Should the US start withdrawing troops?

Should the US start withdrawing troops?

  • No

    Votes: 6 40.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 8 53.3%
  • Pass

    Votes: 1 6.7%

  • Total voters
    15

Poco Innocente

A ring a ding ding
from Iraq?
 
Responses to this should be almost as varied as answers to the question: Is the Pope Catholic?
 
well, maybe start with clicking one of the options :rolleyes:
 
I dunno, I don't know nuffing about military stuff. But I do know we shouldn't be there to start with.

Did anyone see that thing on More 4 last night about Blair facing a war crimes tribunal..?
 
No. we have to make sure Iraq can stand on it's own first. Damn, we shouldn't even be there in the first place. I pass, because I am done giving a shit about the whole Iraq mess. :mad:
 
I dunno, I don't know nuffing about military stuff. But I do know we shouldn't be there to start with.

Did anyone see that thing on More 4 last night about Blair facing a war crimes tribunal..?

Yes. Thought the best bit was cherie nicking the lightbulbs before the Browns moved in. The characters (maybe a deliberate ploy) were one-dimensional at best which was a shame as Robert Lindsay is a quality actor. (With the exception of My Family! Urrrghhhh)
 
Yes. Thought the best bit was cherie nicking the lightbulbs before the Browns moved in. The characters (maybe a deliberate ploy) were one-dimensional at best which was a shame as Robert Lindsay is a quality actor. (With the exception of My Family! Urrrghhhh)

My sister looked at me like I was telling her the earth had four corners when I said he's done work for the RSC! :D

I loved the way it ended. And I loved squirming at how pathetic Blair and his fugging legacy is.
 
It's a difficult question. Our troops have not had enough support over there from the start, so bringing some of them home and leaving others in ever worsening conditions hardly seems like the way to go. The country is in worse shape than it was when we started this, so it's unstable and actually probably more dangerous if we leave it to it's own devices. Sending more troops is not a popular option, but from my limited understanding of what's happening there, it seems like it might be the best option. I don't know how many troops it would take to stabilize the country though, and it seems to be pretty much up for grabs right now. They can't do it half way. they need to either bring all the troops home or put enough troops there to turn it into an armed camp, and get rid of all of the dangerous people that don't want to work for stability in the new Iraq.

I agree that it's typical to say we're going to end the war by sending more troops. I don't know the answer. Maybe dividing the country?
 
The only answer is to nuke the Middle East. Radical I know but how else can we expect to win this godforesaken war for oil. SORRY AGAINST TERRORISM.

I read today 35,000 Iraqis are estimated to have died in the last year. Bush and his lapdogs (yes thats you Tony) continue to have blood on their hands. As its only people off Middle Eastern extraction and Muslims to boot it doesn't matter though. To Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al...

As for sending more troops in.... who knows. I thought the war officially ended a couple of years ago. According to Mr Bush.
 
until the war is over
i will be messed up more in the head than usual
its to the point where i got make sure i go right to my yahoo account
so, i do not see the CONSTANT and pointless roll call
of 'our dead' and 'the other side?'
hum.jpg


ps:
ohnson.jpg

http://www.1cda.org/Division_memorial.htm
mourn.jpg
 
About that Mission Accomplished thing, see that's part of the problem. Bush should be removed from office for getting us into this in the first place. He should not be counted on to get us out, and you know the next president is going to inherit this problem.
 
^^1. you never talk about that, let's hear more (if you don't mind)...
2. I think that only works if it's the natives doing the seperating

Poco, shouldn't this thread be called "the should the US start withdrawing troops THREAD"? :p
 
You can't compare what's happening in Iraq to the US War Between the States. I'm not saying separation is the answer, it's just a possibility. And it might be a bad idea, leading to more destabilization as the different countries fight to expand their borders, but it would also mean that each of them only had a smaller piece of land if they did come into control.

I wish we could just put "them" all on a big rocket and send them to the moon.
 
You can't compare what's happening in Iraq to the US War Between the States. I'm not saying separation is the answer, it's just a possibility. And it might be a bad idea, leading to more destabilization as the different countries fight to expand their borders, but it would also mean that each of them only had a smaller piece of land if they did come into control.

I wish we could just put "them" all on a big rocket and send them to the moon.

sorry, i was not talkin to you
 
I wish we could just put "them" all on a big rocket and send them to the moon.
Coming from ex-Yugoslavia and most probably ex-Serbia, I must agree with what you say :p
^^1. you never talk about that, let's hear more (if you don't mind)...
2. I think that only works if it's the natives doing the seperating
I don't mind, I just feel uneasy about hijacking this fine thread :p
weve been known to fight to preserve
'unions' where i come from
Here's your chance! :D

kosovo.jpg
 
What about this Red Crystal thing?
_19146_Red_Crystal_Symbol.jpg


Red Cross adopts 'red crystal' as third emblem


New symbol - red outline of square standing on edge - to be adopted to join Red Cross, Red Crescent symbols.


GENEVA - The Red Cross said on Friday that the "red crystal" will be adopted next week as a new emblem, joining the existing Red Cross and Red Crescent symbols of the international organisation.

The symbol -- really the red outline of a square standing on its edge -- has been designed chiefly with Israel's Magen David Adom (MDA, or Red Star of David) organisation in mind.

The Israeli organisation was previously excluded from the Red Cross movement because its emblem was deemed not to conform with the organisation's rules.

The adoption of the emblem follows a conference agreement last June, which itself came after a landmark accord in December 2005 between the MDA and the Palestinians, which amounted to formal political recognition.

The Israeli and Palestinian relief societies already cooperate closely on the ground, particularly with medical and ambulance services during violence in Israeli and Palestinian territories.

"The adoption of the red crystal reaffirms the determination of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement to consolidate its universality and thereby to enhance its strength and credibility ... (and) exemplifies the Movement's commitment to neutral and independent humanitarian action," the Red Cross said in a statement.

The MDA dispute dates back to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948. The Jewish state is still not recognised by many Muslim and Arab nations who are members of the Red Crescent.

The crystal emblem was picked for its lack of religious, political or cultural connotations, officials said. It was also tested for visibility by the Swiss army and given the green light by legal experts.

The initial Red Cross emblem was the brainchild of the Swiss founders of the international humanitarian movement born in 1864, who reversed the white cross and red background which make up Switzerland's flag.

However, during the Russo-Turkish war of 1876-1878 the Ottoman Empire made it known that ambulances displaying a cross offended Muslim soldiers.

The Red Crescent was created as a result, although it did not gain formal recognition under the Geneva Conventions until 1929.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

All this time and effort wasted fighting over a symbol seems really dumb.
 
Back
Top Bottom