Is a deadline a good thing?

Should we set a deadline to pull our troops out of Iraq?

  • Yes, let the public know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but keep it classified

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, it's too dangerous

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1

tadpole256

Former Staff
May 2005
14,314
54
Planet Earth (Mostly)
#21
aMFliberal said:
[quote name='tadpole256']Quite frankly, I don't think any of us have enough information or experience to really decide inteligently whether or not a deadline would be a good idea. Either way I think publicly announcing it would be a mistake.


I agree with you also, but you can at least agree they can't just leave that questioned unanswered. They have to leave sometime. Don't make a public deadline, but privately I hope they are adressing a sensible time to get their goals done.[/quote]



I hope so too. And I hope their deadline isn't the 12 years everyone in the news keeps talking about...
 
Feb 2005
1,917
2
#24
50,000+ I believe. It should be easily accessible but you can take the time yourself if my memory doesn't suit you.



Were you asking that question to make a point or were you just asking because you were wondering?
 
May 2005
1,064
2
#25
aMFliberal said:
50,000+ I believe. It should be easily accessible but you can take the time yourself if my memory doesn't suit you.



Were you asking that question to make a point or were you just asking because you were wondering?


for both of those reasons. i assumed that the toll of Iraq was way less than Vietnam.
 
#26
prescott911 said:
[quote name='aMFliberal']50,000+ I believe. It should be easily accessible but you can take the time yourself if my memory doesn't suit you.



Were you asking that question to make a point or were you just asking because you were wondering?


for both of those reasons. i assumed that the toll of Iraq was way less than Vietnam.[/quote]



The death toll is much lower, but a lot can happen in the next decade if the operation continues that long.



What sets Iraq and Vietnam apart in regards to American casualties, is that there is a clearer distinction between friend and foe in Iraq.
 

tadpole256

Former Staff
May 2005
14,314
54
Planet Earth (Mostly)
#27
onlyoneplanet said:
[quote name='prescott911'][quote name='aMFliberal']50,000+ I believe. It should be easily accessible but you can take the time yourself if my memory doesn't suit you.



Were you asking that question to make a point or were you just asking because you were wondering?


for both of those reasons. i assumed that the toll of Iraq was way less than Vietnam.[/quote]



The death toll is much lower, but a lot can happen in the next decade if the operation continues that long.



What sets Iraq and Vietnam apart in regards to American casualties, is that there is a clearer distinction between friend and foe in Iraq.[/quote]



Furthermore, it is an inaccurate comparison. You have to remember that as time goes on the 'acceptable death toll' gets smaller and smaller. The death toll in Vietnam was a pittance compared to WWII, in fact most WWII vets think Vietnam vets are pussies and whiners, but due to advances in technology and changes in society, the death toll in Vietnam seemed outrageous, the same is true now. We have technology such that deaths on our side should be at a minimum, so when they do happen it is a really big deal.
 
Jun 2005
579
1
USA
#30
LA Times reports a secret memo outlining a deadline for US and British troops in Iraq.





"BAGHDAD — The United States and Britain have outlined plans to withdraw more than half of their troops from Iraq by mid-2006, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Minister John Reid.



The document, published by Britain's the Mail on Sunday newspaper and marked "Secret — UK Eyes Only," said the U.S. was discussing plans to cut its force — now nearly 140,000 — to 66,000 by the middle of next year. Britain would cut its force from 8,500 to 3,000, the memo says.



"Emerging U.S. plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," the memo said. It made clear, however, that the U.S. military's timetable for troop cuts was not set in stone, as commanders were divided: "There is, however, a debate between the [Pentagon and U.S. Central Command], who favor a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and the multinational force in Iraq, whose approach is more cautious."



Reid did not deny that the memo was genuine, although he said it represented only "prudent planning" for one possible scenario. In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said officials had not seen the document.



President Bush has repeatedly refused to set a timeline for a troop pullback, saying that to do so would encourage insurgents to wait out the U.S. presence. But the undated memo appears to be the first official document made public that sets a tentative timeline.



Reid, in a statement Sunday following publication of the memo, said the British government had "made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed."



"No decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken. But we have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi security forces as their capability increases," Reid said. "We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies. This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios." "
 

Similar Discussions