Shouldn't our troops come home?

PRESIDENT George W. Bush is “grieved” that the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq has reached 4000 and assumes responsibility for the decisions he has taken, the White House said overnight. Despite the losses, he used a speech on the eve of the war’s fifth anniversary last week to defend his decision to invade and to reject any notion of retreating despite the “high cost in lives and treasure”.

At least 97 per cent of the US casualties occurred after Mr Bush announced the end of “major combat” in Iraq on May 1, 2003.

Enough is enough. Shouldn’t our troops come home?

Answer #1

Yes. I dont have anyone in my family ro anyone I love who is over seas, but still think if all the other people who are goign through pain because the government wont rbign them home

Answer #2

Helping them? How exactly has anyone been helped? And who asked for help anyways? The country is in chaos and the minute american troops leave a civil war will start up. You think the replacement will be better than Sadaam Hussein?

Answer #3

armywife06, you’re living it and getting input from it first-hand, not through filtered/slanted agendas - you make some excellent spot-on points - send a big ‘Thanks’ to your husband for his service to this great nation - a dose of reality/truth is certainly refreshing…Have a great day !!

Answer #4

The war is based on lie, that alone is enough to know that the troops shouldn’t be there. George Bush is trying to make himself feel better with those speeches, he is trying to convince himself along with America that it was a good idea. He knows that America knows better than him and it eating him up and it should. He should have been impeached a long long time ago.

Answer #5

rickd - now that you can’t taunt her for being “young and stupid” like the rest of us, you change tracks? Sadaam Hussein is gone… they are free… ofcourse that has just brought on war and completely destroyed the country… what exactly would your definition of winning be at this point? George Bush’s definition of winning changes so often, it’s hard to keep track. Perhaps you have a more manageable goal?

Answer #6

I cant believe the amount of people who believe are soldiers are doing no good in Iraq. I would love for all the soldiers to come home. My life revolves around this. Do I want my kids over ther in a couple of years???No Thats what it would lead to. Do I want them here fighting were our kids are? NO They went over there they have done good things a lot of blood has been shed,our people there people and yes innocent people.It happens everyday in this country its just not as front page as everyone has made Iraq. When you look at the news and see Iraq all you see is the bad. I cant remmber the last time I seen anything in the news about what our men and women are doing good over there. I read my updates from the commander and I see the pictures and news about the hospitals and free clinics we set up and send our medics to in order to help these people. Point being if we pull out now we will be back or they will be here. We have to finish the job now.

Answer #7

Ugh, we should have left a long time ago.

“In it to win it”? There’s nothing to win! And all to lose…

(human lives! American lives! Innocent Iraqi lives!)

Answer #8

everyone alway’s looks at it wrong, I don’t give a fck about Iraqi independence, I don’t care what sadaam did to his people. All I know is that we need that oil, not right now but we will. And its better for us to have that oil connection than anyone else. If, for any reason our oil supply became severd, our country would be crippled. Nothing like the reccession we’re in now, we would be completely screwed, most of you couldn’t even comprehend this. the government might say this or say that on why we went in, but the truth is the government knows we will need that oil. Of course they won’t let us know how serious of a problem it actually is, but its a top national security issue. Soldiers die to preserve their countries way of living. People say our U.S soldiers have died in vain, hell no. They would only die in vain if we withdraw. they are fighting to preserve our way of life, by protectng the oil that preserves our society. Because 4000 U.S soldier deaths would be nothing compared to the shtstorm that a lack of oil would unleash accross america. go ahead and disagree with me, because im just saying the truth that the government knows but won’t admit to because U.S citizens will go crazy. Do you honesly think we would be in a desert fighting for another countries independence for 6 years if we didn’t have an alternative motive

Answer #9

piker187… yes it is obvious that the war is about oil. if it were about wmds then there are many other places we would be. but shame on you for thinking that our dependence on oil is a good and valid reason for the loss of even one life, be it a soldier or a civilian.

also, over 99% of canadian oil exports are sent to the united states, making canada, not saudi arabia, the united states’ largest supplier of oil.

Answer #10

to those of you that think we did a great thing by removing saddam hussein, I quote an MSNBC report

“The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment. The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed “vigorous and confident,” according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by NEWSWEEK. Rumsfeld “conveyed the President’s greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad,” wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries. Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America’s big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the-theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam’s armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions.

we helped put him into power…we left him in power when it worked to our advantage…and we have lost 4,000 troops and at least 15x that many civilians in this horrible war.


Answer #11

We should never have gone there, but now we have no choise. Being in irag has made terrorist attacts like 911 not happen. 4000 is a lot but we were fu**ed the sec we went into irag

Answer #12

armywife06, I appreciate you husbands service, I was in the first desert storm and I believe had we taken Sadam out back then we wouldn’t be in his mess to begin with. The real reason we we went to Iraq was because Sadam had not been in compliance with the agreement after the first desert storm. He agreed to allow our teams of inspector to come and monitor and search his facilities for any WMD’s. Under the Clinton administration our who$e mongering president did not enforce the agreement. So for 8 years Sadam had the the priviledge to continue making and producing WMD’s. Yes, all these liberals on this site will argue that there were none found. even though this is true they have found evidence that they were made there. They have found bunkers with drums that had traces of Serin nerve agent. This is the same nerve agent used on Iran and on the Kurds. We know he had them because he used them. The truth of the matter is this our government knows through intelligence that he move the evidence. I truly believe the WMD’s are in Seria, why? because they have satilite images of convoys leaving Iraq going into Seria. Our government is not going to tell the public everything it knows because it could be have serious repercussions on our national security. I also agree to some degree with piker that we are there for the oil, but interestingly enough they are paying about .20 cents on the gallon where we are paying on a national average of about 3.50 per gallon. Where I don’t agree with piker is we don’t need their oil, we have a known oil field in Alaska that according to the experts would supply all this countries oil needs for over 200 years, but our government won’t tap into it. I believe mostly its because of the liberals in this country fighting against it. They also know of another oil field there that they believe is larger than the one I mentioned above. We also produce enough corn in this country that we could develope engines that run on ethanol only. Why aren’t we doing this, because it would take billions from the oil tycoons in this nation, its all about greed not the well being of this nation.

I believe we did a good thing taking Sadam out, it was neccessary. Those people needed to be liberated, for those of you who don’t believe that I have talked first hand with people in that region and they have said they are greatful. All the deaths on boths sides are what it takes for the cost of freedom. Did not America in its fight for independence loose many lives, so did the British, what about the Civil War, that was a fight to end slavery, the South wanted slaves so they succeded but the North was against slavery so they fought to end it. How many died in that war? How many at Gettisburg alone died that one day. It was all about freedom, that war was about freedom for the black race in this country. Should we have just allowed the South to have their way and become two countries?

Should we pull out, I have mixed emotions about this because I believe if we pull out we will be surrendering to the extremist over there and therefore will have lost all these precious lives in vain. I believe that it is time for the Iraqi people to start standing up for themselves, but even if they do that we will still need to show force in that country for many years to come. I don’t hear any liberals complaining about our show of force in Europe, Japan, Korea this has been since the 40’s and 50’s. We need to support our troops by letting them do their job whether we agree or disagree with it. Armywife you can feel proud that your husband is serving. I pray that God will keep him and all the other safe. You’re right we need to finish the job.

Answer #13

If you’re not in it to win it - put up the white flag.

Answer #14

We should have left a long time ago-

4,000 is a lot. And thats not including all the innocent civilians

Answer #15

rickd - my son was a soldier, special forces. he fought in afganistan and iraq. he is now a disabled veteran.
did you serve?

More Like This
Ask an advisor one-on-one!

Emden Law

Trial Attorney, Law Firm, Legal Services


Law Right

Law, ICT/Data Protection-Privacy, International Tax Law


Solutions in Law Ltd

Immigration Law Firm, Visa Services, Legal Services


ROSS & ASMAR Attorneys at law

Immigration Law, Criminal Law, Civil Litigation