Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USA Should Start Military Out Of Iraq Now  
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13169 posts, RR: 15
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2057 times:

I know I am asking for reaction to this but it is something to consider. With the overwhelming disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the need for soldiers and equipment for recovery, the fears of other serious hurricanes in the USA and the Carribbean this year, the possibility of a terror attack within the USA, the quagmire that Iraq has become to the USA, should the USA start a pullout of our military out of Iraq now? Our needs right now are far more important than Iraq's problems in the eyes of the USA's citizens.
While I am not saying to pull all of our troops out now, we should start to move reduce our presence now, to reduce it by 50% by the end of the year and 25% in the next month. I would suggest the removal of all National Guard troops first, as they are the ones with the best equipment and law enforcement authority (per our Constitution) to deal with the aftermath of Katrina and any potential disasters.
I would also suggest that starting the withdrawal would be a good faith move to tone down the situation. Yes, it does cause the risk of looking like we are 'giving in to the terrorists', but our presence is just fueling them instead.
Let the arguement ensue.

[Edited 2005-09-05 14:35:44]

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Upon the US pullout, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian troops could help Iraq for an interim period. Russia would provide new fighter-planes for the Iraqi Air Force and France the required tanks.

User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2039 times:

One has nothing to do with the other, the problem in New Orleans is that the local government for some reason or another did not call the National Guard up in time.

Other State Governments offered to send in their National Guard troops & once again there was a delay.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

The US pullout from Iraq will be driven by elections in the US, not natural disasters at home.

Look for significant drawdowns announced in early 2006, with all but a token force in place by November 2008.

Call me cynical, but if were a gambling man, I'd be betting on the above.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2024 times:

There are plenty of assets to handle Iraq and this disaster.

Pulling troops out of Iraq is still a foolhearty idea until their stabilization gets further.

Quoting MidnightMike (Reply 2):
the local government for some reason or another did not call the National Guard up in time.

Please refer to Governor Blanco  confused  who is out of her element for sure . . . the ONLY decision she's made thus far that makes any sense is refusing the White House request to Federalize Natinoal Guard troops working Katrina. If she had allowed that, NG troops lose their State status and under Posse Comitatus cannot perform law enforcement duties and lose their tort protection while doing do. That's the ONLY good call she's made thus far.

Quoting LTBEWR (Thread starter):
I would suggest the removal of all National Guard troops first, as they are the ones with the best equipment and law enforcement authority (per our Constitution) to deal with the aftermath of Katrina and any potential disasters.

While this may or may not be true - the impact on the Active Duty component would be significant . . . bear in mind that most of the Combat Support and Combat Service Support troops are now National Guard and Reserve. . . . a grave, grevious error made during the Bush 1 administration, festered during Clinton years and allowed to continue through Bush 2. Fortunately, in the mid 1990s the falacy of this tack was uncovered and there is a move afoot to undo this . . . .

But I digress . . .

Removing the National Guard and Reserve components first will not work, will hamper all CS and CSS functions and hamstring the Active Components. Some examples of jobs performed by Guard and Reserve troops: Graves Reg, Medical, Dental, Security, Engineering (not the blow shit up guys, rather the rebuild shit guys), Logistics, Heavy Transportation, Light Transportation, Maintenance, yadda, yadda . . . you get the idea.

It must be a balanced withdrawal . . .


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 1):
Upon the US pullout, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian troops could help Iraq for an interim period.

Brilliant. The Sysrians would work to put the Baathists back in power (or have you forgotten that they are also baathists), Jordanian sympathies will lie mainly with their fellow Sunnis, as will Egyptians, pushing the Shiites right into the arms of Iran. What you are advocating is civil war that could easily escalate to include other states of the middle east.

Quoting LTBEWR (Thread starter):
With the overwhelming disaster of Hurricane Katrina, the need for soldiers and equipment for recovery, the fears of other serious hurricanes in the USA and the Carribbean this year, the possibility of a terror attack within the USA, the quagmire that Iraq has become to the USA, should the USA start a pullout of our military out of Iraq now? Our needs right now are far more important than Iraq's problems in the eyes of the USA's citizens.

The U.S. has around 1.4 million in the regular armed forces, and close to 2 million if you include the National Guard. Only 150,000 or so are in Irak. So there are plenty of men still available around the U.S.

As far as other hurricanes go, I'd say that Katrina was one in a thousand. By pure bad luck it hit the absolute worst place on the entire coast that it could hit. Had it gone 50 miles further east or west it would not have caused so much damage. Had the hurricane struck Houston or Miami it would not be nearly as disasterous. And Cat 5 hurricanes don't happen every day.

The regular armed forces are not designed to do this sort of work - the National Guard is. I do agree that fewer units of the National Guard should be sent to Iraq. They should stay home, and be replaced by regular Army units. Take them from South Korea, for example. Whereas most Iraqis want the U.S. to stay until they get their security problems hashed out, the South Koreans seem to appreciate very little how much the U.S. has done to protect them from that nut to their north. Take the military out of there.

While we are at it, take them out of Germany and all other places where the local population seems to be against their presence. And once Iraq is on their feet and can defend themselves against the insurgents on their own, pull them outta there too.

Charles


User currently offlineME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13920 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
Brilliant. The Sysrians would work to put the Baathists back in power (or have you forgotten that they are also baathists), Jordanian sympathies will lie mainly with their fellow Sunnis, as will Egyptians, pushing the Shiites right into the arms of Iran. What you are advocating is civil war that could easily escalate to include other states of the middle east.

-
The Ba'ath Party is the Socialist Party of the Arab Reawakening, and thereby a POSITIVE force. The Syrians however NEVER were in favour of S.H. al-Takriti and will NOT put the Saddam-Clan back into power. Jordanians and Egyptians are NOT narrow-minded and are tolerant and will NOT "push" the Shi'ites anywhere. No, I do NOT advocate civil war but stability and reconiciliation and Arab Unity .


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 6):
No, I do NOT advocate civil war but stability and reconiciliation and Arab Unity .

Well said Marwan.

I know many in the Arab world have been calling for the Arab League to set up a multi-national Arab force to be sent to Iraq for a couple of years while the country gets itself together and tries to stabilize itself. One of the major sources of tension in Iraq is the fact that the occupying force is largely American. Iraq is one of the founding members of the Arab League and has always been one of the most staunch advocates of pan-Arabism and Arab unity. A multi-national Arab force in Iraq for a couple of years could definately help stabilize the country.

During the Lebanese civil war, the Arab League set up the Arab Deterrent Force to try to stabilize the country and end the civil war. Unfortunately, it was almost entirely composed of Syrian troops and the ADF quickly collapsed, with the Syrians fighting a war in the country themselves and causing all sorts of havoc.

The Arab League could set up a multi-national force to be deployed in Iraq, but they would have to make sure that it is truly a multi-national force and not consisting of mainly one force, particularly a Syrian force. What happened in Lebanon was a lesson to them and I am sure they would be much more careful in setting up a multi-national force in Iraq. I think they learned their lesson from the Lebanese civil war.

Either that, or bring in the UN with a massive international multi-national force to stabilize the country.

The fact that Iraq is currently being occupied largely by the US and its allies is a major reason for the source of tensions in Iraq. A multi-national Arab force or an international multi-national force led by the UN would help alleviate these tensions.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1962 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 6):
The Ba'ath Party is the Socialist Party of the Arab Reawakening, and thereby a POSITIVE force.

The Syrian government is a positive force? You learn something every day  Yeah sure

The Syrian Baathists may not gassed anyone (yet), but they are just as rotten and brutal as Saddam's party.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 6):
Jordanians and Egyptians are NOT narrow-minded and are tolerant and will NOT "push" the Shi'ites anywhere.

The governments, I agree. but there will be plenty of unrest as less educated masses insist on helping out their Sunni brothers.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 6):
No, I do NOT advocate civil war but stability and reconiciliation and Arab Unity .

Arab Unity? I don't think we will live to see that day.

Charles


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20783 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

Why do these arguments never include Germany, Japan, South Korea, etc., in the "let's get out of there" efforts?


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1948 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 3):
The US pullout from Iraq will be driven by elections in the US, not natural disasters at home.

I agree 100% - to save face for the mid-term elections you will see more conservative lawmakers jumping on board the "lets get out" bus in the next few months.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
The Syrian Baathists may not gassed anyone (yet), but they are just as rotten and brutal as Saddam's party.

So is the Saudi royal family, in many people's mind, but we're still "friends" with them.

As to the question at hand, here's my opinion:
I think it would be a mistake to do an expedited withdrawal from Iraq. That being said, I know now that we went in on what turned out to be a sham - I also believe that this detracts from the war on terror and does not help it.

BUT one simple fact remains, whether the intel was wrong or manipulated (and I honestly don't know) we are there now. If we up and leave, Iraq will surely fall into the hands of Islamic extremists, whether they be from Iran or someone like Zarqawi. In the long run this will be worse for our country, so we must finish the job we started.

Do we do that by "staying the course"? ABSOLUTELY NOT!! It infuriates me when I hear this - yes we need to stay and finish, I agree, but not like we are doing now - it's a disaster. Bring in more troops, secure the border, have a MASSIVE effort to secure the country for the next several months, wipe out the terrorists once and for all - train more Iraqis and then let them (in their own time) write a constitution and work out how they will govern themselves - not based on some arbitrary timeline we set up.

Bottom line - secure the country, for real this time - train the Iraqis to maintain this secure country - then leave. If it takes 6 months or 6 years this is what we have to do - we broke it, it's our job to fix it now - no matter what your political leanings are.

That's what I think anyway.


User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3388 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 1):
Upon the US pullout, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian troops could help Iraq for an interim period. Russia would provide new fighter-planes for the Iraqi Air Force and France the required tanks.

Perhaps it would be an idea to ask those nations first if they are even willing before planning a pull-out.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1937 times:

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 1):
Upon the US pullout, Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian troops could help Iraq for an interim period. Russia would provide new fighter-planes for the Iraqi Air Force and France the required tanks.

Ahh, let's see....mix Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Russia and then top it off with a dose of France. What do you get? A cocktail of ignorance. Bad idea.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
There are plenty of assets to handle Iraq and this disaster.

Exactly.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 5):
What you are advocating is civil war that could easily escalate to include other states of the middle east.

Right on the money.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 6):
Jordanians and Egyptians are NOT narrow-minded and are tolerant and will NOT "push" the Shi'ites anywhere. No, I do NOT advocate civil war but stability and reconiciliation and Arab Unity .

First sentence is just absurd. Second is contradicting itself all day long with the first. Everyone wants stability in the Middle Eastern states, but the day the Arab nations agree with each other and release their 100-year-old grudges will be the day that they run out of oil...and power. To think this will happen anytime soon is an extreme utopian-type view and horribly unrealistic.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1929 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 12):
Ahh, let's see....mix Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Russia and then top it off with a dose of France. What do you get? A cocktail of ignorance. Bad idea.

And many other countries would say the same thing about our foolish actions in Iraq, doesn't make them or us right - give the ethnocentrism a rest already, it's unproductive.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1915 times:

Quoting KC135R (Reply 13):
give the ethnocentrism a rest already, it's unproductive.

That's pretty narrow-minded itself. The comment I made about those nations is based on several decades of history. I wasn't stating that they are incapable of making informed decisions, but that when you mix them all together, along with their predispositions and grudges, you're going to get a very clouded, ignorent decision.

Stop the quick reactions and think about what people say. Its unproductive.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 14):
wasn't stating that they are incapable of making informed decisions, but that when you mix them all together, along with their predispositions and grudges, you're going to get a very clouded, ignorent decision.

Unlike the brilliantly devised, well thought out and competently organised American-led "liberation", right ? Please - Ecuador and Vanuatu could have pulled off a better job, in less time, and about 100,000 fewer people would have died.

Give it a couple of years, you'll be begging the Arab League to take Iraq off your hands.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1908 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 14):
Stop the quick reactions and think about what people say. Its unproductive.

Touche - and fair enough...

My point may not quite be what you thought though - what I am saying is this - by assuming that Iraq wants our brand of democracy, we engage in ethnocentrism - thinking our way is best for the rest of the world. I am not sure that is true anymore - what is best for us is not necessarily best for the rest of the world. The only thing we have that I think all people should have is freedom, how they get there politically is not my concern. You also called 5 countries ignorant because they do things different than us, that too is ethnocentrism.

The Middle East is not North America, what works fairly well here might not work at all over there. To assume that we can give them a better new government than those other countries is narrow-minded as well. Syria, Jordan, and Egypt all have much deeper roots in that area then we do, likely understand the situation better than we do, and (save Syria) are not terrible countries by any stretch - Jordan in fact is a close U.S. ally. Russia is Russia, I don't know that they would help much and France was not even mentioned in the initial comments, so why bring them up? Oh, right, because it is our duty as Americans to hate France. sarcastic 

That is where my frustration comes from, I am tired of that attitude. We don't get why people hate us just because we are American, then we go around talking about how God-awful the French are just because they are French - hmmm....ironic isn't it?


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 15):
Please - Ecuador and Vanuatu could have pulled off a better job, in less time, and about 100,000 fewer people would have died.

Hmm...I would like to watch that.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 16):
My point may not quite be what you thought though - what I am saying is this - by assuming that Iraq wants our brand of democracy, we engage in ethnocentrism

Don't get me wrong, I truly understand your point. But what my counterargument was based upon was that I wasn't stating anything about OUR democracy or ideologies and I'm sorry if it came across that way. It was geared solely around the fact that blending those nations together with their views very passionately rooted in their respective histories would be a hard combination to produce anything effective. Not once would I ever compare them to OUR democracy, because yes...that would be ethnocentric. My point was that they would have quite a bit of trouble coming together.  banghead 

Quoting KC135R (Reply 16):
You also called 5 countries ignorant because they do things different than us, that too is ethnocentrism.

Christ, you really distorted what I posted. I just re-read my posts for the third time and no where do I state that those nations are ignorant because 'they do things differently than us.' I'm the furthest thing from ethnocentic and I'm getting frustration with you trying to twist my point into that.

If you read my posts, you will see that I said that a combination of all those nations listed would result in a clouded, ignorant decision...I NEVER COMPARED IT TO THE UNITED STATES! Each nation runs itself the way it sees fit...not once have I said that they should do it our way. But, the history of that region and their relations amongst each other would suggest that bringing them all together would promote more bickering than problem solving. <---my point  banghead 

Quoting KC135R (Reply 16):
and France was not even mentioned in the initial comments

I think you are having a case of reality distortion. Read Reply 1. THIS IS WHAT I WAS RESPONDING TO!!!  banghead 

Quoting KC135R (Reply 16):
We don't get why people hate us just because we are American, then we go around talking about how God-awful the French are just because they are French - hmmm....ironic isn't it?

This is beginning to get humorous. I think you need to re-read the entire thread over again and write down what I said. NOT ONCE did I jump into any France-bashing post or claim that it is my American right to hate them. France is one of my favorite countries and I have visited there many times. I enjoy the people, though we don't agree on everything. You have completely distorted everything that I ACTUALLY posted into what you THINK I posted. I can't drive this point home any further until you re-read what was written.  banghead 



Crye me a river
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
together.  banghead 



Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
my point  banghead 



Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
TO!!!  banghead 



Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
written.  banghead 

You're going to get a headache if you don't stop . . .  biggrin 


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1876 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
The governments, I agree.

Uh huh....sure Cfalk, in your eyes the governments "are not that bad" because they happen to have a slant towards the west and that is all that matters for you.

The fact is Jordan and Egypt are far from having "good" governments. They are just like Syria in that they are corrupt, brutal, and oppressive, but they happen to have a slant towards the west which is why in your eyes, they are "good."

Syria, Jordan, Egypt all use torture, they all try to silence their opponents either by throwing them into jail or killing them. In addition, there is absolutely no such thing as freedom of speech in any of those countries. If you criticize the governments, you will be jailed. That's why reporters from channels like Al Jazeera are routinely harrassed in those countries.

Infact, Jordan not too long ago suspended Al Jazeera's broadcasts in Jordan for quite a long period after the channel aired a documentary that was critical of the Hashemite regime.

During Syria's hegomony over Lebanon, an outspoken Lebanese channel called MTV (no, not Music Television, the M stands for Murr) was shut down because of its criticism of the Syrian regime. Following the "independence intifada" that led to a regime change and an end to the Syrian military presence in Lebanon, MTV is coming back on the air in a few months time.

The only Arab countries that have a reasonable amount of freedom of speech are Lebanon, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. All other Arab countries have media that is highly censored by their respective governments.

There is one thing that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt do have in common however, and that is relative freedom of religion (Syria and Egypt having more than Jordan however) and that is because they have secular non-religious governments.

Don't give me that "Egypt and Jordan have decent governments, but the Syrian Ba'ath regime is just plain bad" propaganda. I've heard it time and time again and it is utterly false. All 3 of those regimes are equally brutal as are most of the regimes in the Arab world.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
but there will be plenty of unrest as less educated masses insist on helping out their Sunni brothers.

Not only is this comment racist, but it is entirely false and I am speaking as an Arab.

Yes, there are religious zealots and fanatics in the Arab world like the kinds of Al Qaeda who hate any non-Sunnis and simply believe in helping out their Sunni brothers as you call it, but these are a minority. The fact is the majority of Arabs want an Iraq that is stable and want an end to all these suicide bombings and terror attacks going on in the country regardless of whether those who are affected are Sunni, Shia, or Christian.

Infact, not too long ago, King Abdullah II of Jordan warned of a "Shia crescent" ranging from Syria all the way to Iran if Iraq becomes a Shia Islamic Republic. This is from your so-called "good" regime.

That's not the Syrians don't have their excuses either because they do (they don't want an Islamic Iraq), but I am just trying to point that your claim of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments as being "good" while the Syrian government is "bad" is false and it is a black and white picture.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 8):
Arab Unity? I don't think we will live to see that day.

You're right, it will never happen thanks to the western powers who worked to undermine secular Arab nationalist movements in the 1960's and used the House of Saud and the Islamists (such as the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood, which gave birth to modern Islamic fundamentalism) to promote pan-Islamisism to undermine secular Arab nationalism such as those advocated by leaders like Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. We all know how this back-fired!



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1858 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):

It is clear now that you and I are both reading too much into what the other person is saying.

For my part, I apologize, your further clarification in your last post makes sense - I get your position now and I did, in fact, read more into it than what was there.

On that same note, some of the comments of frustration I expressed were meant to be at some people in general, not necessarily to you. You seem to have taken every one of them as a personal attack and that was not my intention.

So, I apologize for reading more into your comments than was there.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1852 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 18):
You're going to get a headache if you don't stop . . .

Already there.  biting 

Quoting KC135R (Reply 20):
I get your position now and I did, in fact, read more into it than what was there.

No worries...it happens on a forum like this.

Quoting KC135R (Reply 20):
You seem to have taken every one of them as a personal attack and that was not my intention.

I never thought of them as attacks, but do you know why I took them personally? Because you quoted me in your response...that leads one to believe that the message is directed towards them.

But, I understand your point completely. I, too, have tried to make general observations while others think I am coming down on them. It just happens on a site like this, especially with inflamed topics.

Like I said, no worries.  bigthumbsup 



Crye me a river
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1852 times:

Interesting to see the reactions to my suggestion and some of the problems with a withdrawal. That is why I thru out my suggestion to see the good and flaws with it.
Some noted that the National Guard troops over there are the primary ones doing certain support functions and thus may limit the return of all N.G. units. Others noted that maybe troops now in South Korea and Germany could be either brought home or rotated into Iraq to replace other troops there to let some (particularly the National Guard) come home to help our country in it's time of need and potential future needs. Others feared, with good reason, of our withdrawal would cause a vacuum that may be filled by Syria, Iran or internal civil war.
Still, we may need not only as to the soldiers and their equipment within the USA now in the Katrian affected area, and potential problems, but also to defuse a poor situation for the USA in Iraq.


User currently offlineKC135R From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 728 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 21):
Like I said, no worries.

Ditto!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should British Troops Pull Out Of Iraq Now? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 19:52:09 by 9VSPO
British Army Chief Wants Out Of Iraq posted Fri Oct 13 2006 10:04:40 by Braybuddy
A Reason Few "Good Stories" Come Out Of Iraq? posted Wed May 24 2006 23:45:50 by AeroWesty
Black Boxes Should Be Made Out Of Keith Richards posted Sat May 13 2006 20:00:47 by Georgetown
Should Canada Pull Out Of Afghanistan? posted Tue Mar 7 2006 20:29:23 by AerospaceFan
Congress To Vote On Pulling Out Of Iraq posted Fri Nov 18 2005 22:32:44 by Texan
Hungary To Pull Troops Out Of Iraq posted Thu Nov 4 2004 03:08:31 by Dragon-wings
Hungary Pulling Its Troops Out Of Iraq posted Wed Nov 3 2004 16:06:56 by FLYYUL
Dover C-5s Fly Uranium Out Of Iraq. posted Thu Jul 22 2004 16:29:57 by Galaxy5
Norway Follows Spain Out Of Iraq posted Sat Apr 24 2004 20:18:58 by Vanessa