Is it Vietnam yet?

chequita guevara · July 10, 2003, 16:33

U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 4 years AP Wire

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By BARRY SCHWEID

July 10, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- American troops may still be in Iraq four years from now, Gen. Tommy Franks told Congress on Thursday.

The wartime commander told the House Armed Services Committee: "I anticipate we'll be involved in Iraq in the future. Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know."

There are nearly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, some of them under fire from anti-U.S. forces. "We need to not develop an expectation that all of these difficulties will go away in one month or two months or three months," Franks testified.

The general said the troop strength would be held at the current level at least through the end of the year.

Pleading for patience, President Bush said the United States would "have to remain tough" in Iraq despite attacks on U.S. soldiers that killed at least two more Americans on Thursday.

Bush spoke in Gaborone, Botswana, amid a debate at home about erroneous evidence that the administration cited as part of its justification for the invasion of Iraq.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is running for president, said the United States does not have sufficient forces to reconstruct Iraq without support from other nations.

"We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace," he said. "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the postwar burden internationally for the sake of our country, for our standing in the world and most of all for the young Americans in uniform who cannot be protected from an enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well staged, that hostilities are over."

A group of arms control experts accused the administration of misrepresenting intelligence information to justify the war.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the private Arms Control Association, was one of several experts challenging the administration.

"We, along with an increasing number of others, believe that the administration made its case for going to war by misrepresenting intelligence findings as well as citing discredited intelligence information," Kimball said Wednesday.

And on Capitol Hill, Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he had a fear "we may find ourselves in the throes of guerrilla warfare for years."

"We cannot leave Iraq," Skelton said at a committee hearing with retired Gen. Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander in the war. "This must be a success."

Another committee member, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said CIA Director George Tenet should be called to testify in public.

She said the committee owed it to the U.S. troops in Iraq "to evaluate whether the intelligence used to send them into harm's way ... was sound."

Bush, responding to concern about the rising casualty toll, said, "There's no question we have a security issue in Iraq, and we've just got to deal with it person to person. We're going to have to remain tough."

More than 70 American soldiers have died since Bush declared major combat over May 1. "It's going take more than 90 to 100 days for people to recognize the great joys of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom," he said. "It's very important for us to stay the course, and we will stay the course."

Franks testified, meanwhile, that besides the 19 countries with forces in Iraq, another 19 were preparing to send troops and 11 were discussing it.

Wednesday, at a news conference in South Africa, Bush said he was "absolutely confident" about going to war despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information.

When the war began in March, Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to its neighbors, a former senior State Department intelligence official said Wednesday.

Its missiles could not reach Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran, said Greg Thielmann, who held a high post in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

But Thielmann, one of four critics at a session held by the private Arms Control Association, said the Bush administration had formed a "faith-based" policy on Iraq and took the approach that "we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers."

Thielmann said the administration had distorted intelligence to fit its policy purposes. He said Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program and that while Tenet told Congress Iraq had Scud missiles, the intelligence finding actually was that the missiles could not be accounted for.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the administration decided to use military force because the information about the threat of Saddam's regime was seen with a different perspective after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."

Under questioning from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Rumsfeld said he did not know how much the administration would propose to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the new budget year that begins Oct. 1.

He said under the $62.4 billion midyear spending bill, the United States expects to spend an average $3.9 billion a month on Iraq from January through September this year. An average of $700 million a month is being spent in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon said Wednesday 1,044 American servicemen and women have been wounded in action or injured since the war in Iraq began March 20. Of that total, 382 have been wounded or injured since Bush declared major combat over, according to the Pentagon's figures. Of the 212 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, 74 died after May 1, not including Thursday's toll.

Az · July 10, 2003, 16:35

US is not keeping the initiative.

Imran Siddiqui · July 10, 2003, 16:38

Not even close, che.

Call me in a few years if order hasn't been restored, and then I may listen to that charge.

After all, we were in the Phillipines for 30+ years and it wasn't a Vietnam

.

SlowwHand · July 10, 2003, 16:39

I don't think so. Still different longitudes and latitudes.

http://www.realestate3d.com/gps/world-latlong.htm

Solly · July 10, 2003, 16:40

Article without analysis.

Az · July 10, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I don't think so. Still different longitudes and latitudes.

http://www.realestate3d.com/gps/world-latlong.htm

MichaeltheGreat · July 10, 2003, 16:43

When they start causing 100-150 KIA or more a week, despite half a million personnel in theater, and do it for a while, then let's talk about 'Nam.

Right now, this is still a ****ing cakewalk in comparison.

Hueij · July 10, 2003, 17:29

Quote:

"We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace," he said. "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the postwar burden internationally for the sake of our country, for our standing in the world and most of all for the young Americans in uniform who cannot be protected from an enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well staged, that hostilities are over."

He is kidding, isn't he? The US started this whole thing all on its own and all of a sudden they want us to step in?

You didn't need us then so I'd say you can finish this yourself. Maybe if you can show us some WMD's...

KrazyHorse · July 10, 2003, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Hueij

Quote:

"We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace," he said. "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the postwar burden internationally for the sake of our country, for our standing in the world and most of all for the young Americans in uniform who cannot be protected from an enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well staged, that hostilities are over."

He is kidding, isn't he? The US started this whole thing all on its own and all of a sudden they want us to step in?

You didn't need us then so I'd say you can finish this yourself. Maybe if you can show us some WMD's...

KrazyHorse · July 10, 2003, 17:32

And no, it isn't vietnam. But it is turning into Lebanon...

Hueij · July 10, 2003, 17:34

[ot]Great to see you got rid of that stupid frog KH

{/ot]

The Andy-Man · July 10, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Hueij
[You didn't need us then so I'd say you can finish this yourself. Maybe if you can show us some WMD's...

Tony blair and UK Govt. officials now say they were prolly destroyed just before the war started

Sava · July 10, 2003, 17:36

nah, we haven't killed 3 million Iraqis.... yet....

Agathon · July 10, 2003, 17:39

Gotta say I wake up every day feeling pretty smug about the war.

All you right wing pro-war twits were taken in by a pack of transparent lies. Worse, all the communists and liberals here told you they were lies and you didn't believe them, you saps!

bwhahahahahahaha.

gsmoove23 · July 10, 2003, 17:39

Well Vietnam is stretching it, but its certainly pretty bad considering they don't have the USSR or China helping them along.

SlowwHand · July 10, 2003, 17:47

Yepper. The good old Netherlands was wanting to go in, side-by-side, but the nasty old Americans wouldn't wait.

KrazyHorse · July 10, 2003, 17:50

That's an interesting take.

"We value your input as long as it coincides with ours"

Thanks but no thanks. No troops for Iraq, ever. It's your mess, now you clean it up.

laurentius · July 10, 2003, 17:53

Hueij

Hueij · July 10, 2003, 17:54

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yepper. The good old Netherlands was wanting to go in, side-by-side, but the nasty old Americans wouldn't wait.

Well, the Netherlands and almost all of the rest of the world. Hope you have a good time policing the world

Hueij · July 10, 2003, 17:55

Yeah!! DP!!

DinoDoc · July 10, 2003, 17:56

IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM!

Imran Siddiqui · July 10, 2003, 17:56

Hey, that's fine... if you don't want to send troops, I don't care. Just don't ***** about the job we are doing after the war then

.

laurentius · July 10, 2003, 17:56

"I do however think that a doublepost just occured"

Sprayber · July 10, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon
Gotta say I wake up every day feeling pretty smug about the war.

All you right wing pro-war twits were taken in by a pack of transparent lies. Worse, all the communists and liberals here told you they were lies and you didn't believe them, you saps!

bwhahahahahahaha.

You must have a serious psychological problem if sometime like this makes you feel good about yourself. I suggest you find something to fill the gigantic hole that must be in your life.

Hueij · July 10, 2003, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey, that's fine... if you don't want to send troops, I don't care. Just don't ***** about the job we are doing after the war then

.

What job?? Looking for WMD's? Pissing of the Iraqis even more?

Anyhow, if you'd have read the first post, it was an American who was asking for outside help

KrazyHorse · July 10, 2003, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey, that's fine... if you don't want to send troops, I don't care. Just don't ***** about the job we are doing after the war then

.

Most people are still *****ing about the fact that you started an unnecessary and unjustified war, and now that those WMDs you knew were there are looking like they'll never be found your Prez's excuse is to grin, shrug his shoulders and tell everybody that the war was justified anyway. But personally, I'm not *****ing. I'm sitting here with an "I told you so" expression on my face.

Have a nice time there. If I have anything to do with it then my government will never give a cent to help you police your conquest.

OneFootInTheGrave · July 10, 2003, 18:04

well not much changes in the world - what elese when Saddam is not killig them americans can - not much changes - OK one might add you are not killing as many, and you had to save them from themselves.

but how many Iraquis died so far, 6000? I doubt Saddam killed so many last year

...

and before the sanctions Iraq was a prosperous country - this is what happens when a dictator goes againt the master who set him up

Imran Siddiqui · July 10, 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Most people are still *****ing about the fact that you started an unnecessary and unjustified war, and now that those WMDs you knew were there are looking like they'll never be found your Prez's excuse is to grin, shrug his shoulders and tell everybody that the war was justified anyway.

Fine by them. They can go right ahead if they want.

Quote:

Have a nice time there. If I have anything to do with it then my government will never give a cent to help you police your conquest.

Then, like I said, don't ***** if the 'conquest' doesn't go the way you'd like.

Sava · July 10, 2003, 18:06

Quote:

You must have a serious psychological problem if sometime like this makes you feel good about yourself. I suggest you find something to fill the gigantic hole that must be in your life.

I agree... and let's be honest... the left would have been crying "Wolf" even if Bush were telling the truth.

KrazyHorse · July 10, 2003, 18:07

I'm not *****ing. What makes you think I want you to succeed in turning Iraq into the 21st century's postwar Japan?