|
Troops Should be Brought Home... (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
First off, lets not group all the Iraqis in the same boat shall we?
There are distinct Islamic extremists being targeted that happen to be in Iraq. It's not the pandemonium of a War of the Worlds scene like you're making it out to be where everyone is freaking out all the time... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
so you are saying Iraqis are very happy then?
| quote: | | If there's explosions, you can almost guarantee it's because there's terrorists involved. If there's innocents involved, it's not to the fault of the Americans for the most part; remember, terrorists don't play by rules, the Americans have to. |
American invasion brought terrorism into Iraq and thats the fact.
It is the fault of the Americans because they are the main reason why terrorists from the region go there.
| quote: | What progress???
Dear god, unless you've been living under a rock there's been LOTS of progress, however the media sure as hell isn't going to show us any of THAT! Good stories just don't sell.
Read a few blogs and do some research! |
Either you want to ignore the facts or you just cant stand the fact that there is a disaster going on there.
| quote: |
Women can now go to school and pursue careers; as well, they hold 25% of the seats in the Iraqi government. |
what career when there is no economy?how can they work when there is no security and a bomb could go off at any second?
| quote: | Jalal Talabani predicted back in April, a major American pullout in a couple of years:
>>Source<< |
I doubt the Americans gonna see this as good news,it is matter of time before you see millions protesting to bring the troops back home.
| quote: | Their electrical grid is better than it's ever been...
>>Source<< |
so is this the reason Americans went to war? to bring electricity to Iraq?
| quote: | As we can see, there's lots of progress in Iraq.
Oh sure there will always be something to point out but if we take a step back and look at ourselves, have we solved all our problems? Homelessness? Poverty? Crime? Drugs?
No, we still have those, however we're not dealing will the terror that our bus is going to explode from underneath us either...or that we'll be dragged from our bed in the middle of the night like under the former regime. |
Terrorism has always been part of human history.you cant end it but you can prevent it, and by prevnting I dont mean invading countries and trying to force a demographic regime and as you can see it is not working in Iraq.
| quote: | | The mere suggestion that the Iraqis were better off before the Americans came is myopic and misguided. |
But having Americans there hasnt made that much change on the Iraqi people either.They still live in fear.
| quote: | the Americans will be out in due time but we have to give Iraqi time and training so they can pull themselves together.
It would be premature and a disaster if America was to leave now.
The Iraqis are only just starting to realize that they can do things themselves without the meger handouts they given in the past.
It may be cliche to use the phrase, "Feed a man a fish, you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime" but that's exactly what we're doing... |
well from the way things are going now I'd have to say that it'll take alot more then just a few years.But hey lets hope you are right.:p |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
The troops should be brought home X because...
-Now
-Within a year
-Within two years
-As long as it takes to achieve U.S. goals there
|
This last option is particularly amusing. :eyespop:
What's more funny still is such a poll, posted by an American, includes irrelevant, nebulous options and also, somehow succeeds in posting anything but the right answer, which is:
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
e. Until the Iraqis are ready to run themselves... |
"There's an old Appalachian saying: don't step in nuthin' you can't wipe off."
The USA didn't have any clue what it was getting itself into in Iraq, and now that the situation is quite messy, people start the 'bring our boys home!' lingo. It is to laugh.
"Your boys" aren't going anywhere. The USA is going to be in Iraq for years to come, to attempt to manage the chaos it created. Starting a "two years to go!" countdown is a deluded pipe dream.
If the allies were to leave Iraq now, it would descend into anarchy, religio-civil war would erupt, and you would get localized incidents of forced relocation at best, ethnic cleansing and genocide at worst. All that would be largely on the USA's shoulders.
The USA knows it cannot afford to lose that kind of face in the international arena. It knows it has to stay there for a very long time, so it's best to ignore CNN-isms.
-N |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
This last option is particularly amusing. :eyespop:
What's more funny still is such a poll, posted by an American, includes irrelevant, nebulous options and also, somehow succeeds in posting anything but the right answer, which is:
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
e. Until the Iraqis are ready to run themselves... |
|
That's just an excuse to stay in a war whose foundations were based on nonexistent WMD's. That kind of statement ensures why there are people that continue to say that the US military stay in that region.
I don't see anyone that says to stay go to their requitment office to make a difference:
OFFICIAL US MILITARY ENLISTMENT FORM
And I guess people need to slowly read the fourth poll option:
As long as it takes to achieve U.S. goals there
The reason I chose those words were simple. The current administration changes ideology so much during the course of these two years, I had to make a generalized question.
| quote: |
The USA didn't have any clue what it was getting itself into in Iraq, and now that the situation is quite messy, people start the 'bring our boys home!' lingo. It is to laugh. |
First off the USA and the current administration are two distinct entities. Don't coalesce the two as common opinion. The administration had a perfect clue. It knew from the intelligence it was getting from partnered agencies just what the outcome would be. To say they had no clue is baseless.
| quote: |
"Your boys" aren't going anywhere. The USA is going to be in Iraq for years to come, to attempt to manage the chaos it created. Starting a "two years to go!" countdown is a deluded pipe dream.
|
It's a poll not an exit strategy.
| quote: | | If the allies were to leave Iraq now, it would descend into anarchy, religio-civil war would erupt, and you would get localized incidents of forced relocation at best, ethnic cleansing and genocide at worst. All that would be largely on the USA's shoulders. |
You think there are people in this world that give a damn about whether you live and breathe? Then why should you? No one in Iraq is putting bread on your table or gas in your car.
To say that anarchy ensues can only mean one thing when people say that:
That they want the current anarchy to continue. After all when people say "e. Until the Iraqis are ready to run themselves..." they're forgetting that they just endorsed the current situation as anarchy. So you're a little too late my friend, anarchy has already taken over:
| quote: | ANARCHY.
The absence of all political government; by extension, it signifies confusion in government.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)
|
| quote: | | The USA knows it cannot afford to lose that kind of face in the international arena. It knows it has to stay there for a very long time, so it's best to ignore CNN-isms. |
Again with saying what the administration wants and what the people want as being one and the same. They are not. I'll let it slide being that it's from the same diatribe. |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
I don't see anyone that says to stay go to their requitment office to make a difference: |
I'm not an American, so I didn't have the option to not vote for Bush.
Neither am I endorsing the action on Iraq by saying that the USA has to stay -- I'm saying they have no choice but to stay for a very long time, and the choice to invade determined this.
You ever heard of Vietnam? The comparison is apt.
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
First off the USA and the current administration are two distinct entities. Don't coalesce the two as common opinion. |
Problem: the two are more "common opinion" than you seem to realize.
Which is not to say there isn't people that disgree with the administration; there are many who dissent, but the practical and popular support continues, doesn't it?
Polls had it that most Americans disapproved of action in Iraq, but this didn't stop them from re-electing Bush, did it?
The situation isn't as simple as you seem to like to imagine. There is a powerful culture in the US of support of the war as patriotism, and dissent as anti-Americanism.
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
The administration had a perfect clue. It knew from the intelligence it was getting from partnered agencies just what the outcome would be. To say they had no clue is baseless. |
Well, I'll chip in $20 to buy you a clue, anyone else?
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
To say that anarchy ensues can only mean one thing when people say that:
That they want the current anarchy to continue. After all when people say "e. Until the Iraqis are ready to run themselves..." they're forgetting that they just endorsed the current situation as anarchy. So you're a little too late my friend, anarchy has already taken over: |
What's your mother tongue out of curiosity?
I ask because this is your third post today where you are almost incomprehensible in English.
-N |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
Problem: the two are more "common opinion" than you seem to realize.
Which is not to say there isn't people that disgree with the administration; there are many who dissent, but the practical and popular support continues, doesn't it?
Polls had it that most Americans disapproved of action in Iraq, but this didn't stop them from re-electing Bush, did it?
The situation isn't as simple as you seem to like to imagine. There is a powerful culture in the US of support of the war as patriotism, and dissent as anti-Americanism. |
Your confusing propaganda with facts.
| quote: | In the Pavlovian strategy, terrorizing force can finally be replaced by a new organization of the means of communication. Ready made opinions can be distributed day by day through press, radio, and so on, again and again, till they reach the nerve cell and implant a fixed pattern of thought in the brain. Consequently, guided public opinion is the result, according to Pavlovian theoreticians, of good propaganda technique, and the polls a verification of the temporary successful action of the Pavlovian machinations on the mind. Yet, the polls may only count what people pretend to think and believe, because it is dangerous for them to do otherwise.
Such is the Pavlovian device: repeat mechanically your assumptions and suggestions, diminish the opportunity of communicating dissent and opposition. This is the simple formula for political conditioning of the masses. This is also the actual ideal of some of our public relation machines, who thus hope to manipulate the public into buying a special soap or voting for a special party.
Joost Meerloo
The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brainwashing |
The election of Bush and opinion polls are two different things. There is a big push for non-paper ballot voting. Once the system is 100% there would be no such thing as an honest election.
The opinion polls from the media are biased and have loaded questions.
example:
Do you still beat your wife, yes or no?
| quote: | What's your mother tongue out of curiosity?
I ask because this is your third post today where you are almost incomprehensible in English. |
Cheap shot at sidetracking the issue. |
|
|
| smokeape |
Misleading. As long as it takes to stand up a sovereign nation in Iraq. We can't pull out with a resulting civil war and anarchy. US goals and world goals are the same in that regard.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Misleading. As long as it takes to stand up a sovereign nation in Iraq. We can't pull out with a resulting civil war and anarchy. US goals and world goals are the same in that regard.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
I don't understand how people can think otherwise.
Just because the U.S. is leading the charge doesn't mean the rest of the free world isn't going to benefit as well.
The U.S. is far from being the only country with interests in that area of the world... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| We should stay there until we spread freedom and democracy throughout the middle east or at least until we've secured all our errr I mean their oil resources. :wtf: |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| I cannot believe the "as long as it takes" option is the top one lol. Though i think that since we innitiated this we should wait it out. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Army forces 50,000 soldiers into extended duty
By Will Dunham
Sun Jan 29, 10:54 AM ET
The U.S. Army has forced about 50,000 soldiers to continue serving after their voluntary stints ended under a policy called "stop-loss," but while some dispute its fairness, court challenges have fallen flat.
The policy applies to soldiers in units due to deploy for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army said stop-loss is vital to maintain units that are cohesive and ready to fight. But some experts said it shows how badly the Army is stretched and could further complicate efforts to attract new recruits.
"As the war in Iraq drags on, the Army is accumulating a collection of problems that cumulatively could call into question the viability of an all-volunteer force," said defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank.
"When a service has to repeatedly resort to compelling the retention of people who want to leave, you're edging away from the whole notion of volunteerism."
When soldiers enlist, they sign a contract to serve for a certain number of years, and know precisely when their service obligation ends so they can return to civilian life. But stop-loss allows the Army, mindful of having fully manned units, to keep soldiers on the verge of leaving the military.
Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base.
With yearlong tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, some soldiers can be forced to stay in the Army an extra 18 months.
HARDSHIP FOR SOME SOLDIERS
Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, an Army spokesman, said that "there is no plan to discontinue stop-loss."
"We understand that this is causing hardship for some individual soldiers, and we take individual situations into consideration," Hilferty said.
Hilferty said there are about 12,500 soldiers in the regular Army, as well as the part-time National Guard and Reserve, currently serving involuntarily under the policy, and that about 50,000 have had their service extended since the program began in 2002. An initial limited use of stop-loss was expanded in subsequent years to affect many more.
"While the policies relative to the stop-loss seem harsh, in terms of suspending scheduled separation dates (for leaving the Army), they are not absolute," Hilferty said. "And we take individual situations into consideration for compelling and compassionate reasons."
Hilferty noted the Army has given "exceptions" to 210 enlisted soldiers "due to personal hardship reasons" since October 2004, allowing them to leave as scheduled.
"The nation is at war and we are stop-lossing units deploying to a combat theater to ensure they mobilize, train, deploy, fight, redeploy and demobilize as a team," he said.
NO LUCK IN COURT
A few soldiers have gone to court to challenge stop-loss.
One such case fizzled last week, when U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington dismissed a suit filed in 2004 by two Army National Guard soldiers. The suit claimed the Army fraudulently induced soldiers to enlist without specifying that their service might be involuntarily extended.
Courts also have backed the policy's legality in Oregon and California cases.
Jules Lobel, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who represented the National Guard soldiers, said a successful challenge to stop-loss was still possible.
"I think the whole stop-loss program is a misrepresentation to people of how long they're going to actually serve. I think it's caused tremendous morale problems, tremendous psychological damage to people," Lobel said.
"When you sign up for the military, you're saying, 'I'll give you, say, six years and then after six years I get my life back.' And they're saying, 'No, really, we can extend you indefinitely."'
Congressional critics have assailed stop-loss, and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry called it "a back-door draft." The United States abolished the draft in 1973, but the all-volunteer military never before has been tested by a protracted war.
A report commissioned by the Pentagon called stop-loss a "short-term fix" enabling the Army to meet ongoing troop deployment requirements, but said such policies "risk breaking the force as recruitment and retention problems mount." It was written by Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer.
Thompson added, "The persistent use of stop-loss underscores the fact that the war-fighting burden is being carried by a handful of soldiers while the vast majority of citizens incur no sacrifice at all."
|
|
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
 |
|
|
|
|
