Official: U.S.-Led Forces Could Leave in 18 Months

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

Edited January 31, 2005 by morpheas

[Stellar]

I hope so, but personally i think its optimistic to think Iraq will be stable in 18 months! who knows though

It doesnt have to be stable... It just has to have enough security forces to keep the situation from deteriorating.

[Thanato]

I think it will be a few years untill Bush gets a few treatys saying he gets all the oil.

~Thanato

[Stellar]

Actually, Im not sure if the US forces leaving before Bushs term is up is a good thing... think about it... he already has an itchy trigger finger... giving him a gun to scratch it on might not be that good of an idea...

[morpheas]

-Post removed-

[Fluffybunny]

When we leave Iraq, I would be willing to bet we head directly east...

[AztecInca]

^Yep probably but this time it may be alone, I seriously doubt that britian or the other allied forces will be willing to go there!

[warden]

I dont think britian will go over the border

countries from all aroud the world need to get together and sort out the next crises

As we have seen in Iraq,guns are only half the solution,

More people in there own countries need to put more pressure on there leaders to find a solution before what many people predict,an all out war in the middle east

That no one would win

[Homer]

That would be great if the Iraqi's can manage the country themselves within 18 months. Hopefully the successful elections will translate into a successful government, which works together on rebuidling the nation, while the continued training of Iraqi military/police makes it so they can protect themselves within that time period.

[Babs]

A dream. I think we will be there for quite a while...or at least I think we should.

[Homer]

A dream. I think we will be there for quite a while...or at least I think we should.

470563[/snapback]

The Iraqi's may not be capable of managing their country by then, which would mean we would have to be there beyond that time frame. But if they are capable, would you still prefer we stay there?

[Stellar]

A dream. I think we will be there for quite a while...or at least I think we should.

470563[/snapback]

The Iraqi's may not be capable of managing their country by then, which would mean we would have to be there beyond that time frame. But if they are capable, would you still prefer we stay there?

470574[/snapback]

What I think is most likely to happen is the US will still stay after those 18 months, but in much smaller numbers, as support for the Iraqis.

[Babs]

A dream. I think we will be there for quite a while...or at least I think we should.

470563[/snapback]

The Iraqi's may not be capable of managing their country by then, which would mean we would have to be there beyond that time frame. But if they are capable, would you still prefer we stay there?

470574[/snapback]

We will be there for quite a while. Things don't just turn over. The terrorists aren't going to quit.

If the terrorists stop the terror and the Iraqis can fend for themselves, we will still have to have a number of troops there to support the peace. The Iraqis will still need help. This is a long-term deal and one that we will be engaged in.

[warden]

A dream. I think we will be there for quite a while...or at least I think we should.

470563[/snapback]

The Iraqi's may not be capable of managing their country by then, which would mean we would have to be there beyond that time frame. But if they are capable, would you still prefer we stay there?

470574[/snapback]

We will be there for quite a while. Things don't just turn over. The terrorists aren't going to quit.

If the terrorists stop the terror and the Iraqis can fend for themselves, we will still have to have a number of troops there to support the peace. The Iraqis will still need help. This is a long-term deal and one that we will be engaged in.

471396[/snapback]

There is a good point there,just about every one says get them out know and if they did there would be even more blood shed than any one has seen before

If elections go well and elected leaders are in place very soon there will still be blood shed but limited

Coalition troops will still be needed there for some time to come not only to keep some kind of order but to train the new Iraqi police force and army

As they say finnish what you start and in my view hope fully they will

[Homer]

We will be there for quite a while. Things don't just turn over. The terrorists aren't going to quit.

If the terrorists stop the terror and the Iraqis can fend for themselves, we will still have to have a number of troops there to support the peace. The Iraqis will still need help. This is a long-term deal and one that we will be engaged in.

471396[/snapback]

I know things just don't turn over, but you're still not answering my question. I never said the coalition should withdraw within 18 months. What I said was that the coalition should withdraw when the Iraqi's are capable of managing their own country.

If the government is fully functional, and it's armed forces/police are strong enough to protect itself, and the industry is up and running, then the coalition should withdraw. If that takes 10 years, then we should be there 10 years. If it takes 18 months, then we should withdraw in 18 months.

That was my point, and that is my opinion

[Babs]

I understand your question, but that's that's the best I can do in answering.

Edited February 1, 2005 by Babs

[gollum]

I understand your question, but that's that's the best I can do in answering.

472049[/snapback]

You avoided the answer yet again.

To put it simply for you. If, after 18 months, the Iraqi Government have a strong enough force to deal with the problems in there country, do you think the coalition forces should leave?