Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Last Combat troops leave Iraq

EvigilantEvigilant Registered User regular
edited August 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
http://www.newsweek.com/spectrum/2010/08/19/u-s-combat-troops-leave-iraq.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/19/diamond.iraq.withdrawal/index.html?hpt=T2

As of 2052hrs the last combat troops will have left Iraq. I have heard they are to be replaced by civilians and contractors, but I cannot find a source stating such.

It is in my personal opinion that it is a mistake to "leave" so early: we'll see a rise of violence in Iraq, as the Sunnis, who had realized late in the game to cooperate (the Sunni Awakening) with the new Government will be fearing for their lives as the empowered Shiites have been holding off on revenge all these years. I fail to see any real progress made in their government: there's no real cooperation between the Sunni's and Shiites; and the people who will be at a real loss are the Kurds in the north.

The Sunni Awakening, for those who are unaware, is a group of Sunni tribes who formed a coalition to help ease tensions and better security for the coalition in Iraq. The surge did nothing: it was this awakening that provided the relative "calm" in Iraq because the Sunni's realized they needed a voice, they needed to be able to provide input while the Americans are still here, because once we leave, they believe they're going to be squashed down.

I feel al-Maliki (the guy who came in 2nd in the vote) is going to crack down on all the Sunni Arabs for "Baathist ties". Iran is going to have a huge influence (since they are Shiite as well) and Syria is going to probably side with the Shiite Iraq because Iran is and they don't want to be hung out, left to dry. This places the Sunni Iraqis in a corner. The surge did nothing but put a lid on the container, it didn't solve the deep hatred towards one another, all it did was put US service members on every corner instituting a curfew. With us leaving, the lid is off, and we'll most likely see the violence escalate once more to what it was after the fall of Baghdad.

And then the Kurds in the north are just left hanging. They're going to get the shit end of the deal regardless of who is in power. They are fearing that they're going to get gassed and bombed again. It's a shame, they are the most pro-American group in Iraq.

I'm conflicted: I feel that we're morally obligated to stay there and ensure the government is up and running successfully, and that the security is not just "alright". After all, we came in and bomb the hell out of them, destroyed their government, and forced one down on them while security is still precariously bad. To leave now just signals we give up, we're tired and lazy. However, with Afghanistan flaring up, the economy in the shitter, everyone in the military fatigued from the deployments, how much longer could we really keep it up? We gave them the tools, do we really need to be holding their hands through the rest of it?

Evigilant on
"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Google+ Profile Origin: 13Evigilant Steam: Evigilant
«13

Posts

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    You realize we've:
    A: Left 50k people there to continue training the Iraqis
    B: Left them with a police force and military that are collectively bigger than anything we've had there

    We're not really leaving them hanging. And this had been in the works for a long time--this is on schedule. :?

    They're still going to get some support for a long time, and we'll be hanging out over in Kuwait to help if things go south and they ask for help.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Lets not forget that we are leaving roughly 56,000 "non-combat" troops behind which should theoretically be out by 2011. These troops can not fire unless fired upon or unless the iraq government asks for their help on missions.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Technically it's the last brigade that left. There are for another two weeks some 6k in combat troops.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Technically it's the last brigade that left. There are for another two weeks some 6k in combat troops.

    I thought that was 6k in support troops.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Technically it's the last brigade that left. There are for another two weeks some 6k in combat troops.

    I thought that was 6k in support troops.

    There are 50k in non-combat positions that will remain until December 2011.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.

    Obviously it was a mistake to ever go in there, but now that we have I say we've given Iraq all (and much more) than is reasonable and should jolly good GTFO of there.

    Nation building is not what America is for, and I personally am sick of the government footing the bill for such a project while our own country is suffering.

    First, tend your own house.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • ToxTox I kill threads Pharezon's human garbage heapRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yeah, the last full brigade of troops left Iraq last night. There are still 6k more combat troops that need to be withdrawn, which is part of why a bigger deal wasn't made of it. The last combat troops are scheduled to leave by the end of the month. Then there will be "only" 50k, non-combat, troops left.

    The only is in quotes because it's a relative number. There's about 30k law enforcement officers in NYC alone, and with an area the size of Iraq, that's not really as much as it sounds like. There will be roughly as many troops left in Iraq as are currently assigned to Germany, some ~70 years after that war ended.

    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    James Dean was the actor, Jimmy Dean was in the sausage business.

    James Deen is both an actor AND in the sausage business.
    Secret Satans! Post | Gaming Wishlist | General Wishlist
    Dilige, et quod vis fac
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    That's the number we tend to leave places.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Derrick wrote: »
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.

    This. We never had a plan to stop historical religious violence.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    The Onion is about right here.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • EvigilantEvigilant Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    You realize we've:
    A: Left 50k people there to continue training the Iraqis
    B: Left them with a police force and military that are collectively bigger than anything we've had there

    We're not really leaving them hanging. And this had been in the works for a long time--this is on schedule. :?

    They're still going to get some support for a long time, and we'll be hanging out over in Kuwait to help if things go south and they ask for help.
    MKR wrote: »
    You realize we've:
    A: Left 50k people there to continue training the Iraqis
    B: Left them with a police force and military that are collectively bigger than anything we've had there

    We're not really leaving them hanging. And this had been in the works for a long time--this is on schedule. :?

    Yes, but as is shown lately, the current Iraqi Security forces show a complete lack in ability to provide security. The Americans left don't provide security, they're just trainers. They can't go out and help, they can't provide any assistance, their role is purely instructor.

    We've seen the Iraqi Army refuse to assist, deserted, or even aided the insurgency. They still lack a military intelligence apparatus and logistical support: transportation, medevac and medical logistics. There's also no military justice system, which would help deter against desertion, refusal, and aiding the insurgency. There's also a shortage of Iraqi's joining the military or police force, causing problems for the command to handle existing manpower.

    The Iraqi Police are deeply entrenched in huge scandals and infiltration by insurgents. They're was also a point where they where just an arm of the Shia sect, becoming Shia death squads. Their police stations are the targets of constant attacks, with weapons and uniforms stolen, resulting in many of them deserting. Back in 2006, 12,000 deserted with 4000 killed. Also in 2006, our own US State Department released a human rights report accusing Iraq Police of widespread atrocities.

    I honestly feel that even with 50,000 support troops left in the country, sectarian violence is just going to escalate back to what it was.

    "Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace." - General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    Google+ Profile Origin: 13Evigilant Steam: Evigilant
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2010
    Evigilant wrote: »
    MKR wrote: »
    You realize we've:
    A: Left 50k people there to continue training the Iraqis
    B: Left them with a police force and military that are collectively bigger than anything we've had there

    We're not really leaving them hanging. And this had been in the works for a long time--this is on schedule. :?

    They're still going to get some support for a long time, and we'll be hanging out over in Kuwait to help if things go south and they ask for help.
    MKR wrote: »
    You realize we've:
    A: Left 50k people there to continue training the Iraqis
    B: Left them with a police force and military that are collectively bigger than anything we've had there

    We're not really leaving them hanging. And this had been in the works for a long time--this is on schedule. :?

    Yes, but as is shown lately, the current Iraqi Security forces show a complete lack in ability to provide security. The Americans left don't provide security, they're just trainers. They can't go out and help, they can't provide any assistance, their role is purely instructor.

    We've seen the Iraqi Army refuse to assist, deserted, or even aided the insurgency. They still lack a military intelligence apparatus and logistical support: transportation, medevac and medical logistics. There's also no military justice system, which would help deter against desertion, refusal, and aiding the insurgency. There's also a shortage of Iraqi's joining the military or police force, causing problems for the command to handle existing manpower.

    The Iraqi Police are deeply entrenched in huge scandals and infiltration by insurgents. They're was also a point where they where just an arm of the Shia sect, becoming Shia death squads. Their police stations are the targets of constant attacks, with weapons and uniforms stolen, resulting in many of them deserting. Back in 2006, 12,000 deserted with 4000 killed. Also in 2006, our own US State Department released a human rights report accusing Iraq Police of widespread atrocities.

    I honestly feel that even with 50,000 support troops left in the country, sectarian violence is just going to escalate back to what it was.

    Maybe you should tell the Iraqis, as they're the ones kicking the troops out.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    This is good news, if not the end of our involvement in the area, its several thousand men and women who can come home to their families now.

    sig.jpg
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We lost in Iraq when we massively fucked up the transfer of power and early occupation

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We lost in Iraq when we massively fucked up the transfer of power and early occupation

    We lost in iraq when we invaded for no reason and removed the cruel dictator that was keeping the religious violence somewhat* in check with his horrible iron fist.

    *Ya know, ignoring that whole gassing of the Kurds thing.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We lost in Iraq when we massively fucked up the transfer of power and early occupation

    We lost in iraq when we invaded for no reason and removed the cruel dictator that was keeping the religious violence somewhat* in check with his horrible iron fist.

    *Ya know, ignoring that whole gassing of the Kurds thing.

    Yeah if our goal was to stabilize the middle east getting rid of Saddam wasn't a good idea, oddly enough.

    sig.jpg
  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We lost in Iraq when we massively fucked up the transfer of power and early occupation

    We lost the second we decided to go in.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    We lost in Iraq when we massively fucked up the transfer of power and early occupation

    We lost in iraq when we invaded for no reason and removed the cruel dictator that was keeping the religious violence somewhat* in check with his horrible iron fist.

    *Ya know, ignoring that whole gassing of the Kurds thing.

    true but we made it a fuck of a lot worse by:
    not securing weapons caches
    having no occupation plan past roses and victory parades
    tearing apart the entire infrastructure of the government
    banishing the entire Baathist party creating the angry Sunni minority

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.
    Delaying a civil war can give them enough time to pause and work out an agreement.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.
    Delaying a civil war can give them enough time to pause and work out an agreement.

    ...and we've seen how well peace agreements have worked with Israel and Palestine.

    Edit: I'm specifically comparing illogical religious violence.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.
    Delaying a civil war can give them enough time to pause and work out an agreement.

    is 7 years enough time?

    is there a limit on what is enough time?

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.
    Delaying a civil war can give them enough time to pause and work out an agreement.

    is 7 years enough time?

    is there a limit on what is enough time?

    Once we run out of meat for the grinder.

    sig.jpg
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.
    Delaying a civil war can give them enough time to pause and work out an agreement.

    is 7 years enough time?

    is there a limit on what is enough time?

    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Derrick wrote: »
    At a certain point, you really just have to let people settle things themselves. If they're going to have a civil war because 3 factions hate each other, well the U.S. being there is just going to delay that; it won't stop it.

    Obviously it was a mistake to ever go in there, but now that we have I say we've given Iraq all (and much more) than is reasonable and should jolly good GTFO of there.

    Nation building is not what America is for, and I personally am sick of the government footing the bill for such a project while our own country is suffering.

    First, tend your own house
    .

    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    First I was all in agreement with you Widowson, then I saw the sig. brb facepalming.

    sig.jpg
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...

    Do we want the Sunnis or the Shia to win?

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
    That was because compromise was impossible. I don't see why compromise is impossible in this situation.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
    That was because compromise was impossible. I don't see why compromise is impossible in this situation.

    Thousands of years of religious strife.

    sig.jpg
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User
    edited August 2010
    First I was all in agreement with you Widowson, then I saw the sig. brb facepalming.


    I'm sorry. I'll quit my job, make a lot of stupid life choices, and blame everyone else for my self imposed misery at once! :P

    But yeah, the OP; we've been waging welfare long enough. The Iraqis are big boys and girls and need to attend to their own affairs.

    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
    That was because compromise was impossible. I don't see why compromise is impossible in this situation.

    If you don't think it is impossible, please come up with a plan and timeline of how you can get warring religious groups to make lasting peace. Then do the same for Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
    That was because compromise was impossible. I don't see why compromise is impossible in this situation.

    If you don't think it is impossible, please come up with a plan and timeline of how you can get warring religious groups to make lasting peace. Then do the same for Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east.

    You forgot ethnic groups who also claim as part of their homeland the eastern parts of our ally to the north.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
    That was because compromise was impossible. I don't see why compromise is impossible in this situation.

    If you don't think it is impossible, please come up with a plan and timeline of how you can get warring religious groups to make lasting peace. Then do the same for Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east.
    One group wanted to keep slavery and was great while the other group wanted it to eventually die and thought the whole humans as property thing could not be compromised on. Most religious violence has more to do with non-religious shit with religion as a proxy than anything else.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    widowson wrote: »
    First I was all in agreement with you Widowson, then I saw the sig. brb facepalming.


    I'm sorry. I'll quit my job, make a lot of stupid life choices, and blame everyone else for my self imposed misery at once! :P

    Oh come now, that's a silly stereotype among silly stereotypes.

    sig.jpg
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
    That was because compromise was impossible. I don't see why compromise is impossible in this situation.

    If you don't think it is impossible, please come up with a plan and timeline of how you can get warring religious groups to make lasting peace. Then do the same for Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east.
    One group wanted to keep slavery and was great while the other group wanted it to eventually die and thought the whole humans as property thing could not be compromised on. Most religious violence has more to do with non-religious shit with religion as a proxy than anything else.

    That doesn't really answer how it can be solved.

    PSN: allenquid
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Well, we delayed the American Civil War for somewhere between 28 and 40 years depending what you think would have triggered it and that wasn't enough time. Was enough time for the north to industrialize so they would win, but...
    That was because compromise was impossible. I don't see why compromise is impossible in this situation.

    If you don't think it is impossible, please come up with a plan and timeline of how you can get warring religious groups to make lasting peace. Then do the same for Israel, Palestine, and the rest of the middle east.
    One group wanted to keep slavery and was great while the other group wanted it to eventually die and thought the whole humans as property thing could not be compromised on. Most religious violence has more to do with non-religious shit with religion as a proxy than anything else.

    "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - Lincoln at his Inaugural Address 1861

    Later he wrote the following in a letter Horace Greeley the editor of the New York Tribune
    "Dear Sir: ... I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. .. . My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . .. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours. A. Lincoln."

    Howard Zinn:
    "When in September 1862, Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, it was a military move, giving the South four months to stop rebelling, threatening to emancipate their slaves if they continued to fight, promising to leave slavery untouched in states that came over to the North"

    Lincoln was trying to compromise.

    http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnslaem10.html

    Edit: Sorry for the tangent.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Personally I don't think this sounds like another group who wanted it to eventually die. Lincoln was trying to compromise.
    Notice how he didn't say anything about the expansion of slavery. It was an accepted truism in the South that slavery had to expand if it was to survive.

    Edit: Even then, the actual spark was firing on a supply ship. Who knows what would have happened if that hadn't happened.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Lets not forget it was shit like this that got us in Iraq.

    "The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise"

    sig.jpg
  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited August 2010
    It's hard for people to articulate the massive amount of good we've done (at great personal cost to so many soldiers and civilians) in Iraq while still acknowledging what a fucking terrible idea it was.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    It's hard for people to articulate the massive amount of good we've done (at great personal cost to so many soldiers and civilians) in Iraq while still acknowledging what a fucking terrible idea it was.

    Very true.

    As it stands I think the country has reached a point (quite a while ago, really) where our continued combat role, for what good it does do (and it does), causes as many problems as it solves. At some point, unless we want to make it a U.S. territory, the country has to stand up and figure its shit out. I'm pretty sure we're there.

    Plus, we still have a fuckton of troops there for support, training, and assistance with security duties.

  • TaranisTaranis Eastern BaghdadRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    It's not surprising that the last unit to pull out of Iraq was a stryker unit.

    A fact that most people will overlook is that there will probably be Spec Ops (SF, Delta, Seal, SAS, etc) units in Iraq for quite some time (whether it's acknowledged or not).

    RIP Jairala, Heinlein, and Gonzalez 31 Jul 07 Never Forgotten

    steam / mwo: calverin
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.