Should the troops come home?

I'm just interested to know what people think.

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?

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.

Originally posted by Trickster
and some are considering increasing their presence

such as?

Actually, you've got me there.

I said some, when really I should have said one: Macedonia is apparently planning on increasing its force by about 40 people.

Sorry for misleading you. Apart from that point, do you have any opinion on the question?

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.

Originally posted by Trickster
Apart from that point, do you have any opinion on the question?

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.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.

QFT

I personally believe my nation's goals are not being served with our soldiers in afghanistan

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

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?

Originally posted by inimalist

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.
an

How is the word "Soldier" any different then the name "troop"?

Shall I instead say "Should the Soldiers come home"?

I care just as little. 😐

Originally posted by Trickster
do you have an opinion on whether or not the soldiers currently in Iraq should be recalled by their respective governments?

lol, im just giving you shit

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.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
How is the word "Soldier" any different then the name "troop"?

Shall I instead say "Should the Soldiers come home"?

I care just as little. 😐

a soldier is an individual

i guess there is "troop", but even that can be used in the plural

it might seem pedantic, but words have power

"Soldiers" is plural too.

A trooper is an individual. A soldier is an individual.

Troops is plural. Soldiers is plural.

They're the same thing.

lol, ok, whatever

Thank you. It's very important that I am right all the time.

you honestly don't see the differnece between the media refering to members of the armed forces as "troops" rather than as "soldiers"?

imho, its the ruling class talking down to the citizens, I'm sorry, the "folks", but hey, citizens and folks are the same thing.

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.

actually, from what I know, you'd be hard pressed to find presidents during ww1/ww2 talking about troops as opposed to soldiers

like, are you saying that word choice has no effect on the way people interpret things?

Not those words, no. They're synonymous. Warriors, fighters, troops, soldiers. They all mean the exact same thing, minus a few technicalities.. 😬

Anyone who does interpret them differently, isn't too bright.

Probably shouldn't come home yet. We've ****ed up Iraq so much that we really have to stay their and fix our own mess.

That said, Kidrock is right. Neither McCain or Obama will pull troops out, we're going to be there for a while.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Not those words, no. They're synonymous. Warriors, fighters, troops, soldiers. They all mean the exact same thing, minus a few technicalities.. 😬

Anyone who does interpret them differently, isn't too bright.

I'd say anyone who has the same mental image elicited by "warrior" and "soldier" lacks experience

and no, i do not believe that two synonymous words are equivalent semantically, or, 2 werds ain't the same