PDA

View Full Version : Marines pulling out of Iraq



Roger Perry
01-23-2010, 09:15 AM
Marines pulling out of Iraq


January 23, 2010 - 3:31am

War (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/taxonomy/term/22)
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/files/012310marinesap.jpg?1264235518


The U.S. Marine Corps is leaving Iraq.

The U.S. military says the Marines will formally handover control on Saturday of Iraq's western desert to the Army during a ceremony at Camp Ramadi, about 70 miles (115 kilometers) west of Baghdad.

The handover marks the end of the Marine mission in an area once considered a main battleground of the insurgency.

The Army's 1st Armored Division is now responsible for both Baghdad and the vast desert province of Anbar.

The departure of the Marines marks the beginning of an accelerated American drawdown in Iraq.

President Barack Obama has ordered all but 50,000 troops out of the country by Aug. 31, 2010, with most to leave after the March 7 parliamentary election.

Sounds like a plan to me.

Cody Covey
01-23-2010, 09:49 AM
sure does now thank Bush...

ducknwork
01-23-2010, 09:58 AM
I'm glad to hear that some of our men and women are coming home. I just hope and pray that we don't have to go back again.

BonMallari
01-23-2010, 09:59 AM
Of course they hand it over to the 1st Armored Division...most of whom are from Fort Hood TX, of which my dad was a proud member...First Armored Division is usually the first unit called in any major conflict and one of the last to leave....

Job well done Marines ..Hoorah...you deserve to come home

Roger Perry
01-23-2010, 10:23 AM
sure does now thank Bush...

For starting the needless war? For over 5,000 of our armed forces killed there? Maybe we should thank Bush for a war that has lasted longer than WWI & WWII combined?

Pete
01-23-2010, 10:37 AM
For starting the needless war? For over 5,000 of our armed forces killed there? Maybe we should thak Bush for a war that has lasted longer than WWI & WWII combined

great point,,,maby theres a lesson there

p

K G
01-23-2010, 10:53 AM
For starting the needless war? For over 5,000 of our armed forces killed there? Maybe we should thak Bush for a war that has lasted longer than WWI & WWII combined?

No discussion of "needless wars" is complete without discussing Vietnam. You want to talk length and death tolls? No comparison.

Thank you JFK and LBJ.

kg

Sundown49 aka Otey B
01-23-2010, 02:04 PM
My curiosity was aroused about how long would the war in Iraq if all the news media would have not been allowed to be there and the military just be allowed to FIGHT instead of having to watch every little move they made. My thought is when you start a fight END it quickly by any means.

K G
01-23-2010, 03:42 PM
I think I read years ago that JFK had no intention of escalating our presence there. LBJ was the one to thank.

JFK put the first "advisors" and troops there...LBJ, thanks to Robert McNamara, took it to the "next level." Iraq was a cakewalk in comparison, with results that will actually do some good in the long run.

Vietnam...not so much...:rolleyes:

k g

road kill
01-23-2010, 03:46 PM
JFK put the first "advisors" and troops there...LBJ, thanks to Robert McNamara, took it to the "next level." Iraq was a cakewalk in comparison, with results that will actually do some good in the long run.

Vietnam...not so much...:rolleyes:

k g
I believe Eisenhower sent the first troops there, though in an advisory/exploratory Capacity.

"In addition, Eisenhower explored the option of supporting the French colonial forces in Vietnam who were fighting an independence insurrection there. In 1953, Eisenhower sent Lt. General John W. "Iron Mike" O'Daniel to Vietnam to study and "assess" the French forces therein.[49] Chief of Staff Matthew Ridgway dissuaded the President from intervening by presenting a comprehensive estimate of the massive military deployment that would be necessary. However, later in 1954, Eisenhower did offer military and economic aid to the new nation of South Vietnam.[50] In the years that followed, the number of US military advisors in South Vietnam increased due to North Vietnam's support of "uprisings" in the south and concern the nation would fall.[50]"

This was due to his relationship with DeGaulle and the French's disastorous embarrassment in Indochina I belive.




rk

K G
01-23-2010, 04:10 PM
We've got "advisors" in hot spots all over the world. When Eisenhower was President, we had 900 advisors there. By 1963, we had 16,000 military personnel in Vietnam. We all know what happened when LBJ became President....

I only mentioned Vietnam to keep this thread from going off the deep end about "unnecessary" wars....a little "perspective" if you will. At least the Iran conflict has had a different ending...so far....:cool:

k g

Franco
01-23-2010, 04:26 PM
McNamara influenced LBJ's decision to escalate in Vietnam.

Side note on McNamara was that he pressured JFK to support the liberation troops at the Bay Of Pigs. Kenndy approved, NcNamara said "go" and then JFK chickened out. To save face, JFK allowed a tidal wave of Political Refugees to enter the USA.

One has to wonder how many Political Refugees the USA will have to take in from Iraq and A'stan when they fall and they will after we leave. Those in support of the USA will feel thier live's threatened. Much like what happened with the fall of Vietnam and the fall of the Shah of Iran when we took in over a million Iranian refugees.

P S

No Conservative would have invaded another country with the intent of "Nation Building". When no WMD's were found, we should have gotten the hell out!

subroc
01-23-2010, 05:10 PM
...Maybe we should thank Bush for a war that has lasted longer than WWI & WWII combined?

In case you have been sleeping, WWII is still going on. We still occupy both Germany and Japan.

Uncle Bill
01-23-2010, 05:12 PM
I realize this may be before your time, but it was Harry S. that got us into that "conflict" in Korea.

I remember it well, when he declared "I hate to send these young men abroad, when they should be out finding one on their own!";-)

UB

Matt McKenzie
01-23-2010, 10:02 PM
For starting the needless war? For over 5,000 of our armed forces killed there? Maybe we should thank Bush for a war that has lasted longer than WWI & WWII combined?

Longer than WWI and WWII combined and only 5000 killed (many not in combat)? What you are watching is the end of the most efficient war in U.S. History in regards to loss of American lives.
Just sayin'

Hew
01-24-2010, 01:38 AM
P S

No Conservative would have invaded another country with the intent of "Nation Building". When no WMD's were found, we should have gotten the hell out!
Huh? The other day, in another thread, you listed two contemporary examples of whom you claim to be traditional conservatives; Dr. Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg. They both, very publically and very enthusiastically, supported the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq. So are they no longer conservatives or do conservative sometimes favor nation building?

FWIW, Krauthammer and Goldberg, along with Mark Steyn, are three of my favorite columnists. I rarely find anything to disagree with them about. I also really enjoy Camille Paglia and Christopher Hitchens.

Franco
01-24-2010, 08:21 AM
When have Conservatives always agreed with one another?

Both writers/commentators backed the search in Iraq for WMD’s, as I did. Where they failed their Conservative principles was in backing Nation Building. One would think we would have learned the lesson of Vietnam. The lesson that we can’t make a people be something that they don’t want to be.

The National Review is the finest publication in print today but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with everything they say. Conservatism is an ideology that has certain principles. Though those principles have been maligned through talk radio, Nation Building is not one of those ideals. And, we can’t compare Germany and Japan to Iraq and A’stan. WW2 was not fought over religion but aggression by military governments. We were lucky in both Germany and Japan because neither country was held captive by religious beliefs. We needed to be in Germany because of the Cold War and in Japan, the people actual wanted our help and embraced it. Don’t forget that we have also limited their abilities to rebuild their militaries and we have taken on the roll of protecting them. Not a perfect plan by Conservative principles but because it has served our purposes, I can live with it.

But, it won’t work in areas where the people live with a 12th Century mindset where they truly hate us. They may love our money but don’t ever think for a moment that either, Iraq or A’stan will be long term allies.

badbullgator
01-24-2010, 09:55 AM
Longer than WWI and WWII combined and only 5000 killed (many not in combat)? What you are watching is the end of the most efficient war in U.S. History in regards to loss of American lives.
Just sayin'


Exactly....how many were lost in Normandy alone?

mjh345
01-24-2010, 03:14 PM
Longer than WWI and WWII combined and only 5000 killed (many not in combat)? What you are watching is the end of the most efficient war in U.S. History in regards to loss of American lives.
Just sayin'

Now there is something to hang your hat on.

How much money was wasted over there? Were we "EFFICIENT"on that score also?
I'll ask about money because by your logic the 5000 lives lost was "EFFICIENT"

Also what goals were accomplished through that "EFFICIENT" loss of lives?

I'm sure that is comforting to all of the family members of those 5,000 who lost their lives to know that they lost their loved ones in an "EFFICIENT" war

Art Geddes
01-24-2010, 04:52 PM
World War 2 may be over, but we are still in Germany and Japan and Italy. Korea over? We are still in Korea. We are all over the globe. Success is not measured by how quickly we pull out and abandon a region.

Art

K G
01-24-2010, 06:35 PM
And not that it matters, but the figure "5000" is overstated by about 15%...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

Accuracy in reporting regards,

kg

Hew
01-25-2010, 02:46 AM
When have Conservatives always agreed with one another? Good point. And when you continue to claim that Reagan wasn't a "real" conservative I suspect you'll very rarely find anyone to agree with you. ;)

Both writers/commentators backed the search in Iraq for WMDís, as I did. Where they failed their Conservative principles was in backing Nation Building. I would think that would be a pretty significant "failure" given your oft-repeated belief that conservatism = isolationism. BTW, Krauthammer is as close to an "interventionist," and as supportive of a pre-emptive doctrine as they come. If you look up "neo-con" in the dictionary you might just find his picture. Not trying to dissuade you from liking the guy...just pointing out that it's kinda inconsistent that you rail on Reagan yet accept Dr. Krauthammer as the standard bearer for conservatism. One would think we would have learned the lesson of Vietnam. The lesson that we canít make a people be something that they donít want to be.

The National Review is the finest publication in print today but that doesnít mean I have to agree with everything they say. Conservatism is an ideology that has certain principles. Though those principles have been maligned through talk radio, Nation Building is not one of those ideals. And, we canít compare Germany and Japan to Iraq and Aístan. WW2 was not fought over religion but aggression by military governments. Iraq was a war fought over religion? We were lucky in both Germany and Japan because neither country was held captive by religious beliefs. Nor was Iraq...the most secular of any country in the Middle East. We needed to be in Germany because of the Cold War and in Japan, the people actual wanted our help and embraced it. Donít forget that we have also limited their abilities to rebuild their militaries and we have taken on the roll of protecting them. Not a perfect plan by Conservative principles but because it has served our purposes, I can live with it. Again, IMO, you confuse conservatism with isolationism.

But, it wonít work in areas where the people live with a 12th Century mindset where they truly hate us. They may love our money but donít ever think for a moment that either, Iraq or Aístan will be long term allies.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Hew
01-25-2010, 02:53 AM
Now there is something to hang your hat on.

How much money was wasted over there? Were we "EFFICIENT"on that score also?
I'll ask about money because by your logic the 5000 lives lost was "EFFICIENT"

Also what goals were accomplished through that "EFFICIENT" loss of lives?

I'm sure that is comforting to all of the family members of those 5,000 who lost their lives to know that they lost their loved ones in an "EFFICIENT" war
Right. Because I'm sure those families find way more comfort in your publically stated notions that their loved ones died for nothing. Your concern for their comfort is so touching. Really, it is.

dnf777
01-25-2010, 04:48 AM
FWIW,
I've have people agree that Reagan was NOT a true conservative. Not to even mention GHW Bush.

These kind of threads are an utter waste of time, regarding the partisan tolls of war. They tend to become a "I can twist and insult your comments" competition. It is a very emotional subject when talking of dead soldiers, and both sides will waste no time in claiming moral superiority. These threads typically go nowhere except into the gutter.