Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
cbacon

Should the U.S. pull out of Iraq immediately?

Recommended Posts

I say screw international law, screw civilian casualties (they're collateral damage and in WW2 we didn't care we when bombed the crap out of Drezden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.)

 

I think this takes the cake as the most ignorant comment i've seen on these boards, and thats saying something.

 

You should see the massive screaming fight me and Mike had over at my board over some very similar comments he made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spanish pulled out of Iraq as a calculated loss, if that makes any sense at all. They didn't have nearly as much manpower or resources committed to the conflict as Britain or the US. Pulling out their forces, especially when the majority of the population wanted an immediate withdrawl, was really their only option. The Madrid incident simply made it much more urgent.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5070800923.html

The Italians are planning a partial pull-out, as the Italian Prime Minister is being threatened. Do we call them cowards as we have Spain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really see the problem of having the terrorists come to fight us in Iraq. 

 

Another problem with this theory:

 

Is the point of our whole counter-insurgency effort to bring peace and stability or to turn Iraq into a huge battleground?

 

Edit: nocalmike already made this point--but it was a good one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard a lot about how supposedly an unofficial army of Muslim foreigners has infiltrated Iraq; what I haven't heard is someone suggesting how to stop it. Iraq's combined lengths of its borders is a helluva lot longer than the US/Mexico line, and we've never managed to even keep that one shut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UK memo says US, UK readying Iraqi withdrawal-report

09 Jul 2005 23:20:28 GMT

 

Source: Reuters

 

LONDON, July 10 (Reuters) - A leaked document from Britain's Defence Ministry says the British and U.S. governments are planning to reduce their troop levels in Iraq by more than half by mid-2006, the Mail on Sunday newspaper reported.

 

The memo, reportedly written by Defence Minister John Reid, said Britain would reduce its troop numbers to 3,000 from 8,500 by the middle of next year.

 

"We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (two of the four provinces under British control in southern Iraq) in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006," the memo was reported to have said.

 

The memo said Washington planned to cut its forces to 66,000 from about 140,000 by early 2006.

 

"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said.

 

The United States is training Iraqi forces to take over the country's defence in the face of an insurgency involving allies of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and foreign militants allied to al Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

 

But critics say Iraqi troops are not ready to take charge of security in their country.

 

"There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom, who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers and the multi-national force in Iraq, whose approach is more cautious," read the memo.

 

Reid said in a statement in response the article:

 

"We have made it absolutely plain we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed. No decision on the future force posture of UK forces has been taken.

 

"We have always said it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases.

 

"We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies. This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios. This is prudent planning."

 

The United States and Britain have the two largest contingents of foreign forces in Iraq and the memo described the impact a reduction of U.S. and British forces might have on other allied troops.

 

"The Japanese will be reluctant to stay if protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position may also be uncertain."

 

The memo said reducing British troop levels in Iraq would save about 1 billion pounds ($1.74 billion) per year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm certainly not. I'd say my overall waryness of my surroundings hasn't changed a bit, but I attribute that more to always imagining any time I'm in public or on a plane something catastrophic is going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. If it took recent terrorist actions to make you realize that some people do things that hurt people and that have an infinitesimal chance of ever actually harming you, you had a long way to go anyway. If you let that shocking discovery change your livelihood or your approach to life then you never had one that was terribly worthwhile in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to know how all the Canucks on this board feel after the shit w/ London. It's now down to us and Italy on Al-Queda's shit list.

 

It's not something I sweat a lot but I feel more prepared in the sense that when something like this does happen (and it will) it won't be so much of a surprise. A shock when it goes down, yes, but not a surprise.

 

I should probably have just put "Ontarians" because I can't see the attacks hitting anywhere else but that'd be rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and responded yet to my UN thing? Because it's useless to try and substitute a working police force for one that has basically failed in every one of it's missions.

 

You know, just to remind you.

 

You could say the same thing about nearly all non-UN "security" missions or whatever you want to call them too.

 

You may be right about the UN in this case, but I threw that option in as a possible alternative given the nature of the situation. The consequences are going to be bad with or without a pullout, it's just a matter of how much worse they will get. Overall, i'm pretty much in agreeance with you on the US withdrawl issue....for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be curious to know how all the Canucks on this board feel after the shit w/ London. It's now down to us and Italy on Al-Queda's shit list.

 

It's not something I sweat a lot but I feel more prepared in the sense that when something like this does happen (and it will) it won't be so much of a surprise. A shock when it goes down, yes, but not a surprise.

 

I should probably have just put "Ontarians" because I can't see the attacks hitting anywhere else but that'd be rude.

 

We are a target, but not a huge priority for terrorist organizations. What seperates us from the other countries is Iraq. It bought us some time, but we did send troops to Afghanistan and in the past we have acted in the interest to the detriment of people in the Middle East by follwing the US in such avenues as supporting corrupt and dictatorial regimes. Hopefully we've taken all the necessary measures to deter such attacks, or at least minimize them as much as possible. It is probable that an attack may occur sometime in the future, but its not something we should be losing sleep over, nor should we be entering any state of panic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could say the same thing about nearly all non-UN "security" missions or whatever you want to call them too.

 

Uh, right now we haven't been surrounded and asked to surrender by the Iraqi Army, so I'd say we are doing primo good. This is worlds above anything the UN has ever done as a group.

 

You may be right about the UN in this case, but I threw that option in as a possible alternative given the nature of the situation. The consequences are going to be bad with or without a pullout, it's just a matter of how much worse they will get. Overall, i'm pretty much in agreeance with you on the US withdrawl issue....for now.

 

Yeah. There's really nothing we can do. The US and Britain are the best choices for security forces bar none at moment, and we really can't pull out until we are sure things are stable and can remain so for an indefinite period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Brian
Hey, we're arguing about all this, aren't we? THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON!

 

Agreed. Sorry if this sounds shitty, but how many of us are afraid of our own shadows now?

 

I'm not. Fuck my shadow. Fuck the ground. Fuck the terrorists. Fuck the president. Fuck the people.

 

I live in Seattle. New Yorkers are getting soft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry if this sounds shitty, but how many of us are afraid of our own shadows now?

 

Not afraid of my own shadow, but certainly a bit weary when ever I am in a heavily populated place or on the train. I catch it to Uni every morning and you just can't help being somewhat suspicious of some people, or even innocent looking things. For example, today after Uni I saw a packed sports bag sitting by itself in a railway underpass and I went to the police station (luckily it was in walking distance) just to let them know. I'm assuming it turned out to be nothing, but after last week, you don't feel like taking any chances when you see something like that

 

It's now down to us and Italy on Al-Queda's shit list.

 

Don't forget us Australians, we are probably higher on their shit list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of people are scared shitless by the terrorists, whether it's for good reason or not. On a recent plane ride I was on, one of the passengers was a Middle Eastern man wearing a turban, and I was the only other passenger who had the balls to sit anywhere near him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During yesterday's daily White House briefing, Scott McClellan was asked if the British memo to partially pull out affected American plans at all. Like with any Karl Rove questions (although not nearly as stonewalling), he just verbally flopped around and said the usual "we're committed to promoting freedom" jazz that doesn't solve any problems or inform anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×