Vote, DO YOU WANT TO PULLOUT OF IRAQ? (death, military, Jesus)

[jhlcomp]

As one other poster stated, this is a complex issue. I want us to pull out of Iraq more than one can imagine. The situation was dire before we came along and in many respects we didn't help it - new and even more serious consequences/issues arose from our being there. We need to fulfill our promises to the people and leave. We will never be credited for any good we did in Iraq. Because of our reputation in this and other regions - we simply can not win.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by GreggB

The troops need to be brought home NOW. Due to the arrogance, the ignorance, and the incompetence of the Bush/Cheney administration, we are all in pain due to the continued loss of lives in Iraq. The lives of our soldiers and the Iraq people. There can be NO "Victory" in that country. The "Mission" is NOT accomplished, Nor can it be accomplished. We need to get out now and than impeach Bush and Cheney for their stupidity.

Stupidity is not an impeachable offense.

As much as I hate to say it I don't see how we can, with a remotely clear conscience, just pack up and leave. I would like to see the bulk of our remaining effort concentrated on shifting all military and administrative tasks to the Iraqis as soon as possible and absolutely dedicated to reducing American casualties.

And truth is Bush, Cheney, et al will never be forced to pay for their mistakes in this life.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

I want to know what Bush would define as victory in Iraq, it's hard to judge the right move until we know just what end we're fighting towards.

Here it is, as has always been the case:

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

In the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
In the medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A VITAL U.S. INTEREST
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...005.html#part1



Now, do you want these goals to be achieved?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Here it is, as has always been the case:

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

In all honesty I see more political rhetoric than clearly defined goals.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

In the short term:
An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

How can neutralizing the insurgency have always been one of the goals of invading Iraq when the insurgency didn't even exist until we invaded?

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

In the medium term:
An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

This is all so subjective, "in the lead", "providing an inspiring example", "potential" and leaves the door wide open for interpretation. It all sounds more like buzz words on a resume than a victory in a war.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

An Iraq that is peaceful and united? I don't really see that as a realistic goal considering the history of the region and religious animosity that goes back centuries, at least not merely because the US wants it that way. And I'm far from convinced that a democratic government in Iraq benefits the US, I believe it all too likely that the democratically elected government will be an anti-US government.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

VICTORY IN IRAQ IS A VITAL U.S. INTEREST

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ir...005.html#part1



Now, do you want these goals to be achieved?

At this point I want to see the burden shifted to the Iraqis as rapidly as possible with minimal US casualties. Saddam is gone and they've got an opportunity, let the responsibility be theirs.

[fishmonger]

I was thinking... instead of pulling out like I was saying we should do earlier, now that I think about it we should let the Iraqi people vote and decide if they still want us there. If they vote "yes" then it legitimizes the war and boosts morale and could be a message that the war JUST MIGHT be winnable if most of the Iraqi people are on our side... if it's a no then we should pull out and move the soldiers to training functions.

Why not let them decide? The Iraqis are the ones who are most affected by this war.

[Marko3]

As a veteran of the Iraq war, this issue is very important to me, because even though I served my time and made it back alive and well, I now have friends that I was with over there, that are now back on their second or third deployments, who are also now currently being extended.

When I was there, the general feeling of the soldier's I was with was that we were sitting around, burning up gas, and resources, patrolling in attempts to make the area more secure. Sometimes our efforts worked, and sometimes there would be insurgent uprisings that would take place and un-do any positive changes we felt like we had made. It was very frustrating. Towards the end of my year in Baghdad, many of us agreed that even though the elections had taken place while we were there (Jan 2005), nothing we had done had really changed anything for the better, or made a big enough positive impact. It was especially difficult knowing that we all wanted something good to happen, and a positive change to occur in hopes that somehow that would make the lives of our friends we lost seem like they were lost in the very least to benefit the unraveling situation over there.

Many of us felt that Iraq does not deserve the sacrifices made by many of our friends that died trying to bring peace to a place that doesn't seem to be interested in any aspect of peace or democracy. I try to keep in touch with some of the guys I was over there with the first time, that are back there now. I spoke to one 2 days ago, and he says it's worse now than it was when we (1st Cavalry) left in 2005. We may be succeeding, and we might be winning, but I don't think this is something you can win at, and all that has seemed to happen in the last 2 years is increased violence, civil war type fighting between Sunni and Shi'ite, and the death of more American servicemembers.

From the mouth of one veteran who's been there, and the mouths of those that are still there...what's going on over there is not worth maintaining when its costing American lives, along with billions of dollars. Especially when there hasn't been great leaps in progress to justify the spending. I believe no amount of progress over there will ever justify the loss of over 3,000 servicemembers and counting. You may say that the Iraqi's are the ones most affected by this war, but try telling that to the family of a fallen soldier, who's lives will never be the same.

[LeavingFlorida05]

Originally Posted by carolinajack

NO, no pull out now until we get the Iraqis up to speed to take care of their country then we can come home. finish what we started

So basically, we're not leaving until every single Iraqi is dead. That's the only way Bush's plan will work.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

In all honesty I see more political rhetoric than clearly defined goals.

Whether you agree with the goals and objectives or not is irrelevent. These have been in place ever since the insurgency began, years ago, with minor modifications. These have all been pronounced by the administration for quite some time, whether some want to believe it or hear it or not. Working to achieve these goals is what is meant by "stay the course". The methods used to achieve these goals change from year to year, month to month, and day to day, according to conditions on the ground.

Everyone wants to pull out of Iraq, but the question is when and under what conditions. We all know th varying degrees of pull-outs and the possible ramifications of them.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Marko3

As a veteran of the Iraq war, this issue is very important to me, because even though I served my time and made it back alive and well, I now have friends that I was with over there, that are now back on their second or third deployments, who are also now currently being extended.

When I was there, the general feeling of the soldier's I was with was that we were sitting around, burning up gas, and resources, patrolling in attempts to make the area more secure. Sometimes our efforts worked, and sometimes there would be insurgent uprisings that would take place and un-do any positive changes we felt like we had made. It was very frustrating. Towards the end of my year in Baghdad, many of us agreed that even though the elections had taken place while we were there (Jan 2005), nothing we had done had really changed anything for the better, or made a big enough positive impact. It was especially difficult knowing that we all wanted something good to happen, and a positive change to occur in hopes that somehow that would make the lives of our friends we lost seem like they were lost in the very least to benefit the unraveling situation over there.

Many of us felt that Iraq does not deserve the sacrifices made by many of our friends that died trying to bring peace to a place that doesn't seem to be interested in any aspect of peace or democracy. I try to keep in touch with some of the guys I was over there with the first time, that are back there now. I spoke to one 2 days ago, and he says it's worse now than it was when we (1st Cavalry) left in 2005. We may be succeeding, and we might be winning, but I don't think this is something you can win at, and all that has seemed to happen in the last 2 years is increased violence, civil war type fighting between Sunni and Shi'ite, and the death of more American servicemembers.

From the mouth of one veteran who's been there, and the mouths of those that are still there...what's going on over there is not worth maintaining when its costing American lives, along with billions of dollars. Especially when there hasn't been great leaps in progress to justify the spending. I believe no amount of progress over there will ever justify the loss of over 3,000 servicemembers and counting. You may say that the Iraqi's are the ones most affected by this war, but try telling that to the family of a fallen soldier, who's lives will never be the same.

THANK YOU for your HONESTY!

It can't easy to say you don't think it's justified after what you and your buddies have been through.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Whether you agree with the goals and objectives or not is irrelevent. These have been in place ever since the insurgency began, years ago, with minor modifications. These have all been pronounced by the administration for quite some time, whether some want to believe it or hear it or not. Working to achieve these goals is what is meant by "stay the course". The methods used to achieve these goals change from year to year, month to month, and day to day, according to conditions on the ground.

Everyone wants to pull out of Iraq, but the question is when and under what conditions. We all know th varying degrees of pull-outs and the possible ramifications of them.

It's not a matter of agreeing or not, much of what I read is so vague as to be useless as standards to judge progress by.