how long will our troops be in iraq????

March 2003:
A senior administration official who briefed reporters Monday on condition of anonymity said Rumsfeld "has right along said that he thought that fighting was likely to last weeks, not months." Rumsfeld told troops last month that "it could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Rumsfeld also contradicted the Army chief of staff, who told the Senate that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to occupy Iraq. "Far off the mark," Rumsfeld said.

Jan 2004:
Vice President Dick Cheney warned that the battle against terrorism – like the Cold War – could last generations, according to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle.
...
While polls show that many Americans support the president's aggressive war on terrorism, an expert at the U.S. Army War College, Jeffrey Record, recently released a report that concluded the war in Iraq might have set back American efforts to stop terrorists by diverting precious resources to a battle that will do little to prevent new attacks.

Record concluded that the war on terrorism "lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives and may not be sustainable over the long haul."


I think it is clear that nobody knows.
 
If the neo-cons have their way, it will be until Iraq looks like Ohio or Indiana. Stay the course!! (Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background)

Not so funny really. They are playing with the lives of thousands of men at arms for their little social engineering project under the guise of fighting "tearists"
 
Last edited:
American troops will be in Iraq

at least until 2009.

There's no force on earth that would move Bush to pull them out. He's already said that it will be up to the next President. For perhaps the first time in his Presidency, I believe him.

--Shannon
 
Let's see
Japan surrendered in Aug 1945, Germany May 1945, North Korea signed the armistice July 1953 and we're still in all three places. You do the math.
 
If you listen to the very few Muslims, world wide, who actively challenge the Muslim religious leaders, this will not end in our life times, and some of our life times might end a little early, because in reality NO ONE is challenging that this is actually a holy war.
Bob
 
this will not end in our life times, and some of our life times might end a little early,
I believe our great grand kids will be fighting this insane war, I say GGK because I'll probably be one in a couple yrs, I don't think all of those 13 mil illegals in this country are farmers from Mexico here to pick fruit. If a couple thousand insurgents can keep our forces busy in Baghdag, just think what a few hundred could do in one of our cities with those IEDs. I hope that some agency is keeping an eye on certian groups.
 
I'm guessing we'll pull out in a couple of years.

And there will be much dancing in the streets, and shooting of weaponry in the air. Burning of flags, all that.

A year or so after that, they'll do another big nasty over here, and you guys who are calling for retreat and appeasement will then be wearing your little flag lapel pins again, and calling for heads on stakes.
 
The only troop I care about will be leaving Iraq within a week. He's been there a year.
Click to expand...

I am glad for you that he is coming home. I hope you don’t have a lack of “care” for the rest of the troops as your post seems to imply.
 
I dont get who we are "appeasing". Iraq didnt attack us. Saudis' based in Afganistan attacked us. They were mortal enemies of Saddam. Saddam regularly killed fundmementalists en mass. So what are you talking about? It really bugs me that people talk about appeasment, like Saddam was Hitler invading Europe. Saddam was broke, and if he was going to attack anyone it was going to be Iran! I wish to god that W would listen to his Dad and Baker, who tried, and failed to talk sense to him. Too bad so many are willing to throw away lives and treasure on the assurances of a man who has been proven grossly incompetent.

He announced yesterday that Afganistan was in danger of "falling apart". Maybe we could at least focus on one war at a time. This adventurism is bankrupting our country and making it less safe. I'd be like us invading Russia when Hitler was on the rise---attacking our enemies greatest natural foe--sheer stupidity.
 
I dont get who we are "appeasing". Iraq didnt attack us. Saudis' based in Afganistan attacked us. They were mortal enemies of Saddam. Saddam regularly killed fundmementalists en mass.
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone finally said it, and I agree 100%. The US invaded Iraq for several reasons, none of which was about US security, but 9/11 was a great excuse.

Notice how N.Korea, which has no oil and is not a Hezbollah supporter, has recently got plenty of concessions in response to their ongoing nuke program, and no one has demanded they give up the weapons they already have. But the neocons seem intent on their next middle east war, since the one on Iraq has gone so well:confused:
 
Leaving/Pulling Out?

My best guess is never.................word is we're building a dozen or so airbases these which we'll need for our continuing colonizing in the M.E.;)
 
He's also the kind of guy who would sell nast bioweapons to anyone. Not that he had any when we began the invasion but at one time he had stockpiles of serin gas and a couple other nasty diseases that could be used in scuds, not the most accurate missile in the world but would wreak havoc in Jeruselem if a few landed in strategic locations based off wind currents etc. etc. Or even if the bioweapons were deployed in city subways. But there are so many if's with no real happenings. The whole "smallpox in the subway" theory just isn't devastating enough for the muslim extremists anymore. They want explosions and mass death, or, basically, to top what happened on 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top