The President's Iraq plan....

A Very Super Market · 02-28-09, 07:52 PM

At least he hasn't called anyone a Nazi?

August · 02-28-09, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

At least he hasn't called anyone a Nazi?

so far...

Zachstar · 02-28-09, 09:14 PM

The plan sucks because it leaves ALOT of room for "Extended Stay"

He ramatazed though the campaign talking about how we were going to be out VERY quickly then we hear this crap.

Here is a tip. Iraq is going to be Iran's ***** they want it that way and it does not matter if we leave now or 2015. The only thing that will win this war is for oil to go down to 20 dollars.

Overboard · 02-28-09, 09:31 PM

What are we as americans" going to do about this mess, I here people talk all kinds of "crap".. But what dose all this (CRAP) mean?

1. Is there a way out?
2. What are the chances we'll fail?
3. why did we not pull out sooner?
4. What will happen after we leave?
5. What will the people back home think about it?
6.Can we aford to leave now?
7. Where do we realy stand on this matter?

AVGWarhawk · 03-01-09, 07:47 AM

We will be present in Iraq for a long time. Sure, time to pull out as many as possible. I think that most will be pulling into Afghanistan.

Zachstar · 03-01-09, 08:50 AM

Which is where we ought to be. Terrorists in Afghanistan are who attacked us. Losing that war would be catastrophic.

And it is only due to the bravery of our men and women as well as those of other nations that we actually have a chance. As long as oil is over 20 USD Iraq is a lost cause.

Skybird · 03-01-09, 09:11 AM

That Obama would not pull put within 90 days after elction, should be no surprise. Different to his predecessor, he seems to be a man listening to others he asks for advice, in this case: the military. So the timetable looks okay.

Just that he wants to leave up to 50.000 as "instructors" and a rapid reaction force, made my eyebrow raise a bit. That is quite a lot of troops. It sounds more like maintaining the already established platform for an action-capable military presence in general, and projecting it's influence over Iraq - and beyond. The US has established a whole network of military basis throughout the Middle and Far East since the cold war ended, which serve as tripwires, ELINT basis and logistics nodes in the global network the US army is running, and while only some are very major and big in size, and while many of them are very small and unable to survive any dedicated military attack on them, each of them is capable to perform considerable intel gathering operations in it'S region. And again: they serve as tripwires and should dam both Russia and China, and help to remain in control distance of strategic hotspots like oil pipelines.

If it all is not already a little bit overstretched, or not, is worth a debate for itself.

Pelosi suggested a troop level of not more than 15-20 thousands. If it is about training the Iraqi army only, even significantly less would be sufficient. Anything exceeding this basic number indicates intentions leading beyond "army instruction and training" only.

SteamWake · 03-01-09, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

We will be present in Iraq for a long time. Sure, time to pull out as many as possible. I think that most will be pulling into Afghanistan.

You know were still 'present' in alot of Europe and the far east after World War II.

Just food for thought.

Aramike · 03-01-09, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Pelosi suggested a troop level of not more than 15-20 thousands. If it is about training the Iraqi army only, even significantly less would be sufficient. Anything exceeding this basic number indicates intentions leading beyond "army instruction and training" only.

I'm just curious: based on what experience or information are you determining that anything over 20K troops would be beyond "instruction and training" only? I didn't know you were an expert in the field...

August · 03-01-09, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

You know were still 'present' in alot of Europe and the far east after World War II.

Just food for thought.

Darn good point SteamWake.

In our two successful attempts at nation building Germany and Japan, what does the forum think might have happened if the Allies had pulled their troops out of those countries say by 1947?

02-28-09, 07:52 PM	#1
A Very Super Market The Old Man Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Deep in the Wild Canadian suburbs. Posts: 1,468 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	At least he hasn't called anyone a Nazi? __________________ The entire German garrison of Vanviken, right here in your thread!

02-28-09, 09:14 PM	#3
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	The plan sucks because it leaves ALOT of room for "Extended Stay" He ramatazed though the campaign talking about how we were going to be out VERY quickly then we hear this crap. Here is a tip. Iraq is going to be Iran's ***** they want it that way and it does not matter if we leave now or 2015. The only thing that will win this war is for oil to go down to 20 dollars. __________________

03-01-09, 07:47 AM	#5
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,261 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	We will be present in Iraq for a long time. Sure, time to pull out as many as possible. I think that most will be pulling into Afghanistan. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

03-01-09, 08:50 AM	#6
Zachstar Sea Lord Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shreveport, Louisiana Posts: 1,956 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	Which is where we ought to be. Terrorists in Afghanistan are who attacked us. Losing that war would be catastrophic. And it is only due to the bravery of our men and women as well as those of other nations that we actually have a chance. As long as oil is over 20 USD Iraq is a lost cause. __________________

03-01-09, 09:11 AM	#7
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,637 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	That Obama would not pull put within 90 days after elction, should be no surprise. Different to his predecessor, he seems to be a man listening to others he asks for advice, in this case: the military. So the timetable looks okay. Just that he wants to leave up to 50.000 as "instructors" and a rapid reaction force, made my eyebrow raise a bit. That is quite a lot of troops. It sounds more like maintaining the already established platform for an action-capable military presence in general, and projecting it's influence over Iraq - and beyond. The US has established a whole network of military basis throughout the Middle and Far East since the cold war ended, which serve as tripwires, ELINT basis and logistics nodes in the global network the US army is running, and while only some are very major and big in size, and while many of them are very small and unable to survive any dedicated military attack on them, each of them is capable to perform considerable intel gathering operations in it'S region. And again: they serve as tripwires and should dam both Russia and China, and help to remain in control distance of strategic hotspots like oil pipelines. If it all is not already a little bit overstretched, or not, is worth a debate for itself. Pelosi suggested a troop level of not more than 15-20 thousands. If it is about training the Iraqi army only, even significantly less would be sufficient. Anything exceeding this basic number indicates intentions leading beyond "army instruction and training" only. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

02-28-09, 09:31 PM	#4
Overboard Medic Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 164 Downloads: 124 Uploads: 0	What are we as americans" going to do about this mess, I here people talk all kinds of "crap".. But what dose all this (CRAP) mean? 1. Is there a way out? 2. What are the chances we'll fail? 3. why did we not pull out sooner? 4. What will happen after we leave? 5. What will the people back home think about it? 6.Can we aford to leave now? 7. Where do we realy stand on this matter?