What's more important, stablizing Iraq or the welfare of our troops?

Question

"A new study of the mental health of U.S. troops who've been in Iraq shows a substantial rate of post-traumatic stress disorder and other psychiatric illnesses. The high rates of mental illness occurred despite intensive efforts by U.S. officials to prevent them. NPR's Joseph Shapiro reports."

What's more important, trying to stabilize a group of people who are resistant or the affects of the war that are placed on the troops.

I honestly believe that this war has no defined purpose. It's a re-occurring Vietnam.

Ritch. I don't get my information from yahoo answers. Vietnam and Iraq can be easily be compared.

In fact, here are all the similarities:
-We face in Iraq, like we did in Vietnam, an enemy who refuses to play by our rules and is clearly willing to die for his beliefs.
-Throughout the Vietnam War, especially in the early years, American officials deliberately misrepresented the enemy.
-There is also a failure in Iraq to understand and empathize with local mores and culture or the role of Islam in Arab society.
-There was no real plan for victory in Vietnam, and there appears to be none for Iraq.
-Vietnam and Iraq were both wars of choice. -And they are also similar in that deceit and misrepresentation was employed by the U.S. government, first to engage U.S. forces and then to keep them there.
-It is clear we had no idea what we were getting into when we marched into Vietnam, and the same appears true in Iraq.
-The April 2004 insurrection in Iraq could well have a political impact on the Bush administration similar to the impact of the 1968 Tet offensive on the Johnson administratio

Answer 1

I agree, but Republicans couldnt care less. The RELY on breeding the mental illnesses of war to keep people voting Republican and keep the wars funded!

When people have nothing left, the embrace that which takes away from them. Such it is with shell shock and nationalisism and the crazy embracing of war and hate in the Republican Party.

Answer 2

Why no consideration for the Iraqi's mental health? Certainly, millions more of them have been exposed to PST.

People suffering from post traumatic stress can recover and lead full lives and US troops will certainly have many more resources to treat such mental disabilities upon returning home than the Iraqis will ever have.

What is really important is the saving of LIVES so that they may have at least a chance to recover.

There is no justification for the anti-war's denial of the real issues that have kept us in Iraq (stopping the loss of Iraqi lives), just as there is no excuse for their repeated influx of total self-concern into the issue.

I don't understand how the left can stand behind the accusation that this administration is responsible for the world hate that is being directed our way, while simultaneously cutting off all responsibility and sympathy for the lives of ALL people. In doing so, the 'anti-war' crowd are the ones legitimizing world hatred.

Answer 3

Stabilizing Iraq is essential to the welfare of our troops. We fail here, we'll be back. That's the thing. You think our surrendering Iraq to our enemys and fleeing from the battlefield will be good for America or our troops? This is the sort of thinking that reminds me of the Bush I criticism that he should have taken Saddam out during the first Iraqi conflict.

As to our military, thanks. They appreciate your concern. But the job of the military is not to sit back in a cushy little base in North Carolina shining their brass and boots. The job of the military is to do what they're doing now. Our challenge is to support them in that effort in any way necessary.

As to your comparison between this war and Vietnam, I suggest you seek an education. You're wrong, but these message boards are insufficient to providing you with that education. Suffice to say, ALL wars have differences and ALL wars have similarities. And if all you're going to do is cherry pick one or two items, you can make any case you want to.

Answer 4

The two issues coincide.
Here is another possible similarity with Vietnam: It began as a police action with only a few hundred troops. Kennedy then escalated it into a full-blown war with over 100k troops...Johnson then continued the war. There were, of course, massive protests. I can see this happening again. Iraq is now more of a police-action. If a democrat is elected, will he/she escalate troop levels in a bid to end it all "quickly"?

Answer 5

Gen. Patreus is rapidly stablizing the situation in Iraq, and as an added consequence, things are getting much better for our troops.
You don't think so?
Not one violent act in Bagdad last week.
Attack are now near zero in Ambar Province in the west.
Just in the press, Al Queida in Bagdad has disappered, and fleed elsewhere.
Folks, we are winning but PMSNBC will not tell you. Theyare heavily invested in our defeat. So is CNN and Headline news.
That is why some people are complaining that there isn't enough hard news comming out of Iraq recently. No, its not a Bush plot to silence the news.
No news is good news, and the lib media can't stand it.

Answer 6

Mission Accomplishment first, Troop Welfare Second.

Answer 7

Isn't it ironic, that if we would have gone the right and legal way, not attacking Iraq, we had both stabilized Iraq, and welfare of all our troops,including those 4000,who perished

Plus 700,000 Iraqis well alive and well, and we had 1 Trillion dollar to spend for people of this nation??!!

Best Regards.

Edit : FYI, we don't want to win a war, we want to extend it ??
surprised?? one day you'll dig too ??

Answer 8

I agree this is another Vietnam. i just hate to see it end the way Vietnam ended.So many veterans had so much hatred for pulling them out when it was winnable if the Government would have let them do what needed to be done.So they came home with people spiting on them.

I guess History repeats itself. Sad.

To ZINGER above me: i am Republican and my son is over there. You need to keep your biased opinions to your self.

Answer 9

Unfortunately the affects of war on our soldiers can not be avoided. Soldiers are there to fight and win and also die if its necessary. That's just what a soldier is for , in effect 100000000000000000 soldiers could be killed to protect 1 US citizen

Answer 10

It does no good to ask inner maximum voters this question. Liberals and democrats will say convey them abode and conservatives and republicans will say end the job so as that they don't persist with us right here. the folk you actual ought to ask are the adult men and ladies in uniform that are there and struggling with. some got here abode and volunteered to bypass back back with the aid of fact they have self assurance in what they're doing. undergo in techniques that it rather is an all volunteer military. the adult men and ladies struggling with over there ought to be attentive to that we help them rather for morale motives. It irritates me whilst somebody says they have not got self assurance in the war yet by no capacity served an afternoon in the armed forces, so what provides them the acceptable? You incredibly ought to ask them in the event that they have self assurance in what they're doing and want to end the job. in case you deliver them abode now, will they be seen by utilising out enemies as being susceptible? Will or not it rather is seen as a loss for u.s. by utilising the terroists? i in my view have self assurance that over ninety% of the troops have self assurance of their undertaking and in what they're doing and want to win. they want to come back abode to their acquaintances and family contributors with their heads held intense with human beings happy with them and u.s.. there's a reason they're suggested as our struggling with adult men and ladies and quitting or giving up isn't in all probability an selection with them.

Answer 11

Soldiers, by thier very nature, are asked to make extreme sacrifices for thier country. If you put the 'welfare' of soldiers before thier missions, you wouldn't have a military at all - and you wouldn't have a country, for long.