When should we leave Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CaptainObvious, Nov 10, 2006.

How long?

  1. This weekend

    13 vote(s)
    68.4%
  2. 1 year

    2 vote(s)
    10.5%
  3. 2 years

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%
  4. More than 2 years

    3 vote(s)
    15.8%
  1. Just as I thought....no good reason to stay another day. Whether the question is posed here, or to the pinheads that appear on TV, the answer is the same. silence or spin. You know the spin......the entire middle-east will erupt into chaos, oil will go to 80 bukcs a barrel, we'll lose face and bin laden will be emboldened. So.....that isn't going to happen a year or two from now? Bullshit!
    Time to step up. Who volunteers to be the last to die for this crap? Who would like to volunteer their son or daughter, mother or father, friends, anyone? Come on heroes. Step up to the plate!
    The only people that have lost face are the gutless wonders that occupy our nations capitol. The troops, once again, did their job the best they could with what they had for support, which was damn little. Lets just admit the country is run by pussies and has been for several decades.
    Everyone knows that a real victory will require several hundred thousand troops and killing on a grand scale, with little regard for collateral damage. Ready for that? Just as I thought!!
     
    #11     Nov 11, 2006
  2. pattersb

    pattersb Guest


    It's a safe bet we'll have troops stationed there for the next 10++ years.

    I'll defer to you though, you'd know more about military operations than me, but I'd guess we will have 15-50k there at least until 2025.

    It's a bit funny, if not so sad, to witness the far left conjure these delusions of a peaceful world as a result of the peaceniks, umm Democrats, winning the elections. The election results should work to reduce the religious intensity of this fight, which is a very, very good thing. It was encouraging, for a minute, when Al-Qaeda announced it was pleased with the election results, the best way to deal with insane-fanatics is to first calm them down. (Just as likely, they are now more empowered by our show of weakness) Perhaps the Democrats will actually have us joining hands and singing kumbaya
     
    #12     Nov 11, 2006
  3. pattersb

    pattersb Guest


    This would require another large-scale attack, far worse than 9-11, which won't occur because the master-minds behind the 9-11 conspiracy are being booted from office left and right.

    Although, the planning for 9-11 occured while Bush was still governor of Texas, perhaps McCain already has something in the works.
     
    #13     Nov 11, 2006
  4. You're right, and it's a damn shame. We'll have troops fighting and dieing over there for years to come, with no intent of ever achieving a real victory.
     
    #14     Nov 11, 2006
  5. BSAM

    BSAM

    Pattersb.....

    Try to get over to your cabinet and take your meds. Otherwise dial 911.
     
    #15     Nov 11, 2006
  6. pattersb

    pattersb Guest


    ... sarcasm, my friend, sarcasm. Too early in the morning on this Saturday, to come up with anything better.

    (remember,when poled, 25%+ of the population believed the government had something to do with 911... And the fricking left screams about "Faux News" deceiving people) http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=529780


    sar·casm (särkzm) KEY

    NOUN:

    A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
    A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
    The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit 1.
     
    #16     Nov 11, 2006
  7. pattersb

    pattersb Guest

    The killing will die down in a few years....

    The goal at this point appears to be simply to exhaust the insurgency, unfortunately this requires giving them targets to shoot at, (ie; american troops)

    I think the troops will bunker down in the new embassy once constructed, and support the Iraqi military its created. Removing any lingering doubts of whether we are occupiers or liberators, (or maybe this will create more, what the hell do I know?)

    Could last until 2100 and beyond ...
     
    #17     Nov 11, 2006
  8. Should have done this six months ago. Republicans would have retained congress.

    Bush and his crew are so invested in it, they will never be able to call it quits.

    The problem now is their plan is clearly not working, and they don't seem to have a Plan B. It's not moral to keep getting our soldiers killed under those circumstances.

    Al Qaeda will spin it as a great victory for them, and they will be right. However, we let their leaders have a sanctuary inside the Pakistan border territories. We don;t want to upset the nuclear applecart that is Pakistan, but at some point that will become unavoidable. Why not wipe out Al Qaeda now, deal with the Pakistani complaints and move on?
     
    #18     Nov 11, 2006
  9. I think we should build a base/occupy part of Northern Iraq. Get out of the cities altogether. Ally ourselves with the Israeli Backed Kurds, let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out in the lower half of the country and strike them in selected areas when factions we dont like gain the upper hand. I think eventually a faction which has the best interests for their country will emerge.
     
    #19     Nov 11, 2006
  10. as long as we are there the bloodshed will only increase. and even if/when we leave sectarian violence aint gonna go away, it's a deep seated heatred driven struggle for power and control. watch out, things are gonna get worse and worse...only good thing is that majority of iraqis welcome the democrats win and if the new leaders get rid of all that tough talkin' and show some respect and understandin' then violence may ease off.
     
    #20     Nov 11, 2006