn't even vote on it, it was Bush himself who started the war. And he started it based on lies and deception.

 

Which is my point. It's the responsibility of the President to not do what Bush did and launch a pre-emptive war on shaky pretenses without the consent of Congress.