1,000 U.S. troops urge Iraq pull-out

[Dion]

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism...6-112140-6061r

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 (UPI) -- More than 1,000 active-duty U.S. military personnel are said to have signed a petition calling for a full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Some 50 active-duty officers and other troops, including veterans of the current Iraq war, announced Tuesday that they would hand-deliver their petition, entitled an "Appeal for Redress," to Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and other members of Congress, AppealforRedress.org said in a statement Tuesday.

"Rather than escalating troop levels, the appeal calls on Congress to put an end to the war and bring the troops home," the statement said.

"With the recent call for an escalation of troops in Iraq, Congress should listen to those of us who have been there and who will be directly affected by this policy change," said Seaman Jonathan Hutto, co-founder of the Appeal for Redress group.

"Any troop increase over here will just produce more sitting ducks, more targets," said Sgt. Ronn Cantu who is on active service in Iraq and was quoted in the group's statement.

"Under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (DOD Directive 7050.6) active-duty military, National Guard, and Reservists can file and send a protected communication to a Member of Congress, while off-duty and out of uniform, regarding any subject without fear of reprisal," the statement said.

[metallicat]

I hate to sound cold and callous, but members of the military don't have a choice as to what wars they fight. I understand they are the best people to listen to when it comes to happenings in Iraq, but it is an all-volunteer military for a reason.

The war must be played out until Iraq can handle that country on their own.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I hate to sound cold and callous, but members of the military don't have a choice as to what wars they fight. I understand they are the best people to listen to when it comes to happenings in Iraq, but it is an all-volunteer military for a reason.

The war must be played out until Iraq can handle that country on their own.

That is exactly the problem. It's been nearly 5 years.

[metallicat]

I know, but I'm not convinced pulling out completely right now would be beneficial long term as compared to staying.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

That is exactly the problem. It's been nearly 5 years.

It took at least 5 years for the US to pull out of Japan after WWII, and that was with the full blessing of the Emporer at the time (a person that the people revered as all supreme).

Now compare that to what is currently going on in Iraq. There is a government, but one body that the people can look to for guidance. There is alot of propoganda going on, to influence those on the fence. It's not the best situation, and things will start improving. It is going to take time. Pulling out now would do more damage in the long run.

And if these military personal didn't want to fight in a war, why did they join the military?

[TheDragon]

The same could be said about staying in the course in Iraq, though. The only difference leaving now compared to later would provide is a few less dead or wounded Soldiers.

I'm not anti-War... but I am pro-Peace, and enough is enough.

If the Iraqi government can't establish itself and become dependent on it's own people to keep the peace there, then who can? Will they ever be able to? Will the US have to remain there for a decade? For how much more longer? Saddam Hussein is captured and dealt with, and the insurgency is pretty much as hemmed in as it's going to be. Democracy is in place. It's time for them to step it up.

Either that, or the US needs to find a new strategy - and quick... because simply adding more soldiers isn't going to work, either.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by arsenal

And if these military personal didn't want to fight in a war, why did they join the military?

They probably wouldn't have if they knew they were going to fight a war based on lies, half-truths and maybe a hidden agenda or two. Or if you don't like that angle -- they probably wouldn't have if they knew they were going to fight in an open-ended war based on inconceivably bad intelligence against a country that was no threat to America.

I don't blame these guys for finally saying something. It may not be the most "soldierly" thing to do, but I guess they got tired of it all after 4 years and decided they had to say something.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd like to see how the petition was worded, for all we know the statement on it could be as nebulous as the question posted towards French Voters at the last referendum. It would also be interesting to see what the demographich was on the signee's. For all we know it could be 1000 50 year old national guardsmen who want to go home.

We certainly need more information on how and who distributed the petition.

On your statement, Rouge, I doubt a lot of the troops that are on the ground give a crap about hidden agenda's or why the war was started. They're more concerned with getting the job done and going home. Ask the average soldier about pulling out and leaving the average joe civillian to the tender mercies of the insurgents and you would probably get a violent result.

We might not like the government in place, we might not like the reason the war was started or the U.S. Government. But you don't stop cut and run because its the easy thing to do.

I'm all for a phased withdrawl of the troops once we're sure that the civilian population can be protected competantly by whatever forces the Iraqi government can put into place, and putting pressure on the Iraq government to accelerate the creation and training of its own police and armed forces.

but to just withdraw, leaving a mess that your responsible for, nah.

[mykalberta]

With respect to men and women that serve/served in Canada's, US, GBR, Australia, and Japan military. No matter what you may think the agenda is, it isnt for you to say or do anything about it. That is the responsibility of the Congress and the US Senate and the overseeing governing bodies of the respective countries.

WW2 is a prime example, why would/should the US go in there - Germany never did attack or make any meaningful action toward the US, why use Japan's attack as a precurser? Why should American soldiers die for the lives of European civilians? The why does/should not matter to soldiers, only the order.

Nukes might have been the media precurser to war in Iraq, but establishing a ME beach head outside of Saud and destabalizing Iran/Lebanon/Palestine/Syria, Putting a scare into NKRP and China and drawing Arab fighters to Iraq to fight men and women trained to kill rather than those going to the US is far more important. (with respect to EMS/Fire/Policeman - you are NOT the first line of defence, you are at best a soft deterrent (cops dont prevent crime)). It ticks me off everytime some says some NYFD or PD or whatever is the first line of defence - please.

Yes, 20K is a drop in the insignificant bucket. It should have been 200K with a General that hasnt lost his balls in Vietnam (I am thinking the guy sent in to NWO after Katrina) - someone who knows that wars are won based on the deaths of the enemy and the submission of its civilians (ala Germany WW2), not media blips on CNN and not CNN bitching about civilian and soldier casualties - those are important but should not even be on the radar for decision making.

No war has ever been won based on comprimise and this one wont be either. The downfall of the US as a power came when Isreal refused to do what was necessary to exterminate the pockets of Lebanese resistance. They should have drove in tanks to the outskirts of town, bombarded the **** out of them then moved in and if you are holding anythign more than your dick in your hands, you are killed (why bother with Beirut - never understood it - get the Aiport, Seaport and major roads but why the buildings - peculiar). When Isreal refused to do what was necessary, the downfall of the US as we know has begun. If Isreal, of all nations cannot do what was neccessary, the US has no hope.

The simple reason for the war in Iraq is this - it is a direct response/result of the inability/catagoric FAILURE of the CIA/NSA to comprimise the governments/organizations of the ME (Osama, WTF its been like 5 years, why is he or is sons still breathing). That is why you establish a beach-head in the ME - because your security organizations cannot do it covertly.

MYK

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Ask the average soldier about pulling out and leaving the average joe civillian to the tender mercies of the insurgents and you would probably get a violent result.

Maybe. Hopefully. But judging by the headlines, it seems to me that the civilians are at the tender mercies of the insurgents already. 35 thousand of them died in 2006. Something like a hundred more today.

I don't even know if I'm for pulling them out or not. The Americans really should clean up their mess, but the problem is it won't be the mess-makers doing the cleaning.

[Dion]

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/

Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq

THE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis.

Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them.

Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion.

All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion — to control Iraq's oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region — now stand revealed.

The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war.

The November elections in the United States sent a clear message that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail.

Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate Democrats, aren't about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq. Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S. goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means.

Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued U.S. intervention inside Iraq.

With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen. William Odom calling for "complete withdrawal" of all U.S. troops, the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine their own future.

[transplant99]

If the Iraqi government can't establish itself and become dependent on it's own people to keep the peace there, then who can?

I'm really curious to hear what it is you think this time frame should be exactly.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I'm really curious to hear what it is you think this time frame should be exactly.

I was asking that very same question in my post.

It's been close to 5 years, and they haven't even come close to even offering a ballpark idea of when the US will be ready to pull out. The longer they are there, the worse it will get, and the less people the US military will be able to recruit, unless they bring back the draft - which is exactly what they're trying to do. Which means that they'll either keep redeploying the forces they've already got for triple tours, or they'll have to find some kind of advantage in the war that many people are beginning to speculate that they haven't really made any progress in since Hussein was captured.

For whatever reason, they seem to think that the more troops they have in Iraq, the easier it will get. This isn't a ground war, though. There isn't two sides divided by the color of the flag they represent, shooting at each other from trenches and gun turrets. This is the US military trying to decipher who from the crowd infront of them is going to fire back at them, and who is an innocent civilian. The only people that can now bring peace and justice to Iraq are the Iraqi's themselves.

I don't advocate immediately withdrawing from Iraq. Don't get me wrong, that's simply irresponsible, and will do more to undo all the good they've created than anything... but at least if they give the Iraqi's an idea of when they won't be there to fight for them, that they will be able to then, themselves, begin to prepare for handling it on their own. It will at least give the soldiers a breath of life knowing they'll be out soon, rather than the constant open ended result it is now, and it will, hopefully, prompt the Iraqi Government to exercise a bit of iniative on preparing for it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Bunch of traitors. They've clearly joined the side of the terrorists.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by arsenal

And if these military personal didn't want to fight in a war, why did they join the military?

Don't forget there are Army Reservists and National Guardsman serving in Iraq. Most of them never dreamed that they'd be called to active duty, much less fight a war, when they signed on.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They're more concerned with getting the job done and going home. Ask the average soldier about pulling out and leaving the average joe civillian to the tender mercies of the insurgents and you would probably get a violent result.

You meaning the fighting the insurgency that didn't exist until Bush and his band of merry men decided to undertake this adventure?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You meaning the fighting the insurgency that didn't exist until Bush and his band of merry men decided to undertake this adventure?

Thats really irrelevant right now, they're there, the political situation is done and nothings going to change that. The insurgency is there, and it was caused by an invasion (well executed) followed up by a bumbling and poorly executed pacification strategy.

Believe me, right now with bullets and bombs going off the troops aren't looking at each other and saying "You know the NCA really @@@@@@ up foreign policy here, and the CIA lied to us". The soldier on the ground can't even think about that, they're focused on thier day to day mission.

Besides I'm sure that if a petition was circulated with real world reasons on why the mission should continue, you would probably get a thousand or more signatures on that petition.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I hate to sound cold and callous, but members of the military don't have a choice as to what wars they fight. I understand they are the best people to listen to when it comes to happenings in Iraq, but it is an all-volunteer military for a reason.

Seems kind of dumb to me to ignore what they're saying though. They're not begging to be released from duty out of cowardice... just because you volunteered for the Army doesn't remove your (very legitimate) right to complain. They put their lives on the line every day, I think they've got a right to make a beef if they want.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Bunch of traitors. They've clearly joined the side of the terrorists.

Why do they hate the troops so much!?!

[oldschoolcalgary]

Thats really irrelevant right now, they're there, the political situation is done and nothings going to change that. The insurgency is there, and it was caused by an invasion (well executed) followed up by a bumbling and poorly executed pacification strategy.

Well, its irrelevant because the american's smashed the country up, and like Powell said prior to the decision to go to war, the "Pottery Barn" rule would be the result...

But, I think that its always important to recognize the initial decisions because, hopefully, people (ie the public) will learn from it the next time...

Unfortunately, like K said in Men in Black, "A person is smart. People? People are dumb." so I don't have much the american population