Do U.S. troops in Iraq want to 'cut n' run'?

Question

If our troops are angry about being there, isn't ending the war 'supporting our troops'?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070320/ts_alt_afp/iraqanniversaryus_070320004302;_ylt=Ai9gQYYofvNLok698Bu2UTdH2ocA

mr. meth head when it comes to war, I'm not liberal like queen bush. at the start of this war I couldn't believe reporters were imbedded with the units. war's ugly and you can't fight with the cameras filming. also, when our troops encountered the revolutionary gaurd, who would put the weapons down and just walk away... hello!! allowing the enemy to walk away to regroup later is liberalism to the extreme!!! it was reported that princess rumsfeld told the troops to let the gaurd walk. turn off the cameras and kill 'em all. that's me, the liberal!

jesus help you guys! the cut n run line was tongue n cheek!!! point was if ppl say end the war, others say that's cutting n running and not supporting our troops. but our troops want to leave. if the troops want to leave, why don't cons accuse them of cutting n running?

Answer 1

The troops don't care why it gets over, just as long as it is over and they get to come home.

Cut n' run is a political description. Their withdrawal will be the same whether it happens beginning tomorrow, or we wait until a few more thousand die.

Do you really think that any of them have much time for politics?

Between watches, patrols, drills, attacks, etc, I would guess that they are a little too busy to consider whether they get to come home for the wrong reason.

Cycled and recycled into a 24hr a day incredible stress. Peer and command pressured to ignore medical symptoms for as long as possible, if not summarily having an injury downgraded in severity to allow redeployment, against the members wishes and doctors recommendations.

Support the troops by not asking any more of them. Bring them home, let them heal and rest.

Enough is enough.

Answer 2

They are certainly allowed their personal opinions, but when it comes to being a soldier and following orders, they accepted that condition when they joined up. The troops will do as they are told, and god bless, 'em for stepping up. I am still very surprised when I hear reporters asking soldiers for their personal opinion about the war, as if these fine people are going to go against their superior officers and commander in chief and say something detrimental to the cause. Of course, they are going to fall into line. That is what they are trained to do. Therefore, it is imperative that anyone who is against the war supports the troops, who have no real choice or voice in where they are deployed.
They chose to lose any real voice when they joined up, so it is important for we who have a voice to speak up for them, make sure they have what they need while they are there, and guarantee they will receive the services they need when they muster out. This is the reason I can say I am against the war, but for the troops. They are heroes, and deserve more than lip service for doing a dirty job.

Answer 3

No, I don't think they want to cut and run. That would be a dishonor to all those who've already served, were wounded, or died. All our troops surely wish they were home, but simply running isn't what they want, I believe. Peace through victory, not by surrender and running. Just my opinion.

Permit this analogy ... If an otherwise great neighborhood was getting infected with drug dealers, in some areas and American sub-cultures, minding your own business is the recommended course of action ... and the drug dealers would and do easily take over such neighborhoods. No one's brave enough to step-up, get involved to support the police, or testify at any trials that might result.

On the other hand, some people would fight-off the invasion of the drug dealers at all costs. Don't you think?

It reminds me of something that happened about fifteen years ago, as I recall. Do you know the Sunday ABC News program hosted by George Stephanopoulos called "This Week"? It used to be hosted by David Brinkley long, long ago.

Anyway, at the time I have in mind, crime and murder rates in Washington, D.C. were so high, the mayor, Sharon Pratt Kelly (the former Sharon Pratt Dixon) considered activating the D.C. National Guard for the purpose of helping the police with administrative/clerical duties so that more police could patrol the streets. Well, one of the guests was the ultra-conservative commentator and presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. To express his disapproval of this policy decision, he said, [paraphrasing] "Can you imagine the streets of the nation's capital being patrolled by uniformed soldiers with machine guns mounted on their vehicles?" Another regular panelist, Cokie Roberts, promptly replied, "Oh, Pat ... If they were dealing drugs and shooting up the street that YOU live on, you'd tell the mayor to order tanks and assault helicopters to rid your neighborhood of the drugs."

Yes, drugs are not the issue in Iraq, but I trust you still see the reasoning behind my analogy.

You probably didn't expect an answer such as this ... I just let my mind float a bit. But I wanted to help explain why this Iraq thing isn't as simple as it appears on the surface. There's a lot at stake and these reasons I've alluded to are just a few.

I didn't directly answer your question, but I thought these points might help to provide other perspectives that were not previously considered. Thanks for a fair and intelligently-posed question.

Answer 4

It's the presidents plan to go to war, maybe the new troop rotation should be Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi, etc; let them pull a tour of duty.
The troops are being put in harms way for NO GOOD CAUSE. They're just sacrificial lambs on bushs alter of arrogance.

Answer 5

The troops are going to follow orders, that's what they do. If the idiot in chief tells them to stay the course, they'll stay the course.

The troops are in the situation they are in. They are going to make the best of it they can and support the guy or gal next to them. The politics is mostly for us to argue about.

Answer 6

Don't know but you should check out the numbers of desertions these days. I think having the VA do a decent job of assisting veterans would be a good place to start, but yes, this war without end does seem futile.

Answer 7

They don't want to cut and run they want to be finished, big difference! They don't want a PC War, take the chains off our military and lets get it done! Contrary to liberal believes soldiers don't like war, but fight for your right to make up stories and post them...

Answer 8

actually most soldiers in iraq are proud to defend your right to be so incredibly naive. you need to understand al qaeda and jihad by doing some research on the net so you wont embarass yourself by asking ridiculous questions like this. another suggestion might be to stop reading the pelosi press releases..theyre not going to help you. no they dont support cut and run..its naked raw cowardice, no more and no less.

Answer 9

I am here and the only ones that I met that want out want the rules of engagement CHANGED! And support so we can WIN AND THEN GO HOME!

Answer 10

as a troop tht just got back. no. we want the media and the un to turn the blind eye and let us handle the business we train for they sent me there i lost "brothers" and i personally wanted to make sure none of their children grow old. you wouldnt understand unless it were you over there.