Should the troops be pulled out of Iraq?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Should the troops be pulled out of Iraq?
No way. Then there will be chaos; civil wars; terrorism
They should stay and eliminate all enemies




posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Munro_DreadGod
Should the troops be pulled out of Iraq?


Absolutely! When the job is finished.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Unfortunately even Kerry if elected would not be able to pull our troops out immediately. They have to restore some sort of order to the country before that can happen. I wonder how long it's going to take? Nobody really knows.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Absolutely! When the job is finished.


When will you consider the job finished?

When everything is calm and there are no more bombings?

What if that never happens, do you stay indefinitely?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Absolutely! When the job is finished.


When will you consider the job finished?

When everything is calm and there are no more bombings?

What if that never happens, do you stay indefinitely?


That's what I'm afraid of.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
When will you consider the job finished?


When the job is done, it will be evident. I am not in a position to make that determination and neither is anyone on this board. Progress is being made in the war and the installation of a democratic government. Iraq deserves all the support they need to build an nation. I can only hope that we don't do to Iraq what we did to S. Vietnam in 1973, due in no small measure to the activities of Hanoi John Kerry.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
You know it's funny I've never heard in history class in school or from any other sources during my whole life that the way Vietnam was left was all of JOHN KERRY's fault. It seems I would've heard of this long ago Grady.
Why does it all come out now? That's odd to me.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
When the job is done, it will be evident. I am not in a position to make that determination and neither is anyone on this board. Progress is being made in the war and the installation of a democratic government. Iraq deserves all the support they need to build an nation. I can only hope that we don't do to Iraq what we did to S. Vietnam in 1973, due in no small measure to the activities of Hanoi John Kerry.


Are the jobs in German and Japan finished? Why there are still tens of thousands of US troops there?

The problem is:

If Iraq is not calm, US troops should not leave, because job is not finished yet.

If Iraq is calm, US troops will stay there just like German and Japan, otherwise why building 13 huge millitary bases in Iraq?

Anyway, US troops will stay there for decades to come. US troops will only leave when they are defeated like in Vietnam.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally by Zcheng

Are the jobs in German and Japan finished? Why there are still tens of thousands of US troops there?

The problem is:

If Iraq is not calm, US troops should not leave, because job is not finished yet.

If Iraq is calm, US troops will stay there just like German and Japan, otherwise why building 13 huge millitary bases in Iraq?

Anyway, US troops will stay there for decades to come. US troops will only leave when they are defeated like in Vietnam.



There are bases still in Germany and Japan because of the perceived threat from the Soviets during the Cold War. You obviously don't keep up with current events as George Wrong Bush has said that he's planning on having fewer troops abroad meaning fewer bases. Besides there are American bases in Britain, Italy, Turkey and other European countries.

Yes the jobs in Germany and Japan are finished and their presence there may not last for a long time.

Do you have links that show the US military is actually building 13 big bases in Iraq?

Who's to say they will definitely lose in Iraq? You nor anyone else can predict the future.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyboy211

Do you have links that show the US military is actually building 13 big bases in Iraq?


The last I heard, it was more than 13.

Here's one link:
CNN:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration wants ongoing access to military bases in Iraq but acknowledges that any access agreement would have to be negotiated with whatever government emerges, a senior military official told CNN.

This development, first reported in The New York Times, is part of a larger expected administration and Pentagon review of future U.S. military presence in the region, the official said.


Here's another:
World Tribune:
BAGHDAD -- U.S. officials said the U.S. military would retain more than 20 bases throughout Iraq through 2006 in an effort to maintain stability in that country. They said that until 2006 the military would conduct another review to determine U.S. needs in Iraq for the remainder of the decade.


[edit on 7-9-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:24 PM
link   


There are bases still in Germany and Japan because of the perceived threat from the Soviets during the Cold War. You obviously don't keep up with current events as George Wrong Bush has said that he's planning on having fewer troops abroad meaning fewer bases. Besides there are American bases in Britain, Italy, Turkey and other European countries.

Yes the jobs in Germany and Japan are finished and their presence there may not last for a long time.

Do you have links that show the US military is actually building 13 big bases in Iraq?

Who's to say they will definitely lose in Iraq? You nor anyone else can predict the future.

Not true. The reason troops are stationed in Germany is because that was one of the conditions made to end WW2. Ally bases were made there due to tjhe fact the allies did not want to destroy Germany, but have a presence there to stop a future uprising.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   


Will it leave a vacuum for the radicals and extremists to take over an make another afghanistan or greater Iran


Yes your right kind of. Except it would be a LESSER Iran. No Middle East nation is more fanatically stronger or dangerous then Iran.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
You know it's funny I've never heard in history class in school or from any other sources during my whole life that the way Vietnam was left was all of JOHN KERRY's fault. It seems I would've heard of this long ago Grady.
Why does it all come out now? That's odd to me.


Nothing surprises me about what kids learn in school anymore. The United States won the ground war in Vietnam. Opposition to the war at home and the chaos in the streets and on college campuses ruined Lyndon Johnson and made Richard Nixon's term of office a nightmare even before the Watergate scandal and forced him into the Vietnamization of the war mode, while seeking a "peace with honor," which is the platform he ran on.

John Kerry's did more damage to the war effort and to the image of the Vietnam veteran in just a few weeks than the anti-war (read:anti-American) movement did in the previous 6-10 years. Yes, there was an "anti-war" movement before the landing of Marines at Danang in 1965.

The last American combat troops left Vietnam in April 1973. Saigon fell in April of 1975 in what had to be one of the most pitiful sights in all of history.

And of course, true to form, the anti-war movement immediately claimed that America lost the war. I think that should tell you something about their loyaties.

John Kerry is a traitor to his country and to his fellow veterans and you will be hearing a lot more about it between now and the election. We don't need a two-faced, backstabbing, self-serving traitor in the White House. I'd rather see Ralph Nader in the White House.




[edit on 04/9/7 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Opposition to the war at home and the chaos in the streets and on college campuses ruined Lyndon Johnson and made Richard Nixon's term of office a nightmare even before the Watergate scandal and forced him into the Vietnamization of the war mode, while seeking a "peace with honor," which is the platform he ran on.


Looks like the people really, really, really didn't want this war.
So it was ended by acts of civil disobedience.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
US can not withdraw from Iraq, and US can not win in Iraq. What's the best way to describe this situation? Vietnam or what?


What makes you so smart, zcheng. Do you know something we don't know? One things for sure, you don't know anything about Vietnam.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
John Kerry is a traitor to his country and to his fellow veterans and you will be hearing a lot more about it between now and the election. We don't need a two-faced, backstabbing, self-serving traitor in the White House. I'd rather see Ralph Nader in the White House.



You are one of those who still insisted that US could win Vietnam. It was lost the day US lost the support of Vietnam people. So it is happening now in Iraq. Why not held a vote to see whether Iraqi people want US there?

Fake or not, Saddam showed more than 90% Iraqi people elected him President. I thought US is more democratic at least than Saddam.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Looks like the people really, really, really didn't want this war.
So it was ended by acts of civil disobedience.


It was the civil disobedience of a minority that caused the US to withdraw. The war "ended" when the NVA stormed the country and the RVN forces folded causing one of the most horrific exoduses in human history. Your communist continued their bloodbath for many years and the Vietmanese conitnued their exodus, becoming the infamous "boat people."

Every American city and many small towns have at least one Vietnamese family. Everyone should make an effort to get to know them. They're good people, mostly. Ask them to tell you about life under the communists.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
You are one of those who still insisted that US could win Vietnam.


The war was won on the ground, when we left. The S. Vietnamese lost the war. They lost their country. Now, millions of them are here. I know many of them. They all tell the same story of corruption, tyranny and atrocities.


Fake or not, Saddam showed more than 90% Iraqi people elected him President. I thought US is more democratic at least than Saddam.


A fake election is not an election. That's how much you know.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
A fake election is not an election. That's how much you know.


You are following the same logic of one famous statement with thousands of years history. It goes like following: "White horse is not a horse".


"Fake" maybe be the wrong word chosen, "Frauded" maybe more accurate. Of course, many people know the 2000 election is "Frauded", so it was not an election as well.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
What makes you so smart, zcheng. Do you know something we don't know? One things for sure, you don't know anything about Vietnam.


Why do not you read my above post? I have explained clearly already.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join