How many troops are you willing to leave in Iraq?

[Craig234]

It's too vague to ask what a democratic president would do; Hillary would probably leave some while Kucinich probably wouldn't.

 

[First]

^ Kucinich has no chance of winning, he's as fringe as they get from what I've read. So I think that's probably moot, it's a 3-horse race between Hillary, Obama and Edwards, and really Edwards has no chance (if God is good).

 

[Craig234]

Kucinich has little chance of winning, and IMO he's far from fringe; unfortunately, a radical fringe group has gained a lot of power in this country in recent years and many people's left/right bar has moved.

I'm a bit disappointed how the democratic race is shaking out, Hillary may be playing it well though I can't think of a thing she's said in the last year. It's odd how elections are so much about ephemeral 'image'.

 

[Blackjack200]

I say 0, or enough to secure our embassies. What about the possible bloodbath? It is our moral obligation to grant refugee status to any Iraqi that requests it; and allow them to live in the United States until they no longer face persecution in Iraq. IMO, anyone who thinks we owe the Iraqis any less is deeply cynical, and possibly hateful and racist.

 

[WHAMPOM]

none with no exceptions

 

[Lemon law]

Depend on the situation. But its time to get the international community and neighboring countries involved. The coalition of the billing GWB put together is basic history because no one would stay under his leadership. While GWB is President, the American people may have to take his crap until we wise up, but no one else in the world has to and they are mainly voting with their feet.

Meanwhile, can anyone explain why we need 40,000 troops in Germany? Thats a cold war dinosaur.

But Iraqi questions need both international diplomacy and a bi-partisan commitment. Until both of them cease being roadblocked by GWB, we can't answer any questions about options.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: palehorse74
To keep this in perspective, the total number of US troops deployed to other countries is as follows:

1. South Korea: ~25,000 projected in 2008 (Source)
2. Germany: ~40,000
3. Afghanistan: ~20,000

I ask you how many troops does it take to secure the oil?

Is it secure with 160,000 troops?

Sorry, oil wasn't on our minds. Was on yours.

Define "ours"

Is this the GOP, AT P&N right wingers?

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: Lemon law


Meanwhile, can anyone explain why we need 40,000 troops in Germany? Thats a cold war dinosaur.

Germany acts as a giant staging area for iraq/afganistan.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33

Originally posted by: Lemon law


Meanwhile, can anyone explain why we need 40,000 troops in Germany? Thats a cold war dinosaur.

Germany acts as a giant staging area for iraq/afganistan.

... or anywhere else in/near Europe and the ME - which was pretty much my point in bringing up the strategic value of keeping at least 20-40k troops directly in the middle of the ME.

I have predicted for quite some time that we will keep troops there regardless of which party controls the White House. I personally believe that it would be a strategic and economic mistake to withdraw completely.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd say the minimum needed to do the "job". That's in quotes because we haven't defined what the function of the troops would be long term. Training? Securing borders? Providing security? Unless things change significantly, I believe we're near bottom in terms of keeping the status quo. Assuming that 130K is the number needed to keep things as they are, what are the politicians, military and diplomats willing to give up to reduce it further? I don't know, and I doubt anyone else knows that either.