Iraq War is over (?)

[Que]

Panama?

That was partially true for a while; however, the Army continued to have a presence after troops redeployed. Still, even though a permanent U.S. infrastructur did not exist, it appears a new treaty will now allow two naval bases in Panama.

Panama agrees to host two U.S. naval bases | World | RIA Novosti

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That was partially true for a while; however, the Army continued to have a presence after troops redeployed. Still, even though a permanent U.S. infrastructur did not exist, it appears a new treaty will now allow two naval bases in Panama.

Panama agrees to host two U.S. naval bases | World | RIA Novosti

Yeah. Actually I was thinking of Granada; I don't recall us having any forces remaining there.

 

[starbreather]

The Iraqi war will remain until we milked all of the mineral deposits from Pakistan.

 

[mrjarrell]

Obama Takes Credit For Bush’s Iraq Withdrawal Timeline | Right Wing News

https://www.lauraingraham.com/b/Lie...fills-campaign-promise/69125595916427089.html

Just saying....

 

[SavageEagle]

War... Iraq.... OVER?!?!?! Don't make me laugh!

 

[mrjarrell]

War... Iraq.... OVER?!?!?! Don't make me laugh!

Tell it to those 50K non-combatants stationed there.

 

[SavageEagle]

Tell it to those 50K non-combatants stationed there.

Tell me about it. I'm sure they're not laughing. I can just see them throwing lettuce and tomatos at the TV while obamatard spoke yesterday...

 

[rambone]

50,000 troops...

For comparison, how many troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan at the height of these wars?

How many were deployed (at once) in Vietnam?

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

50,000 American troops left behind are in grave danger.

Who knows how many US citizen contractors, armed and unarmed, are in grave danger.

A unilateral decision that "the war is over" doesn't mean much unless the other side agrees.

The other side has not agreed.

We have to trust that the theater commander has a plan to take care of all those assets.

How can there even be another side to agree? There isn't a side...it's a bunch of thugs and thieves...groups of loosely tied bandits running around.

 

[22lr]

Goodbye Iraq, see ya in 10-20...........

 

[USMC_0311]

50,000 troops...

For comparison, how many troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan at the height of these wars?

How many were deployed (at once) in Vietnam?

What about the 28,000 stationed on the most fortifide border in the world.
The DMZ

 

[alfahornet]

First I don't think our troops on the ground in Iraq are seeing an overnight change.
Second, doesn't that speech sound like something someone else gave from an aircraft carrier already.
Third, I believe we got us into the bad spot so now we should do the best job fixing Iraq. Sorry we broke a fu$$ed up situation but we shouldn't leave it worth. And I believe Gen. Petraeus and Odierno and all the troops in theater have done a great job building the foundation for that.
Let's support continuous support of our troops, we don;t want another Vietnam.

 

[sloughfoot]

Tell me about it. I'm sure they're not laughing. I can just see them throwing lettuce and tomatos at the TV while obamatard spoke yesterday...

Right on.

One thing comes to mind though...If the "war is over", is it still a war zone?

Do troops in Iraq still get combat pay? Especially if they get attacked by groups of thugs and bandits and end up fighting for their lives as they are abandoned by this chicken**** ....I better stop now.

I'll bet not, but I don't know.

 

[SavageEagle]

Right on.

One thing comes to mind though...If the "war is over", is it still a war zone?

Do troops in Iraq still get combat pay? Especially if they get attacked by groups of thugs and bandits and end up fighting for their lives as they are abandoned by this chicken**** ....I better stop now.

I'll bet not, but I don't know.

The answer to that question would be to ask the guys in Korea if they get Combat Pay. A little different, but same principle. Iraq= End of Combat operations, still fighting. Korea= Combat ended, war still going on, no fighting.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What about the 28,000 stationed on the most fortifide border in the world.
The DMZ

I don't think there are any US troops closer than Uijongbu (about 20 mi N of Seoul) anymore. That puts them 40 miles from the DMZ, IIRC.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Right on.

One thing comes to mind though...If the "war is over", is it still a war zone?

Do troops in Iraq still get combat pay? Especially if they get attacked by groups of thugs and bandits and end up fighting for their lives as they are abandoned by this chicken**** ....I better stop now.

I'll bet not, but I don't know.

I expect it's still a "Hostile Fire" area. Which means combat pay, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Que]

I expect it's still a "Hostile Fire" area. Which means combat pay, if I'm not mistaken.

They will get combat pay, but the combat patch will not be issued to those deployed after the "end date".

 

[USMC_0311]

I don't think there are any US troops closer than Uijongbu (about 20 mi N of Seoul) anymore. That puts them 40 miles from the DMZ, IIRC.

Well I don't know but still 28,000 troops with just a truce.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

When I was stationed up near the DMZ in Korea in 1974-75, US infantry were conducting joint patrols with the South Koreans in the DMZ and were involved in periodic firefights, which were seldom publicized. Although our Cav Troop conducted almost daily flights along the 5 Km "Buffer Zone" which separated the normal AO from the DMZ, we almost never got shot at (that we knew about), however just before I got there, one of our Cobras got "shot down" by a lucky hit fired by the NKPA across the border. We didn't get "combat pay". The proliferation of deployments into areas which were not actual "war zones" but where units were getting shot at prompted the institution of "hostile fire" status to certain areas where there wasn't a "hot war" going on, but there was still periodic fighting. I expect Iraq will qualify as a "hostile fire" zone for some time to come.

 

[USMC_0311]

When I was stationed up near the DMZ in Korea in 1974-75, US infantry were conducting joint patrols with the South Koreans in the DMZ and were involved in periodic firefights, which were seldom publicized. Although our Cav Troop conducted almost daily flights along the 5 Km "Buffer Zone" which separated the normal AO from the DMZ, we almost never got shot at (that we knew about), however just before I got there, one of our Cobras got "shot down" by a lucky hit fired by the NKPA across the border. We didn't get "combat pay". The proliferation of deployments into areas which were not actual "war zones" but where units were getting shot at prompted the institution of "hostile fire" status to certain areas where there wasn't a "hot war" going on, but there was still periodic fighting. I expect Iraq will qualify as a "hostile fire" zone for some time to come.

I read a book that was about the DMZ. I will have to go find it but it said something about the casualty rate on the DMZ was all most as bad as Vietnam during the 60's.