More Troops or come home?

[sweeps]

Re: More Troops or come home?

It's when the President declares "Mission Accomplished". Oh wait...

[gackle]

Re: More Troops or come home?

That was pretty good, Sweeps!

[LuckyRobin]

Is there ever a "winner" in war? Really? I think when it comes down to it, we will have to send them in whether we want to or not.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about it all. I have a little boy that in 11 years and 12 days will have to register for the draft. Will the draft still be in effect then, I don't know. Will they actually be using it instead of a volunteer army? I don't know that either. Will we still be in Iraq in 11 years? It's entirely possible. We're still in Japan and Germany half a century later.

I don't want my son to go to war. I don't. It would break my heart. But if he makes the choice to join the military or is called to go by our country, I'll have to respect and honor that. I think that's really all we can do. Respect and honor those who go. Yes, we can make known our opinions to our lawmakers, but when they are done not listening to us, be they republican, democrat or republicrat, we can only make sure that these children and young adults know that no matter what, they are not forgotten and they are loved.

I guess history will eventually tell us one way or another what sending in more troops does. Whether it was right or whether it was wrong, whether it accomplished anything at all or kept us at our current standstill. And it will give us a body count, and that should not be forgotten either.

[Broken Arrow]

Alright, I guess I'll throw in my pence as well....

vsjhoc brings up a very good question. Unfortunately, it's also a question that I do not believe can ever be answered satisfactorily. In a way, we've always been at war to some capacity, and we will continue to be so in the foreseeable future.

I think a more... feasible question is to ask whether we are at least safer now than we have been before Sept. 11. Because, in the end, that's what all this is effort and sacrifice is for, right?

Sept. 11 was suppose to be a retaliatory attack from Osama Bin Laden, who was furious for our involvement in the first Gulf war. A war, I may add, that most of the other nations have supported our involvement with. This, in turn, made Bin Laden look like the bad guy to the rest of the world.

What I want to know, though, is how in the world did we go from Bin Laden, who's hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Saddham Hussein in Iraq? Our administration had to sell the war hard as a war against terror itself and WMDs. The problem is, the link to Bin Laden is rather thin, and we didn't find any WMDs.

But nevermind that. What really bothers me is that most of the world disagrees with our involvement in Iraq, and many abroad are beginning to think that Bin Laden may have been right about us all along. On top of that, Iraq has become a massive, new breeding ground for al-Qaeda recruits.

Oh, and considering that 9/11 was revenge for the first Gulf War, one can only wonder what the revenge for the second one will look like. And make no mistake, there are many more radicals out there now that will throw away their lives in the attempt to take revenge on us.

So, did this administration accomplish the vital mission of making our country safer? My opinion is an unequivocal "NO". If anything, we are in much more danger than before 9/11.

The ONLY thing we can do now is to somehow bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. If we don't do that, United States will be even more danger than we already are now, and I believe the best answer is with diplomatic and humanitarian aid over the course of the next decade or more.

But of course, before that can even happen, the country needs to stabilize from the civil war first. The Surge... even if it's half-baked, at least addresses that initial problem at hand.

We may not have entered the war in Iraq for the right reasons, but like it or not, we are most definitely fighting for the right reasons now: To make our country safer. And... that's why I support the Surge.

[Fern]

What I want to know, though, is how in the world did we go from Bin Laden, who's hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Saddham Hussein in Iraq? Our administration had to sell the war hard as a war against terror itself and WMDs. The problem is, the link to Bin Laden is rather thin, and we didn't find any WMDs.

.

Well to all of the above, BA, well-said. My sentiments exactly. But funny that we agree on that while you support the added troops and i don't. Becus the link between continuing the war there and "making our country safer" is exceedingly tenuous, in my opinion.

And i jdon't think it possible to bring peace or stabilize that country. My God, we've made it so much worse.

[Broken Arrow]

And i jdon't think it possible to bring peace or stabilize that country. My God, we've made it so much worse.

I agree Fern. But I also believe that the only way we can make it worse now is to drop everything and leave....

Oh, and to clarify the link the way I see it....

It is because of our invasion in Iraq, the country has become extremely unstable and in a state of civil war. Many there believe that IF we're going to go into their country and cause all this instability, then it is our responsibility to help re-stabilize it, not turn our backs on them when things are going badly. If we turn our backs now, many who may have supported us there will turn around and become bitter enemy because we abandoned them when they needed us the most.

Again, I believe we originally entered this war for the wrong reasons. And for that, we should not have been there to begin with. However, the nature of this war has changed, and we are now fighting for a different reason. And that is to make amends for the troubles that we've caused and help bring stability to the country.

And that's the goal of the Surge. It isn't to send more troops to help find the mythological WMDs. The goal is to help stabilize the country and make a spirited effort to show the people of Iraq that we care about their safety.

Of course, their safety is also our safety, so, we've got to try....

[gackle]

we didn't find any WMDs.

BA, thanks for your input. I can understand how people think this. After all, the media keeps trumpeting this over and over again. People start to believe things if they keep being told something over and over again. But the fact is, WMDs have been found - over 500 of them. There is a declassified document that details this. Why Bush has not been shouting this from the rooftops is a mystery to me, but the following suggestion has been made by General Tom Mcinerny:

General Tom Mcinerney is reporting on Fox Hannity and Colmes right now that that the administration has been keeping this low profile to avoid exposing 3 of the 5 members of the UN Security council; Russia, China, and France. McInerney says these weapons will be traced to these countries, and asserts it is well known that Russia helped Saddam move most of his WMD stockpiles out of Iraq before the war.

I can't find a good non-partisan source for that quote so take it for what it is.

As for why we went into Iraq? I certainly can see how it looks like oil is involved and maybe that was a factor. The following quote is from Madeline Albright, secretary of state from the Clinton Administration:

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Reasons for going into Iraq that people believe tend to vary based upon how much they like or hate Bush. It is also a fact that Hussein committed numerous atrocities against the people of his own country. The following is from the state department website:

Until its fall in 2003, the former regime murdered, tortured, and caused the disappearance of many thousands of persons suspected of or related to persons suspected of opposition politics, economic crimes, military desertion, and a variety of other activities. The 2003 and 2004 discovery of mass graves (defined as unmarked sites containing at least six bodies) provided evidence of the vast dimension of these practices. During the year the location of nine additional mass graves was confirmed, including in Karbala, Nasariyah, and a mass graves complex south of Samawah. The total number of confirmed sites at year's end was 286, and investigators continued to review evidence on additional mass graves.

I hate the fact that we're the world's policeman, but after the holocaust how can anybody sit by and watch it happen again? Our country is the only one with the strength and the morality to not sit by and watch. Sidebar: I don't know why we are not acting on the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, but if anybody is interested in pressuring Bush to act they can go here.

To sum up my position, I'm not happy with the way the war is being handled, but I agree with you that we need to stay and finish it for the sake of our country's safety. And yes, we probably angered a lot of terrorists even more, but they hate us to begin with anyway. Bush gets paid $400,000/yr for being president. For as many problems as there are in this world today (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, N. Korea, Afghanistan, Russia, Al Qaeda) you couldn't pay me enough to be in his position. I sent my first letter to one of the soldiers today and will be calling to have the USPS send me free boxes to ship stuff over to him. Hope as many people that are able can join.

[LuckyRobin]

I remember vaguely reading in a teeny article buried towards the back of section A of my paper that they had found a few caches of WMD but they were very small and antiquated actually still in Iraq. Still effective, still capable of doing horrible damage, but not enough of it to be capable of wide-spread damage. And evidence that massive amounts had previously been housed in those same areas, according to tests performed. Never saw it reported on TV at all or in any of the media magazines. Of course no one knows if they were moved or destroyed like they were supposed to have been. No way of knowing that really.

Very interesting discussion going on here. I still haven't made up my mind one way or the other. So many people feel so strongly about it, but I have to think there's a huge majority of Americans that just don't know. Is sending them home or sending more over the lesser of two evils? Because neither option seems a good one from here. But doing nothing, I think that would make it worse. My mother always said "You make a mess, you clean it up." I think as a country, we kind of half to clean it up. And maybe learn not to make such a big mess next time.

[tinapbeana]

just to play devil's advocate, i have to ask: what have we done with our own WMDs?

[gackle]

Tina, are you coming at this from the perspective of what gives us the right to take their WMDs when we have a lot ourselves?

[gackle]

Quote:
When I wrote all, I meant all, including Pupart and ozzy gurl.

I'm sorry, but this is incredibly uncalled for. You will most likely insist that this isn't true, but I am reading this comment as your way of saying that you and your beliefs are somehow better than what I believe in.

Ozzy, you're darn right I'm going to insist that this isn't true. You're not my enemy, the terrorists are. We both support our troops, we just disagree on what should be done with them. Do you get this upset when every president, republican or democrat, ends their address with God bless...? Please don't try to read into anything I type - I hope by now that I've shown that I say what I believe. If I want to insult you then I will, but it doesn't accomplish anything. I believe that I am right, you believe that you are right, and hence here we are. Now can we please have an intellectual discussion without being offended?

Two more things...one, I want to apologize for not offering my condolences to you for the loss of your friend in the war. It was insensitive of me to not mention that before and I'm sorry for that. I have not known anybody killed in the war, but I can understand how the loss of a friend could trigger the feelings that you have.
And two, I mentioned at the end of my original post about feeling sorry for the way the country is headed if the democrats win the presidency. To clarify, I really meant scared for our country and my family. I believe most democrats at the federal level underestimate the resolve of the terrorists. It is my opinion that they care more about getting the presidency back than the security of our country. I love my family and am genuinely concerned about our future.

[sweeps]

One of my main concerns is that our armed forces are wearing down physically and mentally. (For example, see today's story: Panel report finds National Guard ill-prepared for disasters, attacks.)

Reportedly we're in Iraq to ensure our national security, right? Well as the months go by it appears we're putting ourselves in a weaker and weaker position. How can a soldier keep up strong morale when he's serving his 3rd tour of duty in Iraq and we're seemingly accomplishing nothing?

[sweeps]

Maybe we could convince the world that we accidentally invaded Iraq and we could just quietly head on back?

Hey, it worked for Switzerland.

[gackle]

I agree, Sweeps, our forces seem to be stretched too thin. I don't know what we would do if both Iran and North Korea all of a sudden required us to send troops. The draft?
Liechtenstein doesn't seem to be trembling at the invasion of the forever neutral Swiss, do they?

[tinapbeana]

Tina, are you coming at this from the perspective of what gives us the right to take their WMDs when we have a lot ourselves?

gackle, i'm saying if america is going to say WMDs are bad unilaterially than we should abide by that ourselves. otherwise, let's just say WMDs are bad in the hands of people we don't want to have them.

if terrorism is a threat and we're going to wage a war on it, then it should include all terrorists, including americans who bomb americans on american soil. if it's just foreign terrorists who bomb americans on american soil, then we should say so.

but we don't.