Let's settle it: Stance concerning the current occupation of Iraq (1 Viewer)

What is your position on the current Iraq occupation?


  • Total voters
    157

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
Just a public opinion poll to satisfy my own curiosity.


What is your position on the current Iraq occupation?
1) No time-limit for withdrawal/open-ended occupation - Just as it reads. Whether you want to occupy Iraq permanently or at least "until the job is done". We're talking potentially "years" here.

2) Phased out withdrawal/time limit imposed by legislation - The "middle ground" post. One might cast their vote here if they feel the US should immediately begin planning to pull out, but feel an immediate withdrawal is impossible/not desirable. At the very least "months".

3) Immediate withdrawal (within reason) - Obviously we can't just pack up and be completely gone by the 8am Baghdad flight out but you feel the US should immediately begin packing up and be out of there, regardless of any other consequences, and that this can be accomplished in a "reasonably" short period of time, as opposed to the months or potentially years of the above options.

Most everything should fall in the above rubric. Feel Iran is a serious threat? You'll need a spring board and favor #1. Think the occupation is doing more harm then good? The longer we stay the worse it gets, you favor #3. Feel like it's a damn mess but we have a moral responsibility to fix things? That's #1. Etc.

If you think the options are a little ham-fisted though, by all means, explain your choice. But remember, every vote counts! :9:
 

MSUSousaphone

Owning the CONCACAF
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
15,887
Reaction score
6,273
Age
37
Location
Lake Charles
Offline
I would like for us to start scaling down our military there and putting the onus of the protection on the Iraq military (personnel and monetary) but I really think setting a time table and announcing when we're going to do it is completely dumb. I also think packing up and leaving immediately would be irresponsible. Causing a mess and then leaving before its all cleaned up.....

So I'll go for option 2.5....?
 

Saintman2884

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Messages
14,730
Reaction score
2,506
Offline
Probably option #2 is the more practical thing to look at,Spam. I think we have accomplished as much as we are going too as it is now and being their anymore is counterproductive. And call me out for saying this but I think even Bush realizes some of that now. It may not be an accepted notion now but I suspect even he realizes it cant last forever and will start to do what Nixon did in the 70's. the coin phrase model is Vietnamization to Iraq. We will hand it over to them sooner or later like we did in Nam 25 years ago. I think its time they make some strides in running their own country.

Of course Vietnamization was a failure because well their was a North Vietnam and the country was not unified after we left and it did become that in 1975. But Iraq does not have a North Vietnam to deal with so to say. sure their is Iran but still its a different ball of wax to work with. But we still need a phased withdrawal I think. It has to end sooner or later and it probably wont matter who gets elected in 2008, the troops are coming home and thats the accepted thing now to me as an observer of this situation
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
I would like for us to start scaling down our military there and putting the onus of the protection on the Iraq military (personnel and monetary) but I really think setting a time table and announcing when we're going to do it is completely dumb. I also think packing up and leaving immediately would be irresponsible. Causing a mess and then leaving before its all cleaned up.....

So I'll go for option 2.5....?

No. There is no 1.5 or 2.5.

I guess the question to ask would be if the situation started to deteriorate would you be in favor of sending troops back in (even after pulling some out)? If so that's 1, no time-limit, till the job is done. If you wouldn't send troops back in you're pretending it's "till the job is done" but really it's just a phased withdrawal.
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
we are there now so we can't just leave tomorrow so, i'll go with number 2

"Within reason". I'm not a military expert but we're flexible enough we could bug out of there fairly quickly and safely. And by "fairly quickly" I mean "a few months". That would be "immediately" to me.
 

MSUSousaphone

Owning the CONCACAF
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
15,887
Reaction score
6,273
Age
37
Location
Lake Charles
Offline
I guess the question to ask would be if the situation started to deteriorate would you be in favor of sending troops back in (even after pulling some out)?

If that's the question then I'd go '1'. But only if things went to total **** where there is a huge chance that their military couldn't handle whatever was happening...not just a little upscale in action.
 

bclemms

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
33,646
Reaction score
44,243
Age
13
Location
Jackson, ms
Offline
Voted the 3rd option but the 2nd option would be fine as long as the time table was sooner rather than later.
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
46,082
Reaction score
20,932
Offline
As much as I'd like to think we could immediately pull up stakes and go home, that probably is the worst case scenario. It was pretty clear watching CNN today that Colin Powell thinks Hillary Clinton's "sixty day" stance and "two brigades a month" until all troops are home isn't based on sound advice -- he said as much. And his is an opinion I respect.

I've no idea what would be best but my hope is that we can extricate ourselves sooner rather than later. I question if a longterm presence there -- the manpower, cost, and resources that will require -- meshes with the best interests of our own national security.
 

CoolBrees1

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
696
Location
Uptown Kenner
Offline
Planned withdrawal....within a time limit is what I thought we were suppose to be doing...
 

MLU

Please respect my decision!
Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
55,249
Reaction score
21,267
Location
Mesa, AZ
Offline
#1, and with a complete hands-off approach from the politicians, allowing the military minds to do what they're paid to do without meddling from Washington.
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
32,055
Reaction score
18,461
Age
48
Location
Houston
Offline
#1, and with a complete hands-off approach from the politicians, allowing the military minds to do what they're paid to do without meddling from Washington.

I agree with #1. I don't want a complete political hands off. This is a geopolitical action with long term implications for the country. Our politicians should absolutely be heavily involved in what happens.

I have no problems with the opposition to the war. Opposition is a good thing. Even when your right being questioned helps to keep things clear and force people to think about things. The problem with the war IMO is they sold the American people a bill of goods to get us there and now they can't keep Americans on board without admitting they simply told us what we needed to hear before.
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
46,082
Reaction score
20,932
Offline
#1, and with a complete hands-off approach from the politicians, allowing the military minds to do what they're paid to do without meddling from Washington.

I just can't agree with that. That's a blank-check approach. If this was a matter of an immediate threat to our borders or the borders of our allies, or being waged within our more immediate sphere of influence, I would agree. But at what cost and for how long can we afford to be idealistic about "leaving it better than we found it?" At some point, the Iraqi people have to be able to take over their own management and if they're still unable almost 5 years after we invaded with no foreseeable end in sight, than I have to think there was a serious miscalculation of what we were getting involved in, the ability to establish peace and order, and hand over orderly control. IMO, there has to be a time-line for the U.S. to step back into, at most, an advisory role and let the Iraqi people chart their own future.
 
OP

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,419
Reaction score
8,141
Age
39
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
I just can't agree with that. That's a blank-check approach. If this was a war that immediately threatened our borders or the borders of our allies, I would agree. But at what cost and for how long can we afford to be idealistic about "leaving it better than we found it?"

Not everyone who votes for #1 is necessarily strictly concerned with just "leaving it better than we found it".
 

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
46,082
Reaction score
20,932
Offline
Not everyone who votes for #1 is necessarily strictly concerned with just "leaving it better than we found it".

No doubt.

The inevitable is that we'll prop-up an eventual dictator who will be "friendly" to the U.S. for a while and we'll provide the weaponry, support, and backing to make it viable. So let's do it already and move on. Surely there's some willing charismatic son-of-a-gun to be found who is ready to rule with an iron-fist and quell dissent. ;)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom