How long will troops have to stay in Iraq?

miir · Post by **miir** » April 1, 2003, 11:58 am

After Saddam is removed how long do you think the UN and US peacekeeping troops will have to remain in Iraq?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » April 1, 2003, 12:01 pm

I clicked 5, but I meant 2... but there was no 2

miir · Post by **miir** » April 1, 2003, 12:06 pm

Interesting note that there are still tens of thousands of Peacekeepers still in Bosnia....

You guys honestly think that Iraq will be that much more stable than Bosnia once Saddam is removed?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 1, 2003, 12:07 pm

You are speaking of any troops or the fighting force?

I assume any troops since you said "Peacekeeper". Just want to be sure.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 1, 2003, 12:09 pm

5 years at least. We're going to find out how hard it is to enforce our government on a populace that loathes us in a region that hates us. It will take 5+ years for many truths to surface and for the war to effect the common American enough to make them care.

I believe we are destined to fail this one. However, it will take time, money, and OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS more death (Americans of course) before we pull out.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 1, 2003, 12:22 pm

Where is the "As long as they want to" Choice.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 1, 2003, 2:34 pm

miir wrote:Interesting note that there are still tens of thousands of Peacekeepers still in Bosnia....

You guys honestly think that Iraq will be that much more stable than Bosnia once Saddam is removed?

Don't you listen to Bush's speeches? IT WILL TOUCH OFF A DOMINO EFFECT OF DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

They can leave the next day Saddam is killed. The Iraqi people will be so grateful.

Oh yeah, as soon as Saddam dies, the exiled Ayatollah of Iraq is ready to move right back in with his private army and set up a US-hating fundamentalist theocracy similar to Iran. I wonder if the US will re-invade to get rid of him too?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » April 1, 2003, 2:51 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
miir wrote:Interesting note that there are still tens of thousands of Peacekeepers still in Bosnia....

You guys honestly think that Iraq will be that much more stable than Bosnia once Saddam is removed?
Don't you listen to Bush's speeches? IT WILL TOUCH OFF A DOMINO EFFECT OF DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

They can leave the next day Saddam is killed. The Iraqi people will be so grateful.

Oh yeah, as soon as Saddam dies, the exiled Ayatollah of Iraq is ready to move right back in with his private army and set up a US-hating fundamentalist theocracy similar to Iran. I wonder if the US will re-invade to get rid of him too?

If needed I sure hope so.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » April 1, 2003, 5:08 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:
miir wrote:Interesting note that there are still tens of thousands of Peacekeepers still in Bosnia....

You guys honestly think that Iraq will be that much more stable than Bosnia once Saddam is removed?
Don't you listen to Bush's speeches? IT WILL TOUCH OFF A DOMINO EFFECT OF DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

They can leave the next day Saddam is killed. The Iraqi people will be so grateful.

Oh yeah, as soon as Saddam dies, the exiled Ayatollah of Iraq is ready to move right back in with his private army and set up a US-hating fundamentalist theocracy similar to Iran. I wonder if the US will re-invade to get rid of him too?

We'll just send you Kooky and them weenies will run screaming back to their mama. You project enough hate and shrillness to scare all the troops in the middle east.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 1, 2003, 5:29 pm

lol dood you rilly owned me.

Braxter · Post by **Braxter** » April 2, 2003, 5:39 am

Troops will remain in Iraq for at least 10 years. If Germany is any indication, there will still be US military bases in Iraq 50 years from now. And yes, the United States will win this war, thought that victory may be stretched to November, 2004.

I've heard a great many comparison between this conflict and Vietnam. The military gap between the US and Iraq is about a thousand fold as wide as it was between the US and Vietnam, and Iraq doesn't have any active line of incoming support as did Vietnam. Comparisons between the two wars are absurd on many levels.

Metanis wrote:We'll just send you Kooky and them weenies will run screaming back to their mama. You project enough hate and shrillness to scare all the troops in the middle east.

That was just about as far from "funny" as you are from "cerebral."

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 2, 2003, 5:52 am

well germany could have lost those bases decades ago but the US kept 'em up to keeps an eye on teh communists. they will probably always be there as long as there is a russia (or a united states) because all the good nuke silos and bombers are there waiting for armageddon.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » April 2, 2003, 10:53 am

Comparisons between the two wars are absurd on many levels.

I disagree. Parallels can be drawn at virtually every valid point. Donald Rumsfield has even been referred to as a modern Robert S. McNamara.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2& ... &printer=1

We under estimated the will our enemy in both cases. We have vastly superior technology in both cases. The US is divided in opinion once again, with massive protests from coast to coast. The purpose of both wars are vague at best. The government is only allowing the press to show the rosie side of the war, not allowing the average American to see the thorns. After 11 years in Vietnam, there was no way to hide all the ugliness that war created and popular opinion shifted over time. Depending on how long this takes, I see the same thing happening again, like I said in the above post. I could go on and on, but hopefully you get my point. The simularities between GW2 and Vietnam are so numerous it's frightening.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 2, 2003, 11:21 am

And you are going to be so embarrassed when this is over and all your little theories are totally baseless........

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 2, 2003, 2:38 pm

Not to mention that this isn't the first hair-brained domino effect cooked up by some stupid republican to justify a war.

Post by **Sylvus** » April 2, 2003, 3:06 pm

Yeah, but Vietnam was to stop the dominoes from falling and Iraq is to set them in motion. So they are totally different.

Seriously though, I feel that it's way too early to make comparisons to Vietnam. Yes, some things are similar such as the irregular troops, but they don't have anywhere near the advantage given by terrain. Give it a couple more months at least, I really doubt that the timeframe that we have troops fighting in Iraq will be even a fraction of what it was in Vietnam.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 2, 2003, 3:09 pm

Not to mention the fact that the coalition military is basically fighting this war as a free fire zone. In Vietnam, the troops were handcuffed by not being able to attack at will and be the aggressors.

Salis · Post by **Salis** » April 3, 2003, 2:17 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:Not to mention the fact that the coalition military is basically fighting this war as a free fire zone. In Vietnam, the troops were handcuffed by not being able to attack at will and be the aggressors.

When you're fighting a guerilla war. which this will be, it's irrelevant whether you can fire at all the camels in sight. Guerilla tactics by definition eliminate most of your opportunity to attack at will, and be the aggressors. In a willing country, with a guerilla army, I cant think of a winning scenario for an invader. The Americans showed the English that, the Vietnamese showed the Americans that, the Afghans showed the Russians, etc etc ad infinitum.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 2:27 am

When you're fighting a guerilla war. which this will be, it's irrelevant whether you can fire at all the camels in sight. Guerilla tactics by definition eliminate most of your opportunity to attack at will, and be the aggressors. In a willing country, with a guerilla army, I cant think of a winning scenario for an invader. The Americans showed the English that, the Vietnamese showed the Americans that, the Afghans showed the Russians, etc etc ad infinitum.

One very large difference you are missing here.

Iraqis do not have a jungle to hide in, nor a massive cave network system to stage in and attack from.

Also, we arent fighting the entire country. That becomes clearer the closer we move to Baghdad. We most definitely WERE fighting the entire country int eh Vietnam conflict, and the same can be said for the Russians in Afghanistan.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 3, 2003, 2:59 am

No you weren't. Over 75% of south vietnam was on the side of the french and the americans. the communists managed to subvert very little of the vietnamese population, and almost literally none of the montagnards in the villages. the fact that there was so little infiltration in the highlands is what made it so difficult to root out the NVA sympathizers and collaborators.

If most of southern vietnam was against the US then there wouldnt have been a war to begin with, because instead of a war and an invasion there would have been a revolution.

Seriously, do you know anything?

Estrosiath · Post by **Estrosiath** » April 3, 2003, 6:22 am

Peacekeepers? Before that, you actually have to oust him... And that's not gonna happen by bombing. Don't sell them short.

Anyway, since USA probably wants to turn the middle east into a colony ( although they don't understand a. They will never get popular support b. Why they will never get that popular support, no matter how hard they try ) I'd say 10+ years.

Oh. And God seems to be an American monopoly, too. Funny, that.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 5:21 pm

You don't recoignize North Vietnam and South Vietnam as different countries?

Your pardon then. I thought it was fairly obvious that the Vietnam conflict was not us against south Vietnam.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 3, 2003, 5:34 pm

fucking brainless moron you weren't even in north vietnam the entire fucking war. the entire operation was to keep ho chi minh's army spread into the south.

STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » April 3, 2003, 5:35 pm

Ok, I am going to bed now.

Proving Kyou right in an argument is proof enough I am not in any shape to operate a keyboard ATM.

Night all.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 3, 2003, 5:40 pm

YOU MUST SLEEP A LOT

VeeshanVault

How long will troops have to stay in Iraq?

How long will 'peacekeepers' remain in Iraq

How long will troops have to stay in Iraq?