Skip to comments.
American Troops Could Be in Iraq Four Years From Now, Franks Tells Congress
AP ^
| Jul 10, 2003
| American Troops Could Be in Iraq Four Years From Now, Franks Tells Congress
Posted on 07/10/2003 3:32:23 PM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
If I remeber correct Billy Jeff promised the the troops would only be until Christmas in Bosnia, and many Christmases have passed since he made the promise and they are still there
1
posted on
07/10/2003 3:32:23 PM PDT
by
Kaslin
To: Kaslin
remeber =remember. Arrgh I hate it when I click the submit button to soon
2
posted on
07/10/2003 3:33:39 PM PDT
by
Kaslin
To: All
| 50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund is then due. The team is about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopps them and decrees that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all,if the refunds are made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable! |
 |
| Free Republic |
| Your donations keep us fighting liberals |
3
posted on
07/10/2003 3:33:53 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Kaslin
Didn't Dubya also promise to bring them home from Bosnia? If so, why are they still there?
4
posted on
07/10/2003 3:36:01 PM PDT
by
caltrop
To: Kaslin
Whatever it is, I bet it's less than the time we've been in Korea, Germany, etc.
To: caltrop
Didn't Dubya also promise to bring them home from Bosnia? If so, why are they still there?
Not that I recall. There is no need to shift the blame to the president when it was Clinton who promised they would be only there for a short while. He is the one who didn't hold his promise
6
posted on
07/10/2003 3:40:10 PM PDT
by
Kaslin
To: Larry Lucido
Whatever it is, I bet it's less than the time we've been in Korea, Germany, etc. Thanks, I feel much better now knowing they'll be there tops 50 years.
7
posted on
07/10/2003 3:42:53 PM PDT
by
AAABEST
To: Larry Lucido
Whatever it is, I bet it's less than the time we've been in Korea, Germany, etc.
Yep 58 years is quite a long time
8
posted on
07/10/2003 3:43:12 PM PDT
by
Kaslin
To: Kaslin
LOL Am I to understand you thought it was lousy idea under Clinton but that, because Bush has left them there, it's become a good idea? Dubya's been the Commander in Chief for some time now. Leaving the troops in Bosnia can only mean he's decided he wants them there.
9
posted on
07/10/2003 3:45:02 PM PDT
by
caltrop
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: Kaslin; caltrop
GWB: One of the problems we have in the military is were in a lot of places around the world and I mentioned one and thats the Balkans. Id very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we cant do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that, but I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000
12
posted on
07/10/2003 3:48:20 PM PDT
by
AntiGuv
(™)
To: seamole
That sums it up for me.
To: Larry Lucido
If the current slow post-war guerrilla war continues in Iraq at its current rate, the occupation will be far bloodier than the peacetime occupations of Korea and Germany
To: AntiGuv
That's for the quote. As you pointed out in the footnote, it was said 2 1/2 years ago. Since then we've committed a large part of our Army to Iraq and have smaller elements operating in Afghanistan. It seems to me we could get somebody in NATO to take over our small portion of the Bosnian mission. I'd think that would be particularly true if our requests for assistance in Iraq were being denied - as I gather they are.
15
posted on
07/10/2003 3:56:10 PM PDT
by
caltrop
Comment #16 Removed by Moderator
To: Captain Kirk
If the current slow post-war We haven't made it to "post" war yet.
To: AAABEST
Thanks, I feel much better now knowing they'll be there tops 50 years. I hope it doesn't take 50 years to neutralize the ba'aths and the various foreign troublemakers (Syrians, Arabs, etc.). But if it was worth doing this in the first place, it's worth seeing through. Make it as hard as and painful as possible to ever try to pull off another massive terrorist attack against U.S. citizens.
To: Kaslin
Look, if troops are needed in Iraq to win the war on terror, then put 'em there. This President will not keep our troops there longer than needed...he isn't TheBentOne.
19
posted on
07/10/2003 4:12:33 PM PDT
by
Recovering_Democrat
(I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
To: Larry Lucido
Make it as hard as and painful as possible to ever try to pull off another massive terrorist attack against U.S. citizens. I didn't know that Iraq had pulled off a massive terrorist attack against the US, I missed that news. Leaving a large contingient in that s**thole is going to be hard and painful for us, and very expensive too. I realize taht we pick our hundreds of billions off trees nowadays, but still.
A speedy victory is the main object in war. If this is long in coming, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 2 : Waging War
20
posted on
07/10/2003 4:20:23 PM PDT
by
AAABEST
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson