Troops Out Of Iraq By August ????

c327 · Post by **c327** » Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:52 am

Yeah right. Tell that to the 50,000 US troops that will remain there for God knows how long. What BS. Tell that to the troops that are still in Japan. helloooooo

We are either there or we are not. More two face lies.

bdub · Post by **bdub** » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:43 am

should not have been there in the first place. pretty obvious who's ridiculous idea that was.

Roach412 · Post by **Roach412** » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:39 am

congress?

-Roach

c327 · Post by **c327** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 3:08 am

The Iraq deal was multi reason.

Oil, rid the country of a ruthless murderous dictator, prevent Saddam from acquiring the material to make the bomb which he was looking for and to break up the clique over there. Looking at the map, Iraq is right in the middle of the mix.

Bush actually did the right thing. What I don't like is who is paying for it, the Americans mainly. Where is the Iraq oil profits going ????

The big deal is in Afghanistan with Pakistan right behind it. This is Obama's deal and a war there will make what it cost us in Iraq look like kids play.

Yes it does seem that America puts it's nose where it may not belong but looking down the road the way things are happening, my feelings is that I would rather fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda over there than here in New Jersey.

Post by **fussnfeathers** » Tue Aug 10, 2010 4:13 am

c327 wrote:The Iraq deal was multi reason.

Exactly. We're not in this thing as a band of murderers in camo. Yes, we will still have rotating soldiers in place. If you think you can just pull up lock stock and barrel and have no repercussions, you're deluding yourself. How long those troops stay will depend on the situation in Iraq, we knew that was part of the plan from the very beginning. Go in, take care of the core problem, stay to mainain peace during a changeover (not to mention training for their own soldiers) and rebuild the country, then an indefinite peacekeeper force for however long it will be needed. Too many people just look at the obvious shown on the news, and don't understand the underlying plan. People make it sound like we'll be in combat there for 100 years. We won't be. I mean, we still have military bases in Korea, and that war was how long ago?

Yeah, the good ol US of A tends to get involved with more than people would like, but as one of the top countries, especially in military matters, we have to at least get involved enough that the situation can be defused.

CivilDissent · Post by **CivilDissent** » Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:24 pm

I do not think any of us laypeople will ever really understand this issue.

That region has been warring and fighting for thousands and thousands of years. Long before oil had anything to do with it.

There is so much to it that we, the non politicians, do not know.

Pick up a book about the middle east sometime and just read the small amount that they will tell us. And, that is just the beginning.

The vast amounts going amounts going on behind the curtains, that the public has no idea about.

We are just pawns.

Post by **fussnfeathers** » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:47 pm

'm a bit more than a layperson, in some respects. Former USAF, Gulf War vet, then active reserve. I've got a bit firmer grasp on why decisions like this are made, mostly because that's what my job was. We've stuck our foot in it now, we can't just dance off and hope things hold together. If we do that, and things fall apart again, we get even more blame for not staying to stop it in the first place. Catch-22. Personally, we should have finished this the first time around.

bdub · Post by **bdub** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:58 am

fussnfeathers wrote:Personally, we should have finished this the first time around.

what does "finished" mean?

Post by **fussnfeathers** » Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:51 am

That probably sounded harsher than I meant. We had Hussein in sight the first time, we had the backing of how many nations and the UN, we had everything done right. I firmly think that if we'd kept the course for a bit longer, we wouldn't be in nearly as big a mess as we are now. We'd be just one small part of a coalition, rather than the only slobs still sitting on our hands.

I didn't mean blow up Iraq or something.

CivilDissent · Post by **CivilDissent** » Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:58 pm

fussnfeathers wrote:Former USAF, Gulf War vet, then active reserve.

And let me say, Sir, that I highly respect people, such as yourself, that put yourselves in a position to protect this country of ours. I salute you and that is not meant in a retorical or cynical sense. I also highly respect your thoughts. With that said, do you not feel that unless you were a minimum of a 3 star general that you did not have all of the facts?