Should troops pull out of war torn countries?

[greygray]

The Iraq war is rather silent, now with the fighting in Pakistan, lots of lives have been lost. Should the troops continue fighting in these countries or pull out?

Discuss.

[Zyniker]

Why, precisely, do we need another thread with this topic?

[Iscariot]

Troops should wrap it instead of pulling out.

[kavika411]

Why, precisely, do we need another thread with this topic?

If there's enough room "precisely" for a weekly - if not daily - thread about Fox News, surely there's enough room for a monthly or so thread about situations in which American and foreign lives are lost regularly to war.

[IntheNet]

The Iraq war is rather silent, now with the fighting in Pakistan, lots of lives have been lost. Should the troops continue fighting in these countries or pull out?

Discuss.

I found it rather sad that Obama, specifically within the recent State of the Union address, did not specifically mention the Iraq War more positively, the sacrifice of our U.S. troops therein, and the enormous victory we have achieved in Iraq. Recall previously that Obama tried to take credit for success in Iraq (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19429) despite his earlier opposition to troop surge in Iraq that was key to the success U.S. and coalition troops have achieved therein. That said, I do think troop levels can be reduced in Iraq - in direct reply to your question - but I do not think they can be completely removed for the time being. Many within the Pentagon are of the mind of permanent U.S. Air Force and Army bases within Iraq, to address terror elements that may attempt to re-enter Iraq in the future. I support such an idea....

[Counterfit]

Troops should wrap it instead of pulling out.
Brilliant!
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh293/JRamptastic/brilliant.jpg
I found it rather sad that Obama, specifically within the recent State of the Union address, did not specifically mention the Iraq War more positively,

"Oh boy, it sure was great that we invaded a sovereign nation based on lies and bad intelligence!"

Was that more to your liking good sir?

[NathanMuir]

The Iraq war is rather silent, now with the fighting in Pakistan, lots of lives have been lost. Should the troops continue fighting in these countries or pull out?

Discuss.

I think that it would be (even more) irresponsible to completely withdraw at the drop of a hat. I think that it is impossible to think that the US could ever completely withdraw from any of the above mentioned countries. Like it or not, we will be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and numerous other Middle Eastern countries for the foreseeable future.

[bobber205]

Brilliant!
http://i259.photobucket.com/albums/hh293/JRamptastic/brilliant.jpg


"Oh boy, it sure was great that we invaded a sovereign nation based on lies and bad intelligence!"

Was that more to your liking good sir?

Don't forget the rad super awesome deaths of tends of thousands of troops not to mention our own troops dying....

[rasmasyean]

The Iraq war is rather silent, now with the fighting in Pakistan, lots of lives have been lost. Should the troops continue fighting in these countries or pull out?

Discuss.

Iraq is on its way to prosperity with double digit growth throughout the recession. I'm not sure an instant pull-out would be wise until any resistance to the regime has completely settled down. Although Iraq has its own growing Army (sporting high-end US weapons), we might want to stay as backup for a little while.

Pakistan and Afghanistan is currently a proving ground for the defense industry. It’s like a live lab. And it prolly gives some troops itching to use “their training” a chance to play arround. I don’t think anyone is worried about “lost lives” here. Don’t forget that warriors chose the profession because they want to fight (and hopefully win).

Anyways, in reality, there is a potential conflict in Iran around the corner. So if anything escalates, it would help to have troops surrounding them…and perhaps assist any Iraqi invasion into their age old enemy’s territory.

[skunk]

Many within the Pentagon are of the mind of permanent U.S. Air Force and Army bases within Iraq, to address terror elements that may attempt to re-enter Iraq in the future. I support such an idea....I don't suppose that the wishes of the natives count much in your calculations, do they? Also, please do try to bear in mind that until the bungled, illegal and irresponsible US/UK military adventure in Iraq, there were no "terror elements" there.

Like it or not, we will be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and numerous other Middle Eastern countries for the foreseeable future.Expect further resistance, then. If you are going to keep troops stationed in countries in tacit support of tyrannies, dictatorships, absolute monarchies, military juntas or puppet regimes, you will certainly generate many more years of fanatical opposition. Whatever happened to the concept of self-determination to which you signed up in the United Nations Charter?

Iraq is on its way to prosperity with double digit growth throughout the recession.Double digit growth is not hard to achieve from a base of practically zero.

Pakistan and Afghanistan is currently a proving ground for the defense industry. It’s like a live lab. And it prolly gives some troops itching to use “their training” a chance to play arround. I don’t think anyone is worried about “lost lives” here.Are all other countries to you simply a potential proving ground for your war toys? Do you not stop for a minute in your gung-ho insensibility to consider the rights of the inhabitants of those countries to live their own lives free from violent interference by foreign military powers?

Anyways, in reality, there is a potential conflict in Iran around the corner. So if anything escalates, it would help to have troops surrounding them…and perhaps assist any Iraqi invasion into their age old enemy’s territory.If you think for one moment that the Shia-dominated government in Iraq is going to allow any invasion of Iran from its territory, you had better think again.

[opinioncircle]

Iraq is on its way to prosperity with double digit growth throughout the recession. I'm not sure an instant pull-out would be wise until any resistance to the regime has completely settled down. Although Iraq has its own growing Army (sporting high-end US weapons), we might want to stay as backup for a little while.

Pakistan and Afghanistan is currently a proving ground for the defense industry. It’s like a live lab. And it prolly gives some troops itching to use “their training” a chance to play arround. I don’t think anyone is worried about “lost lives” here. Don’t forget that warriors chose the profession because they want to fight (and hopefully win).

Anyways, in reality, there is a potential conflict in Iran around the corner. So if anything escalates, it would help to have troops surrounding them…and perhaps assist any Iraqi invasion into their age old enemy’s territory.

I doubt the use of the word "prosperity" is accurate. I do not think double digits GDP growth brings prosperity to everyone within the Iraki's society.

I disagree in terms of pulling out. I think that if the troops are inside a country, there should be steps to pull out. One of them would include stabilizing the social climate, and then, starting to introduce a massive plan, such as the Marshall Plan in Europe, and then pull troops out.

My base for my argument is the situation in Germany post WWII. Germany has benefited from US Army soldiers being based in Germany. The pull out was not immediate, and now Germany is an economical power to be reckoned with.

[zap2]

Pakistan and Afghanistan is currently a proving ground for the defense industry. It’s like a live lab. And it prolly gives some troops itching to use “their training” a chance to play arround. I don’t think anyone is worried about “lost lives” here. Don’t forget that warriors chose the profession because they want to fight (and hopefully win).


:eek:
Wow, I would say anyone involved in that conflict would be worried about the lives lost...even if people signed up to be soldiers, they don't WANT to die. We should be having wars to test guns and have practice for troops.

Thats one of the more ridiculous post I've seen here in a while



Anyways, in reality, there is a potential conflict in Iran around the corner. So if anything escalates, it would help to have troops surrounding them…and perhaps assist any Iraqi invasion into their age old enemy’s territory.
:confused::confused:

A conflict with Iran is NOT "around the corner"..is it possible? Yes, but I doubt it happens under OBama. Also using that as an argument for other wars is a terrible argument. Also there is NO way we should be supporting an Iraqi invasion of Iran(and that just isn't likely consider the climate of Iraq)

[rasmasyean]

I don't suppose that the wishes of the natives count much in your calculations, do they? Also, please do try to bear in mind that until the bungled, illegal and irresponsible US/UK military adventure in Iraq, there were no "terror elements" there.

Expect further resistance, then. If you are going to keep troops stationed in countries in tacit support of tyrannies, dictatorships, absolute monarchies, military juntas or puppet regimes, you will certainly generate many more years of fanatical opposition. Whatever happened to the concept of self-determination to which you signed up in the United Nations Charter?

Double digit growth is not hard to achieve from a base of practically zero.

Are all other countries to you simply a potential proving ground for your war toys? Do you not stop for a minute in your gung-ho insensibility to consider the rights of the inhabitants of those countries to live their own lives free from violent interference by foreign military powers?

If you think for one moment that the Shia-dominated government in Iraq is going to allow any invasion of Iran from its territory, you had better think again.

You have a point on the growth from practically zero, but it’s still growth nonetheless vs. sliding further into civil war. I think it’s in at least some ppl’s interest to keep it that way.

“Insensibility” or not, I try to see the bigger picture rather let “feelings for the now suffering” cloud my judgment…a position I would expect world leaders to adopt. The War on Terror (or whatever you like to call it) is shared by many more people than the one country…and on interests of many levels. Whether providing our own meat shields, or harming some bystanders, it looks to me that many leaders justify the means to the ends.

If you look past your persistent prejudices on “war mongers” lol, you will understand that the fact that it’s a like a “proving ground” indicates that it’s a relatively low risk combat environment. You see, Generals don’t cry when a couple of soldiers die. They see it relative to the larger numbers and know that no war is zero casualties.

And Shia or no Shia, history has not shown me that religious banners always unite separate groups. It’s more like banners morph when different groups want to control the oil. ;)


:eek:
Wow, I would say anyone involved in that conflict would be worried about the lives lost...even if people signed up to be soldiers, they don't WANT to die. We should be having wars to test guns and have practice for troops.

Thats one of the more ridiculous post I've seen here in a while


:confused::confused:

A conflict with Iran is NOT "around the corner"..is it possible? Yes, but I doubt it happens under OBama. Also using that as an argument for other wars is a terrible argument. Also there is NO way we should be supporting an Iraqi invasion of Iran(and that just isn't likely consider the climate of Iraq)

Not that they WANT to die, but we've been at war for years. Most of the ones who have done their duty would have left if they didn't like it. And most of them aren't ppl out of high school who wanted to "see the world rather than work at the factory because they didn't want to go to college of whatever". Which leaves everyone else who signed up expecting the hazard while meeting their calling.

Well, US president's change relatively fast. And besides, you don't know that. Obama has already shown his support for the war by increasing it's strength.

You know, if Iraq's oil conflict with Iran doesn't settle...and the UN wants that "nuclear threat" gone for good...there are some common interests there. That's all I'm saying.

[Desertrat]

Iraq's oil exports are getting up toward 2.5 million bbl/day, so at $75/bbl it oughta be accuring a fairly healthy treasury. Absent Iran's meddling, most of the Iraqis seem to have become bored with killing. No real profit in it.

As for the "why" of Afghanistan/Pakistan, that's obvious: Pakistan is a nuke-bomb country with a weak government. A jihadist takeover would not be any sort of good news. As for Afghanistan itself, it's probably hopeless. Way too many people all bound up in "Whack 'em and stack 'em."

Always ask yourself about national interest. That's the usual place to start in with the "why". The 'how" is another facet entirely.

As far as bringing troops home, I'd ask why we're still in the Balkans. What is our national interest, there? Looks to me as though it should be a Eurozone deal. Same for NATO, really. Along that line, we should never have been so foolish as to encourage Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO. Somebody forgot to look north on the map; focussed on looking south and southeast.

[Counterfit]

As for the "why" of Afghanistan/Pakistan, that's obvious: Pakistan is a nuke-bomb country with a weak government. A jihadist takeover would not be any sort of good news. As for Afghanistan itself, it's probably hopeless. Way too many people all bound up in "Whack 'em and stack 'em."

Speaking of a potential Taliban takeover of Pakistan, I sure as hell hope we have some sort of plan for disabling and/or destroying their nukes if that happens.

[greygray]

Speaking of a potential Taliban takeover of Pakistan, I sure as hell hope we have some sort of plan for disabling and/or destroying their nukes if that happens.

But won't that prove disastrous and a possible start of full-blown war? :(

[Desertrat]

greygray, if the nukes were somehow destroyed, who would fight whom, in your war?

FWIW, I've run across the occasional snippet that indicates we have "contingency plans" in the event of a perceived need to wipe out their inventory. How practial a plan? I've no idea. I imagine the Indian government has also given serious consideration to the problem. Just guessing, it might be that the existing Paki government, as a contingency in the event of a Taliban takeover, has already provided us with the necessary information.

[Counterfit]

But won't that prove disastrous and a possible start of full-blown war? :(

It would only prove disastrous if it failed. I'm not talking about a brigade of infantry and another of armor, I'm talking about SpecOps teams deployed by parachute or helicopter.
And if it did end in a full-blown war, if it hadn't been already, I'd certainly feel much better if there weren't nukes involved.

[rasmasyean]

But won't that prove disastrous and a possible start of full-blown war? :(

I'm sure the US and UK already have plans to level everything like in Iraq if this even gets close. Unless that's what you mean by a full blown war.

All the stuff is already there. No transportation required. If they have already been "contingency planning" arround Iran...I don't think Pakistan is a harder scenario.

[Eraserhead]

I doubt the British will be going along for another farce.

[rasmasyean]

I doubt the British will be going along for another farce.

You guys have to face it. The UK is not really part of the EU. That's only geography. The UK is more like the 51st state of the USA.

[barkomatic]

I think if we can get to a point where U.S. troops aren't the ones risking their lives its good enough. I see us having a military presence in Iraq far into the future. However, there's a difference between simply maintaining military bases and being directly involved in the fighting. That's the only way we are going to "leave".

This keeps the oil cheap and the U.S. in a position to immediately deal with any threats to the supply as they arise. Many Iraquis will eventually be rich and ulitmately that's all they will care about.

[greygray]

With the increasing tensions in Iran, if the US launches sanctions or even step into their country to attempt to seize their nuclear facilities, I don't know what is going to happen.

[northy124]

Until the bungled, illegal and irresponsible US/UK military adventure in Iraq, there were no "terror elements" there.
I don't believe that, there must of been some terrorist in Iraq fighting against Saddam and his policies, did he not bomb the hell out of a town after some people (Do you count them as terrorist?) tried to kill him?

You guys have to face it. The UK is not really part of the EU. That's only geography. The UK is more like the 51st state of the USA.
No we're not and we don't like being called the 51st state either, from what I can see anyway, for some they may love it....

[skunk]

I don't believe that, there must of been some terrorist in Iraq fighting against Saddam and his policies, did he not bomb the hell out of a town after some people (Do you count them as terrorist?) tried to kill him?If there were people fighting against Saddam, why would you call them terrorists, and even if they were terrorists, why would it be any concern of ours?

[remmy]

You guys have to face it. The UK is not really part of the EU. That's only geography. The UK is more like the 51st state of the USA.

The politicians are so weak and spineless with no morals or conscience do such a poor representation of the country.

Another illegal war so soon would cause so much headache for the next set, not that there any military budgets or resources left any way.

[northy124]

If there were people fighting against Saddam, why would you call them terrorists, and even if they were terrorists, why would it be any concern of ours?
No not to us but to Saddam they would of been, so to say that there were no Terrorist Elements is wrong.

[remmy]

No not to us but to Saddam they would of been, so to say that there were no Terrorist Elements is wrong.

One countries terrorists is another's freedom fighters.

There was no terrorist element as that one that would threaten Western countries, or had anything to do with terrorist acts against Western interests.

[skunk]

No not to us but to Saddam they would of been, so to say that there were no Terrorist Elements is wrong.This is a red herring. If you are trying to show that the alleged presence of "terrorist groups" fighting the very regime you are trying to change is a justification for invasion, you only have to think about it for a moment to see it is utter nonsense.
There were no terrorist elements in any area of Iraq under Hussein's control which were any threat to us. If you think there were, provide a link to credible evidence.

[Eraserhead]

The politicians are so weak and spineless with no morals or conscience do such a poor representation of the country.

Whose politicians :confused:.

[flopticalcube]

Whose politicians :confused:.
That pretty well describes all politicians to me.

[remmy]

Whose politicians :confused:.

I was thinking about the ones in the UK. Most of them. Nearly all of them in the Cabinet.

[Eraserhead]

I was thinking about the ones in the UK. Most of them. Nearly all of them in the Cabinet.

That makes sense now, though to be fair Robin Cook and Clare Short (eventually) resigned because of it.

In early 2003 he was reported to be one of the cabinet's chief opponents of military action against Iraq, and on 17 March he resigned from the Cabinet. In a statement giving his reasons for resigning he said, "I can't accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support."

(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Cook#Resignation_over_Iraq_war))

On 9 March 2003 Short repeatedly called Tony Blair "reckless" in a BBC radio interview[17] and threatened to resign from the Cabinet in the event of the British government going to war with Iraq without a clear mandate from the United Nations. This looked set to be a reprise of her previous resignation as party spokesperson during the Gulf War of 1991 as a protest against the Labour Party's stance, although in 1999 she had publicly supported the NATO attack on Serbia. However, on 18 March she announced that she would remain in the Cabinet and support the government's resolution in the House of Commons.
Short remained in the Cabinet for two months after her decision to back the 2003 Iraq War. She resigned on 12 May.

(source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Short#Resignation))

[remmy]

That makes sense now, though to be fair Robin Cook and Clare Short (eventually) resigned because of it.


The rare exception. I remember that, in the Houses of Parliament he stood up and made the speech, everyone clapped and patted him on the back and said well done, yet none followed his example, and not enough voted against. And at the time he was Foreign Secretary.

[KingYaba]

We should start by pulling out of Italy. Then maybe Belgium. I'm sure a lot of US presence in Europe has to do with NATO and all that. Germany has been a staple. I doubt closing up shop in Germany would be popular with the military.