How long will we be in Iraq?

wtf o_O why on earth does america have the right to stick its' nose into the business of the middle east? why should we have a stash of military hardware and personnel there?

It's pretty simple. Oil and it's strategic importance to our continued survival.
They've got a lot of it, we use a lot of it.
 
Well, we spent what, 10+ years in Vietnam(similarities are scary)....And they weren't really a "strategic" area. Could be a L-O-N-G time.
 
Ruger45-70, there is a HUGE difference between S. Korea and Germany or Japan. We are still at war with N. Korea! There has only been a cease fire, there was never a treaty signed. We occupy the S. Korea side of the DMZ with ~30,000 troops because N. Korea has a 1,000,000+ man army (about 4 times the size that it was in 1953) ready to attack the south at any time, while S. Korea only has about 700,000 men. We only have bases in Japan and Germany.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm

I think that we will be pretty much out of Iraq in the next few years. We might just cut and run if they get into all out civil war.

wtf o_O why on earth does america have the right to stick its' nose into the business of the middle east? why should we have a stash of military hardware and personnel there?

How about because they have this nasty little habit of attacking us and a special joy of theirs comes from genocide...*cough*Iranian embassy, USS Cole, Kurds, Kuwait, etc. *cough*
 
I think we will actively pursue a war campaign in Iraq until the 2nd or 3rd year of the next Democrat president. The next Democrat that gets elected will campaign on the issue of withdrawal from Iraq, but the first year after they win, they won't do anything about it. They will wait until they need to start campaigning for re-election, and then they will conveniently withdraw from the conflict (under Star-Spangled banners, of course).

But, we will very likely have a strong military presence in Iraq from here on out. I think it's a matter of years (maybe five more) before we build a permanent base in Iraq, similar to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We will stay there and use it as an outpost for U.S. Military operations in the Middle East.
 
If the Iraqis still don't have a handle on a real government or show some true desire to work with us - once George is gone - we will pull out of there.

Korea - we were in a country that at that time wanted and needed us.

Japan and Germany - we needed to control potential superpower threats to us until they re-socialized (not that 'socialized') away from their world amibitions. The troops were not attacked consistently are the occupation was solidly established.

If there is no progress in Iraq (a pseudocountry it seems) we are gone when George's hold is gone.

It may be the case that neocons want a permanent base in Iraq but the country will not tolerate a constant stream of casualties for perceived limited benefit.
 
It's pretty simple. Oil and it's strategic importance to our continued survival.
They've got a lot of it, we use a lot of it.
So it's ok to invade and conquer any nation that has something we need? Are we going to be taking all of Canada's lumber any time soon? Perhaps we should just take control of Taiwan so our computer components will be a lot cheaper.

Is America really so arrogant as to think the world's resources are ours for the taking?

How about because they have this nasty little habit of attacking us and a special joy of theirs comes from genocide...*cough*Iranian embassy, USS Cole, Kurds, Kuwait, etc. *cough*
And I'm sure they only attack America because they "hate our freedom" right? Has nothing to do with our messing in their business? Nah, couldn't be that. They just hate freedom. :rolleyes:
 
As long as necessary...no more, no less!

To do anything less, will cause the Islamo Fascists to create more problems for the free countries of the world.
 
Personally I don't care that we are in a "cease fire" with Korea,, personally I would rather see us just say screw the rest of the world and do what is good for us. I hate seeing our men and women dying in Iraq or anywhere else for that matter. Incidently, during WWII a 100 in a month would have been considered a blessing, we had 20,000 die in a single day, sometimes more. We have been sucked into the global economy,, outsourcing and the UN. I would prefer we don't stick our noses into other Countries problems whatever they may be. I don't know why we have to be the worlds police force. I think even Russia figured it out,, it is a loosing battle. Since the USSR has pretty much folded, I have my doubts as to why we need bases in all countries to operate from, have we become paranoid?. I also remember that all the allied Countries affirmed that Iraq did in fact have WMD, all of their inteligence reports confirmed it and almost every Senator and Congressmen approved going in to Iraq. So why is GWB wrong, like it was his total singular idea,,, come on. Some of you conveniently "forget" the facts and our Congressional and Senatorial opinions along with the Intelligence ( That sure is an axymoron) of the rest of the "partners"
 
It's pretty simple. Oil and it's strategic importance to our continued survival.
They've got a lot of it, we use a lot of it.

Watch out Canada. You guys make a hell of a lot of beer up there. And it is DEFINITELY important to my continued survival, cause I use a LOT of it! Now, if I can just work out a "Strategerie"
 
So it's ok to invade and conquer any nation that has something we need? Are we going to be taking all of Canada's lumber any time soon? Perhaps we should just take control of Taiwan so our computer components will be a lot cheaper.

Is America really so arrogant as to think the world's resources are ours for the taking?

And I'm sure they only attack America because they "hate our freedom" right? Has nothing to do with our messing in their business? Nah, couldn't be that. They just hate freedom.

Yea, we really "conquered" that nation. Ya know how we control their government and all. How about your gas prices? Are they any lower than they were in March of 2003? It's not about oil (sure we made sure that we still get it) , it's about protecting us from bio/chem/nuke weapons, and if we can save a few thousand civilians from rape rooms and mass execution...what the hell, might as well go for it.

It wasn't supposed to be an American war. It was supposed to be a UN war. The UN, however, it absolutely useless and backed out, leaving only a few countries with significant numbers of soldiers in Iraq. So, America took the weight on our soldiers because that's what America does, we try to be the peace keeping force (no matter how many of us don't want to be) because the UN can't get anything done unless they are gaining from it(stealing money from people who are already poor).

I'm sure that those victims on 9/11 were really messing with their business, right? The little kids and the women? Now I know what you're going to say. They weren't Iraqis. Maybe not, but Saddam had been known for years to sponsor terrorism, and I believe he was given 48 hours to leave Iraq and he decided to stay.

Don't try to make us look like the bad guy here.
 
I wish it had been a war for oil. I'd like to pay less than $1.50 again. I think we should demand oil from Iraq's new government as compensation. That way everyone gets what they want. Some get to claim "war for oil" and others get lower gas prices. In fact, let's just add Iraq as a state and place a governer in power over there with a sort of National guard type force at his/her behest.
 
I'm sure that those victims on 9/11 were really messing with their business, right? The little kids and the women? Now I know what you're going to say. They weren't Iraqis. Maybe not, but Saddam had been known for years to sponsor terrorism, and I believe he was given 48 hours to leave Iraq and he decided to stay.

While I would never say that the people killed on 9/11 deserved it, I would say that the World Trade Center was Al Qaida's target for a reason. Why would Soudis train to hit America, much less the WTC?

And I'd say we've probably killed more people at this point in Iraq than Saddam in all his years, so please don't go the moral high road on that issue.

As to the origional question, I'd think it'd be safe to say that we're there until we cease to occupy all the other bases around the world, at the end of the American Empire. Now as to when that day is due...At best a decade or more, at worst six months? Prepare for the worst and hope for the best I guess.
 
And I'm sure they only attack America because they "hate our freedom" right? Has nothing to do with our messing in their business? Nah, couldn't be that. They just hate freedom.
Yeah, we "mess in their business..."

halabja.jpg

The business of poison gas attacks on civilians...

_41095653_grave_body_ap.jpg

The business of mass graves...

70949778_3bc22ca4ac_o.jpg

The business of torture...

taliban-beat-women-sm.jpg

The business of beating of disobedient women...

farsha2.jpg

The business of executing disobedient women...

And the business of prohibiting education for girls...

ani_pic1.jpg

The business of producing and smuggling heroin...


I could go on, but I'd like to think you get the point.
 
And I'd say we've probably killed more people at this point in Iraq than Saddam in all his years, so please don't go the moral high road on that issue.
It was estimated that hundreds of thousands of people died during sanctions on Iraq due to the corruption and diversion in the Oil for Food program. Do you not count those as people killed by Saddam?

Human Rights Watch estimated that nearly 300,000 people were "disappeared" by Saddam's regime over the course of 20 years, and hundreds of mass grave sites have been reported.

The Massgraves: Victims of Saddam's Regime

356.jpg


For you to make such an outlandish and baseless claim is an insult to the memory of these victims as well as to our troops in uniform.
 
Didn't you hear? Our troops are just murderers. So obviously they are worse than Saddam

:mad: :mad: :mad:

I'd love for the idiot who said that to get embedded with our guys.
 
Yea, we really "conquered" that nation. Ya know how we control their government and all. How about your gas prices? Are they any lower than they were in March of 2003? It's not about oil (sure we made sure that we still get it) , it's about protecting us from bio/chem/nuke weapons, and if we can save a few thousand civilians from rape rooms and mass execution...what the hell, might as well go for it.
1. Gas prices are controlled by too many factors to ever be altered by individual companies or politicians or even OPEC. None of them control the prices, the traders do.
2. The people claiming that the war was about oil are making as much sense as the administration claiming the oil would pay for the war. :rolleyes:
3. It was never about protecting us from those weapons because the President himself said in no uncertain terms "we did not find weapons of mass destruction." in a press conference just a couple weeks ago.
It wasn't supposed to be an American war. It was supposed to be a UN war. The UN, however, it absolutely useless and backed out, leaving only a few countries with significant numbers of soldiers in Iraq. So, America took the weight on our soldiers because that's what America does, we try to be the peace keeping force (no matter how many of us don't want to be) because the UN can't get anything done unless they are gaining from it(stealing money from people who are already poor).
What gives us the right to require other nations to go to war alongside us? If they don't agree, they don't have to participate. Just like those who disagreed with Vietnam. No one should have to participate in any conflict they don't believe in.

America is not a peace keeping force. The last thing that comes with the US military is peace. Submission and peace are two distinct ideas.
I'm sure that those victims on 9/11 were really messing with their business, right? The little kids and the women? Now I know what you're going to say. They weren't Iraqis. Maybe not, but Saddam had been known for years to sponsor terrorism, and I believe he was given 48 hours to leave Iraq and he decided to stay.
How many times must this be said?

IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11 SO STOP BRINGING IT UP.

Don't try to make us look like the bad guy here.
I'm not because there are no good guys and bad guys. It's not that black and white, it never is. To some of the people in Iraq I'm sure we look like the good guys but to others I'm sure we look like the bad guys and that is not limited to insurgents or religious radicals.
 
It was estimated that hundreds of thousands of people died during sanctions on Iraq due to the corruption and diversion in the Oil for Food program. Do you not count those as people killed by Saddam?
whoa now

Whose fleet was used to enforce those sanctions?
 
MVPEL, I think you are equating Iraq with Afghanistan. They are 2 different countries with different cultures, or at least used to be. Sadaam was a secular dictator who forbade extreme religious activities. Before the US invasion, women in Iraq were not required to wear burkhas and they did go to school, even university. Now that the fundamentalist Shiias are in power in Iraq, women are much more restricted.

The taliban in Afghanistan are extreme Muslim fundamentalists and were women's worst enemy. They were routed for awhile, but now are making a huge comeback. bad as the Taliban were, drug production was much less under their rule than it is now under Karzai, a former employee of Unocal, the American oil company. Women in Afghanistan are still very much considered sub-human, as they are in quite a few other countries. They aren't presently being publically executed in Kabul at least.

As to how long America will stay in Iraq, I'd say about as long as we've stayed in other conquered countries like Japan, Korea, Germany,and Bosnia, permanently. Do you really think we've built those huge "enduring" bases not to use them for a long time? Remember Powell saying, in response to a question soon after the fall of Bagdad as to why the US didn't turn the country over to the UN to run: "we didn't invade Iraq just to give it away."
 
Back
Top