Page 1 of 2

When will we pull out of Iraq?

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:18 am
by azsnowman
With Operation Iraqi Freedom *Officially OVER* as declared by Bush, when will we pull our troops out of Iraq? Will/has this turned into "Bush's Vietnam" as some are claiming, is this part of the End of Times Bible Prophecy?

Dennis :?:

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:25 am
by mf_dolphin
I think we'll have significant troops in Iraq for 2 years. It could be three but I think International pressure will keep it to 2.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:27 am
by Skywatch_NC
So far it seems like Never...Biblical prophecy.

Eric

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:28 am
by chadtm80
I think American Soldier prescence will be there well past 3 years.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:28 am
by vbhoutex
I must agree with Marshall here, at least hopefully. I however, do not think there are any legitimate comparisons between the situation in Iraq and Vietnam. IMO, these are two TOTALLY different situations.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:32 am
by cycloneye
I think that between 2-3 years will be sufficient to get that country to a more democratic one and the security will be much improved but I am leaning for 3 more years.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:36 am
by azskyman
If pulling troops means reducing our forces, then likely over the course of the next two years. If pulling troops means bringing them ALL home with no US presence, then I'd guess we'll have a longer time to go.

If we work hard to build up their own police force and security teams and pull out too quickly, the training and weaponry could be used against us and other allies instead of repelling those who would overthrow the opportunity for a more democratic process.

This is a political litmus test for those who would question the resolve of the USA. There are many reasons why we cannot fail in transitioning Iraq to more favorable times and security in the Middle East. To do anything less than what is necessary to guarantee that commitment would be politically devastating for years to come.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:58 am
by Stephanie
I think it will be within 3 years. Hopefully I'm wrong, but we need to make sure that we've taken care of everything we set out to do in Iraq once Sadaam was captured. I think we have the "vision", just the plan wasn't very well thought out and woefully underestimated IMHO.

I'm glad that the US and Britain have accepted the UN's proposal for the new Iraqi government.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:42 am
by wx247
I say 3 years or so before most of the troops are home. It all depends on so many factors that are unpredictable. This is my guess based on the current situation.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:47 am
by Guest
Hopefully we'll pull out as soon as possible. Young soldiers have been ill-prepared and ill-informed and are sitting ducks as is evidenced almost everyday. The Iraq war is like a comedy of errors with a dunce as the orchestrator, but unfortunately there is no comedy involved, just tragedy. The ultimate irony is that the three people most hawkish on the war, and the quickest to rush in with their heads cut off are the same three who displayed the ultimate cowardice during Vietnam by avoiding it like the plague. If we are lucky, Kerry will win and although he is flawed and imperfect, he doesn't have a categorical lack of self-awareness and context like Bush II.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:51 am
by chadtm80
zwyts wrote:Hopefully we'll pull out as soon as possible. Young soldiers have been ill-prepared and ill-informed and are sitting ducks as is evidenced almost everyday. The Iraq war is like a comedy of errors with a dunce as the orchestrator, but unfortunately there is no comedy involved, just tragedy. The ultimate irony is that the three people most hawkish on the war, and the quickest to rush in with their heads cut off are the same three who displayed the ultimate cowardice during Vietnam by avoiding it like the plague. If we are lucky, Kerry will win and although he is flawed and imperfect, he doesn't have a categorical lack of self-awareness and context like Bush II.

Image

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:54 am
by Guest
chadtm80 wrote:
zwyts wrote:Hopefully we'll pull out as soon as possible. Young soldiers have been ill-prepared and ill-informed and are sitting ducks as is evidenced almost everyday. The Iraq war is like a comedy of errors with a dunce as the orchestrator, but unfortunately there is no comedy involved, just tragedy. The ultimate irony is that the three people most hawkish on the war, and the quickest to rush in with their heads cut off are the same three who displayed the ultimate cowardice during Vietnam by avoiding it like the plague. If we are lucky, Kerry will win and although he is flawed and imperfect, he doesn't have a categorical lack of self-awareness and context like Bush II.

Image


Nice, well written and thought out response. :P

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:55 am
by chadtm80
was equivalent to the drivel you posted ;-)

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:02 am
by Guest
chadtm80 wrote:was equivalent to the dribble you posted ;-)


you mean drivel?

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:05 am
by chadtm80
:oops: :oops: Yes

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:47 am
by mf_dolphin
zwyts wrote:Hopefully we'll pull out as soon as possible. Young soldiers have been ill-prepared and ill-informed and are sitting ducks as is evidenced almost everyday. The Iraq war is like a comedy of errors with a dunce as the orchestrator, but unfortunately there is no comedy involved, just tragedy. The ultimate irony is that the three people most hawkish on the war, and the quickest to rush in with their heads cut off are the same three who displayed the ultimate cowardice during Vietnam by avoiding it like the plague. If we are lucky, Kerry will win and although he is flawed and imperfect, he doesn't have a categorical lack of self-awareness and context like Bush II.


What do you base your "ill-prepared" and "ill-informed" comments on? The U.S.Armed Forces are better prepared and better informed now than they've ever been. To call them sitting ducks is both inaccurate and shows your own lack of information. We've lost far fewer troops there than any conflict we've ever been involved in. If you want to talk about a military disaster let's talk Somalia. At least President Bush served honorably in the National Guard. Where was Clinton? As far as Kerry's service, he also tried to get an exemption but was denied. Do you call that cowardice? HE was compelled to serve and he did. What he did when he returned from Vietnam dishonored himself and his service.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:00 am
by JQ Public
seems like never

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 10:19 am
by stormchazer
zwyts wrote:Hopefully we'll pull out as soon as possible. Young soldiers have been ill-prepared and ill-informed and are sitting ducks as is evidenced almost everyday. The Iraq war is like a comedy of errors with a dunce as the orchestrator, but unfortunately there is no comedy involved, just tragedy. The ultimate irony is that the three people most hawkish on the war, and the quickest to rush in with their heads cut off are the same three who displayed the ultimate cowardice during Vietnam by avoiding it like the plague. If we are lucky, Kerry will win and although he is flawed and imperfect, he doesn't have a categorical lack of self-awareness and context like Bush II.


Did you get that off of MoveOn.org? I am sure our armed forces appreciate your candor and total lack of confidence. Frankly, you have no clue on what this War is really about. It is a test of wills, and if we were to count on yours or John Kerry's. we have already lost.

Take for instance Vietnam. This is from the very left NPR news site:

The Vietnam War started with a slower death rate. The United States had been involved in Vietnam for six years before total fatalities surpassed 500 in 1965, the year President Lyndon Johnson ordered a massive buildup of forces. There were 20,000 troops in Vietnam by the end of 1964. There were more than 200,000 a year later.

By the end of 1966, U.S. combat deaths in Vietnam had reached 3,910. By 1968, the peak of U.S. involvement, there were more than 500,000 troops in the country. During the first two weeks of April that year, 752 U.S. soldiers died, according to a search of records kept by the National Archives. About 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in the Vietnam War.


Note in the first year that only 20,000 troops were in Vietnam, and mostly as advisers, not frontline troops.

How about these stats from Korea and Vietnam:

Korea

Months of combat 37
Battle Deaths 33,629
Other Deaths 20,617
Wounds 103,284
Total Casualties 157,530
Battle deaths per month 909
Other deaths per month 557
Wounds per month 2,791
Total per month 4,257


Vietnam

Months of combat 101
Battle deaths 47,321
Other deaths 10,700
Wounds 153,303
Total casualties 211,324
Battle deaths per month 469
Other deaths per month 106
Wounds per month 1,518
Total per month 2,092


...or the biggie, World War II:

World War II (1940–1945)
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Avg Death Per month 9,213


I'd rather have a dunce as a leader, then a defeatist!

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:20 pm
by Wnghs2007
Definetley Biblical Prohecy....I can see it now it is just meant to be....sorry for all those who want us to pull out...it aint happening any time soon....

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 2:51 pm
by Rainband
No one knows. I say when our job is done, we will leave. As for prophecy... thats a bit deep for me :wink: