In America, McCain is keeping to his line that he will only pull out when its appropriate, while Obama seems to be changing his mind (contast the statement on his campaign page and what he says in this interview).
Although most of the current coalition members have not announced withdrawal plans. Australia and Poland are both planning a complete withdrawal by the end of the year.
So, what are your opinions? Should the troops return home?
__________________ "If clowns warred on monkeys, and the monkeys had guns, and were trained to use them, who would win?"
Death only gives another set of choices.
He who dies with the most toys. Still dies.
Last edited by REXXXX on Jul 3rd, 2008 at 06:59 PM
Once Iraq is secure enough so it wont get taken over by terrorists then yeah they should come home. The thought of "pull them out right away!" makes me shutter. I think troops should stay in Afghanistan though.
Either way, Obama or McCain, troops will be staying in Iraq.
Hell yeah they should,its just another fake and phony war like vietnam was and just like that one was,was only instigated by our government so all these big businesses and corporations could profit from it.war means big money for these big corporations.
if the american troops actually WERE trying to help and organise afghanistan as well as protect her interests then they have an obligation to remain, after invading. however, seeing as they are NOT doing this but infact causing significant further and often deliberate harm, they shud go home.
soldiers should not be refered to as troops as it devalues the role they play for the nation.
Its very easy to talk about troops going far away, or troop casualties. Complete de-individualization of the brave people defending your nation. Not so easy to talk about sending an individual soldier, a living breathing human, with a face and a family, off to be murdered by strangers.
QFT
I personally believe my nation's goals are not being served with our soldiers in afghanistan
Fair enough, I can see your point. That said, though, I'm just restating the question as it is commonly asked in the media.
Apart from the way I've phrased the question, do you have an opinion on whether or not the soldiers currently in Iraq should be recalled by their respective governments?
__________________ "If clowns warred on monkeys, and the monkeys had guns, and were trained to use them, who would win?"
i think the answer is pretty self-evident. From any realistic or empirical stance, there is no reason to stay in Iraq with the specific exception of Pax Americana.
If one concedes that the need for resources and geo-political supremacy should drive foreign policy, then no. The death, murder, mayham, and nearly comical level of corruption are worth the fact that the American empire now has bases which can launch attacks against the next boogymen and is sitting upon a resource which other global powers are gobbling up. The people in the current administration and in neo-conservative think tanks truly believe America needs to play the role of the new Rome, so they act with the good of the empire rather than of the people.
If you care one iota for human suffering, then one has to rationally leave the country. Preventing it from becoming the next Afghanistan should probably be job #1.
Gender: Male Location: The epitome of my evolution.
Account Restricted
Citizens, folks, "the people"... are all the same thing.
As are Troops and Soldiers. Troops is just a quicker, easier way then soldiers. There's nothing demoralizing about referring to them as troops. We've been calling soldiers troops since the word was first invented. Thinking it's somehow demeaning or devalues them is nonsensical.
KMC Community Forums
Jul 3rd, 2008 06:01 PM
