Time to pull out? How many dead will be the last straw?

[Leeloo]

I'm sorry if there is another thread on this, but I have reached the point where I think it's time to start protesting in the streets a la Viet Nam. I am sick and tired of hearing about 3 or 4 of our people being killed every day. I wasn't even totally against the war effort and I feel this way. I hear old white conservative men in the country store complaining about the waste and how they should be out of there. One of the old men said, whether we go or stay, the place is crazy. So let's go before anyone else is killed. His nephew is over there in the MPs. He is a WW2 vet himself.

When you have those types of people complaining, how long will the support last? I now see signs in front of stores that used to read 'GO USA' changed to "Pray for our troops' safe return' The American person on the street has had enough. It's a waste. How many of our boys, and/or girls, will be considered expendable? These are PEOPLE and LIVES here, not 'sacrifices' as they are always called when they die. How long do you think handing a mother or a wife a flag will suffice? The anger is spreading. The morale of the troops is low. Iraq is now the predicted quagmire, and our troops (and Brits too) are sitting ducks for terrorism and sneak attacks. It's time we let those in charge know how we feel!

 

[verte76]

I agree. I'm getting really tired of hearing about these killings. The sooner control can be given to the Iraqis and we can get the hell out of there the better. There are even complaints in the local newspapers which are very supportive of Bush and the war effort.

 

[wolfwill23]

Every day I read in the headlines that another soldier has died in Iraq, I get very upset. However, as far as your post is concerned, I could not disagree with you more.

First of all, whether or not one supported the war, the fact of the matter is, the USA attacked Iraq with the goal of uprooting a ruthless dictator and his regime and creating a free society for the people of Iraq. If we leave now, the country will undoubtly fall into the hands of a radical muslim group which will leave the country worse than when we found it. Also, the whole idea of making the middle east and the US safer with the ouster of Saddam would be thrown right out the window because this new islamic country would most likely become a breeding ground for terrorists, just like Afganistan.

Second of all, I have read in recent days (since the killing of Uday and Quassai) that many military commanders in Iraq believe that we are approaching the 'hump' so to speak in winning the peace. With the confirmed deathes of Saddam's sons, comes a feeling on the street that the regime is gone for good. Therefore, valuable intelligence from everyday Iraqis has been flowing in at an amazing rate. So, again contrary to your beliefs, now is the time more than ever to stick by our troops and the cause for rebuilding Iraq. We could possibly be approaching a 'final push' with the winning of the peace.

Third, these things take time. This country has been neglected for 30 years by Saddam. The infrastructure is shot to hell. So when it's 130 degrees outside and there is no food, power and water and some guy offers you $3,000. to kill a soldier and that if you don't that they will kill your family, what choice do you have? The flipside of that is when all the infrastructure is repaired, people have jobs again and law and order are returned to the streets, then the killings of US soldiers will all but vanish.

Right now, Iraq is still a very scary place. However, the death of Saddam's sons brings new hope to the speedy rebuilding of Iraq. When we protest in the streets against the cause, that hurts morale of the troops and fuels the jihad fighters. Therefore, more US soldiers will be killed, not less. Now is not the time to be protesting in the streets. Now is the time to stand behind the cause, find and capture/kill Saddam and rebuild Iraq so the people there can live fruitful lives without being opressed by a ruthless, raping, maming, killing dictatorship.

 

[verte76]

Good post, wolfwill23. It's true that there are all of the complaints in the newspapers. But just because the troops are getting killed doesn't even mean that the majority of the Iraqi people want the Americans out. I'm not sure the people in Washington knew just how tough it would be to "win the peace". But "the peace" *has* to be done. Winning the war was easy; winning the peace is long, difficult and mostly thankless and may carry a political price tag.

 

[NYbrowneyedgirl]

I can't watch the news anymore, it is so sad, eveyday more soldiers and Iraqis are killed. However, America cannot leave yet, they have to clean up the mess they have made. Can you imagine what it would be like over there if they just left now, it would be so much worse.

Also, this is what the people who are attacking the soldiers want, they know that the more they kill, Americans will get more upset and demand that they come home.

God bless the troops.

 

[Klaus]

Just leaving is no option - if you leave, the Mullahs will get in power there and it could get even worse compared to Saddams Regime.

The only way for the US should be:
giving the power over Iraq back the the UN. France and Germany allready announced that they would help in Iraq if the full controll would be at the UN.

But even with the UN it would continue to be a bloody mission for quite a while.

Klaus

p.s. i wonder if Mr. Bush sometimes thinks about "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up."

 

[verte76]

Just leaving is no option - if you leave, the Mullahs will get in power there and it could get even worse compared to Saddams Regime.
<snip>
But even with the UN it would continue to be a bloody mission for quite a while.

Klaus

True. It's a hell of a mess, but it's got to be cleaned up. Sort of like my web site.

 

[Leeloo]

I still agree with the old man at the country store. Whether or not we stay, it is a messed up and scary place. The longer we stay, the more will die. If you say we must stay until it's 'finished' that's just the Vietnam type quagmire I saw and feared when I posted this.

 

[Lilly]

i agree with wolfwill23.


we can't just pull out, or it'd be worse off than it was before we went in.


(it should be stated that i didn't like the way this war began, but it sure as hell isn't going to be marred by premature exiting of troops and funding)

i also agree that we should perhaps get the UN back in there.

Originally posted by Leeloo
How many of our boys, and/or girls, will be considered expendable? These are PEOPLE and LIVES here, not 'sacrifices' as they are always called when they die.

these lives aren't considered expendable. it is still a great sadness when military personnel are lost in the line of duty. but their sacrifice is huge - to rid iraq of saddam's tyranny. i think most people understand that the soldiers that are killed there are people with moms and dads and dogs and sisters and brothers.


who exactly is deeming these lives expendable?

 

[Klaus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/29/international/worldspecial/29FRAN.html?th

...
Mr. Chirac has ruled out any participation of French troops in a peacemaking or peacekeeping capacity unless there is a United Nations mandate. Senior German officials similarly refuse to consider the deployment of troops without a changed mandate, but as one of them noted last week, "We do not want the American occupation to fail."

In a radio interview last week, Mr. de Villepin argued that only a Security Council resolution handing responsibility for Iraq's security and its political and economic future to the United Nations could secure the peace. "Piecing together a system with what already exists, adding foreign troops to coalition forces, does not seem to us the best way to guarantee security in Iraq," he said.

That said, French military planners are drawing up contingency plans to send troops to Iraq in the unlikely event that France is asked to help fulfill a United Nations mandate, senior French officials said. France could put together a force of 8,000 to 10,000 troops, they added.

France is in effect setting the bar for troop deployment so high that Washington will either not ask for French troops or will refuse to accept French conditions for sending them under a United Nations umbrella, officials suggested.

..

Neither France nor Germany is likely to agree to a large NATO role in Iraq as long as the United States is the main occupying power.

...

What he did say was powerful enough. "What we need is an international structure, an international mechanism to eliminate unilateralism and bring about multilateralism," he said. The goal, he added, is "that nobody feels sidelined, marginalized, humiliated."

At the Group of 8 economic summit in France in June, Mr. Bush assured Mr. Chirac that it was not American policy to be hostile toward France, and he blamed the news media for exaggerating problems.

However, shortly afterward, no American officers above the rank of colonel attended the Paris Air Show in June, and there were no demonstration flights by American warplanes, all on Mr. Rumsfeld's orders.

Yes, and the Freedomfries were made up from the media only too

 

[Leeloo]

Originally posted by Lilly
who exactly is deeming these lives expendable?[/B]

Of course no one is saying that, or making a list, but it does seem like they expect to lose a certain number and aren't really surprised or upset over them. That's what makes me think they predicted a certain 'number' of how many 'sacrifices' will be acceptable to the public before we start to raise hell, and that's what I mean by 'expendable.' They seem so matter of fact when they say 'we are grateful for their sacrifice.' So some family in Iowa or North Carolina loses someone very special, give them a folded flag, call it a sacrifice and that's how it goes. I can't accept that. It was bad enough the ones lost in the original battle to Baghadad, but these sneak attack victims now seem like total wastes. I've seen their families say the same thing on the news, and that they were 'forgotten' and 'unappreciated.'

Maybe it's because I don't think it was a good enough reason. Of course Saddam is evil and I hate him! But it wasn't for us to say, and it wasn't for our people to die in this cause. I've had it with the 'world's policemen' job. It is bad people suffer and die in other countries, so does someone from here with nothing to do with it have to suffer and die too to make it okay? It's NEVER okay.

 

[wolfwill23]

I know that most of you don't like Bush in this forum. However, I believe that it bothers him EVERY time we lose a life.

Our military is 100% volunteers. When you sign up, you know there is a risk involved. It is very sad to see these young men dying in Iraq. However, when they signed up for the military, they knew there was a possibility that they would go to war and in wars, people get killed.

It's an ugly business, there's no doubt about that. But the sooner we find Saddam, the sooner these men and women can come home.

 

[Klaus]

I know that most of you don't like Bush in this forum. However, I believe that it bothers him EVERY time we lose a life.

right, i don't like bush but i'm sure that he cares about it and it does more than bother him.

I know that you have 100% volunteer armee (well it's not that volunterely if you do it because you are bancrupt and there is no other job you can find and you have to feed your family, but that's another story)..

I don't think that the resistence will break down if Saddam is found. Lots of people (even US military people) say that it is not just saddams followers who fight against the US in Iraq. There are Iraqi "liberty fighters" who want a free iraq, not controlled by any big brother, there are the followers of al-quaida who are happy now that this despot who didn't believe in allah is gone, they want to turn that country into a cleric dictatorship - and maybe there are even more groups who fight against the US occupation

Klaus

 

[pax]

I might be sort of late on this, but I'm moving this thread to War.

 

[Lilly]

first - i want to say that the accusation that the military, president, or the american people are not hurt or saddened by military losses is ludicrous. maybe you're getting the sense that the government doesn't care because it's just sorta brought up in the news like "another casualty in iraq today..." but i sincerely doubt that the president is just like "well...that's slot 102 filled in our 200 expected dead, we need to start being more careful."

i'm not the biggest bush fan, but i'm not about to say he is inhumane, i'm sure that he is saddened when he hears of our military personnel dying in the field.

originally posted by leeloo
I've seen their families say the same thing on the news, and that they were 'forgotten' and 'unappreciated.'

i don't understand what you mean by this - can you elaborate please?

originally posted by klaus
I know that you have 100% volunteer armee (well it's not that volunterely if you do it because you are bancrupt and there is no other job you can find and you have to feed your family, but that's another story)..

i can see where you'd draw that conclusion, but there are other branches of the military to go into if you're only volunteering because of economic situation. peace corps is a good example. do we still have CCC (civilian conservation corps)? does anyone know that for sure? the CCC basically brought the US out of depression, employing all the people without jobs, shipping them around the country to make highways and dams and whatnots.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

i can see where you'd draw that conclusion, but there are other branches of the military to go into if you're only volunteering because of economic situation. peace corps is a good example.

actually, Peace Corps pays virtually nothing and probably wouldn't accept you if you had dependents to feed and clothe. It's more or less purely volunteer, with your physical needs being met at a very basic level. Oh and Peace Corps is definitely not affiliated with the military.

 

[Strato Edge]

I think Iraq is a dead cause. With hatred these people were taught to feel against America, I think Americans, nor innocent Iraqis, will ever be safe again in Iraq.

 

[deep]

U.S. Soldier Slain in Baghdad Grenade Attack

Explosive is dropped from an overpass in the capital. Meanwhile, relatives of Iraqis killed during a raid Sunday mourn the victims.
By Alissa J. Rubin
Times Staff Writer

July 29, 2003

BAGHDAD ? An assailant dropped a grenade from a Baghdad highway overpass onto an Army vehicle Monday, killing one U.S. soldier and wounding three others.

In another part of Baghdad, relatives of people killed in an unsuccessful raid by U.S. soldiers looking for Saddam Hussein mourned their loved ones.

The death of the soldier from the 1st Armored Division brought to 50 the number of U.S. soldiers killed in hostile attacks since President Bush declared an end to major combat May 1.

The tactic of dropping explosives from a highway overpass onto convoys of military vehicles is frequently used, said Army Capt. Jeff Fitzgibbons, a spokesman.

"It's actually a pretty good tactic because it's hard to respond to," Fitzgibbons said. "It gives the attackers a chance to escape, especially if they drop it on the last vehicle."

Fitzgibbons said that in some cases, the U.S. military has spotted a group of people on an overpass and has been able to prevent an attack. In Monday's attack, two of the wounded suffered only minor injuries and were back on duty late in the day. The third was still being treated.

A second U.S. soldier was killed Monday in a road accident near the southern city of Nasiriyah.



In the eyes of many Iraqis, the U.S. soldiers, who are facing a constant threat of attacks, are increasingly inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.

In the wealthy Mansour neighborhood west of the Tigris River, where Sunday's unsuccessful raid in pursuit of Hussein occurred, neighbors gathered on street corners to discuss it. Iraqis said at least four civilians were killed and five injured, three of them seriously, when U.S. soldiers fired at their cars.

In one car, a Catholic family was on its way to church. Another carried members of a Kurdish family dropping off a letter to be hand-carried by a friend to a relative in Europe. The identities of the occupants of a third car were not known, witnesses in the neighborhood said.

Mazan Albert, 35, his brother Alyas Thamir Albert, 40, and their mother, Clementine, were on their way to church when the shooting occurred. Mazan was killed; his mother and brother were wounded and taken to a military hospital.

Clementine's sister, who came to the family's house Monday, said that although the extended family lived in different neighborhoods, members usually went to Sunday services together. It was only after church services that she realized something had happened. She declined to give her name.

She thought it unlikely that Mazan Albert, who was driving, would have run a checkpoint ? the explanation from the U.S. military for the shooting.

"I don't imagine he would refuse to stop," she said. "He was a quiet, simple man."

As a child, she said, he had been hit by a car and had lost the lower part of his right leg. His car was specially outfitted for someone missing a limb.

Alyas Thamir Albert, his older brother, has worked as a translator for the Americans mostly in Taji, north of Baghdad. His work badge, which family members showed to a reporter, has a picture of a serious-looking young man with short brown hair.

Clementine's sister said no one in the family had been told where her injured sister and nephew had been taken.

Rabin Hazim, a neighbor who came to comfort the family, said the Americans hadn't blocked the road until after the shooting.

No one had claimed Mazan Albert's body by Monday afternoon. With multiple gunshot wounds ? one to the head and two in the shoulder ? he lay in a bloodied white shirt and worn blue pants on the floor of Yarmouk Hospital's makeshift morgue.

Next to him were two other victims of the shooting, who also had suffered multiple gunshot wounds.

A fourth victim, a boy of about 15, had been brought in with a gunshot wound to the head. He was referred to a neurosurgery center, but Dr. Jamil Ibrahim, a general surgeon at Yarmouk, said the boy could not have survived.

A Pentagon official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Iraqis were in two cars that failed to stop at U.S. military checkpoints. Troops fired on both cars, he said.

"Of course that's a very dangerous thing to do, when you fail to stop at a checkpoint," the official said. "And to that extent, they represented a threat to our troops, who acted in accordance with their inherent right to self-defense."

No one was killed in the car carrying members of Mohammed Abdulrahman's family, who are Kurdish Shiite Muslims. They said they had supported the U.S. presence in Iraq ? until Sunday.

"At the beginning, I was so happy the Americans came," said Nadhim Nariman, a cousin, who was standing next to Abdulrahman's hospital bed, where he lay unconscious after abdominal surgery.

"Now I feel their presence is dangerous for us. Yesterday we prepared our weapons and we wanted to retaliate against the Americans, but our oldest cousin said no. But our cousin had this accident for nothing. Don't the Americans know that we, the Shiite Kurds, were the biggest enemies of Saddam, the most dangerous to him?"

Abdulrahman's 23-year-old son, Firaz, who was in the car when the shooting occurred, said his father was just turning down a side street when they were hit by gunfire. They had not realized they were driving into a forbidden zone.

"We didn't even see the Americans when it first happened," he said as he fanned his father to cool him in the sultry afternoon air.

Firaz, who returned to Baghdad from his army service in northern Iraq after the war, said that after having survived the war, he wondered whether he would survive the peace.

"They are thinking Saddam is here, but they are shooting innocent people. Maybe they are afraid and so they are shooting madly in this way," he said.







This is THE problem and it is getting worse everyday.
U. S. Soldiers are upset with all the killings and are reacting, alienating the people we are supposed to be liberating.

After Saddam is long gone the killings will continue. It is similar to Viet Nam, we are losing the people!

 

[Lilly]

actually, Peace Corps pays virtually nothing and probably wouldn't accept you if you had dependents to feed and clothe. It's more or less purely volunteer, with your physical needs being met at a very basic level. Oh and Peace Corps is definitely not affiliated with the military.

but when you think about it, people who are signing up for the military just cos of their economic status are going to be young men and women most likely without families of their own. so, no dependents.

i know they don't pay much - it's a corps but there are other benefits to it (as i'm kinda sure you're familiar with).

i know that if i was looking to get into a corp because i needed a job, i'd be less likely to sign up for say...the marines than say...the peace corps. does that make more sense?

oh and sorry it sorta seemed like i was mushing the peace corps with the military, but i was just talking about corps in general


i'm just saying that there are options to this

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Maybe so, but while the GI bill will pay a good chunk (if not all) of your college bills, most Peace Corps volunteers are expected to have already finished college. And the only financial aid we get is a 15% cut on any Perkins Loan we may have had to take out to get our degree. I know plenty of kids who have joined the military because of the money for college. Don't know anyone who has been in Peace Corps that did if for monetary reasons. I'm probably going to be making something in the neighborhood of $100 a month, if even that.

So yeah, I guess I don't see the comparison at all. But of course I'm biased because I would never join the military and I am joining the Peace Corps.

 

[Leeloo]

I think Iraq is a dead cause. With hatred these people were taught to feel against America, I think Americans, nor innocent Iraqis, will ever be safe again in Iraq.

Very true, and that's why it's hopeless. It will take several generations to deprogram the hatred for the US out of them, if ever. We don't have that much time. I think a lot of westerners are under the illusion that if we give them food, medicine and fix them a school, they'll like us!! But that isn't the way they think. Some of the guys who were attacked were guarding an elementary school.

Back to the Vietnam analogy: how many of you have said 'we can't pull out now or they'll win!' Wasn't that the rationale behind staying in Nam? Didn't we finally see it was unwinnable and leave anyway? Nearly 60,000 lives were lost, and countless more ruined, and for what? I don't want to see this happen again

 

[wolfwill23]

Comparing this war to Vietnam is crazy. THOUSANDS were killed in Vietnam. I think the total number of deaths in this conflict on the US side is like 170 or something.

As I stated earlier, once Saddam is gone things will get on track.

 

[Lilly]

Very true, and that's why it's hopeless. It will take several generations to deprogram the hatred for the US out of them, if ever. We don't have that much time. I think a lot of westerners are under the illusion that if we give them food, medicine and fix them a school, they'll like us!! But that isn't the way they think. Some of the guys who were attacked were guarding an elementary school.

it's not hopeless. "deprogram the hatred" is an attitude that is hopeless. westerners should be giving food and medicine and fix them a school, but we should also be trading with them and including them in the global market. i don't know what you're talking about here, since we had complete sanctions on iraq and hadn't given them much of anything until right before the war. so the "illusions" that the westerners were "under" were fictitious anyway.

Back to the Vietnam analogy: how many of you have said 'we can't pull out now or they'll win!' Wasn't that the rationale behind staying in Nam? Didn't we finally see it was unwinnable and leave anyway? Nearly 60,000 lives were lost, and countless more ruined, and for what? I don't want to see this happen again

like wolfwill said, THOUSANDS were dying in vietnam. we aren't trying to WIN this...we're trying to get rid of saddam and help iraq set up a functioning government. we're trying to avoid a lot of vietnam mistakes with this one.

 

[anitram]

To me, the comparison with Vietnam has nothing to do with numbers.

I think it's more accurate to say that Iraq will quite potentially if not probably become to America what Lebanon was to Israel. How long were the Israelis there? 18 years. Surrounded by people who initially tolerated them, then turned hostile as each day passed by.

 

[Lilly]

i understand where you're coming from - that the occupation could seem like we'll be there forever.


but we have to remember that we declared war in what...march 30th? that means we've been there for almost exactly 4 months...it seeems a little premature to compare it to a 20 year occupation.

 

[anitram]

Lilly, I said there was the potential it would become such a situation. I wasn't comparing the current scenario to it.

I don't think any reasonable person could make the claim that you'd get out of there in anything less than many years from now. And what happened to Afghanistan? The place is absolutely reckless with lawlessness, it's a total mess that we don't hear anything about anymore. All this talk of democracy in places that have never experienced it is premature. It's not happening in the near future, IMO.

 

[Lilly]

anitram -

i probably should have more clearly split my reply in two, or quoted leeloo. i truly apologize for any misunderstandings

 

[Klaus]

Lilly:

remember that even non-critical people to this war like Sting2 think that the US forces will stay there 10 years or longer

Klaus

 

[Lilly]

but even if we're occupying for that long - it shouldn't be holding up like this - one can't foresee that american soldiers will still be victims of snipers with such constancy.

i vaguely remember bush saying that he was planning on removing troops when everything was clear, but keeping some members of the military there for peacekeeping.

what if the us started bringing in un police to help peace keep?


at any rate, the fighting is not like vietnam...and while i see there are similarites and i think that if a certain point is reached, the people will HAVE to take to the streets again ~ but i just don't think that now is the time per se.

 

[Rono]

It is not possible to pull out now, it would be a diseaster for the Iraq people. But maybe it is time to think about the homecoming soldiers. They will be partly traumatized i guess. they did not got the flowers and happy faces they epected to get, and promised by the Bush gang.