Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Obama to Announce Complete Withdrawal from Iraq
Friday, October 21, 2011 7:26 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:President Barack Obama on Friday declared an end to the Iraq war, one of the longest and most divisive conflicts in U.S. history, announcing that all U.S. troops would be withdrawn from the country by year's end. Obama's statement put an end to months of wrangling over whether the U.S. would maintain a force in Iraq beyond 2011. "After nearly nine years," the president, "America's war in Iraq will be over." He spoke at the White House after a private video conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and he offered assurances that the two leaders agreed on the decision. The American withdrawal by the end of 2011 was sealed in a deal between the two countries when George W. Bush was president. Obama declared the end of the combat mission earlier this year. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2097533,00.html president also noted he is planning to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, a process hoped to be completed by 2014. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-to-speak-on-iraq-at-1245-pm/1
Friday, October 21, 2011 7:33 AM
ANTHONYT
Freedom is Important because People are Important
Friday, October 21, 2011 7:58 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Friday, October 21, 2011 9:21 AM
Quote:U.S. and Iraqi officials have spent months debating whether to honor a planned December 31 deadline for troop withdrawal, set in 2008, amid concerns that the full withdrawal of U.S. forces could put the country at risk. Many U.S. officials wanted to leave a few thousand military trainers in the country past the end of the year, but, as the Associated Press reported Sunday, "Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it."
Quote:Iraq's leadership has been split on whether it wanted American forces to stay. Some argued the further training and U.S. help was vital, particularly to protect Iraq's airspace and gather security intelligence. ..... The U.S. said repeatedly this year it would entertain an offer from the Iraqis to have a small force stay behind, and the Iraqis said they would like American military help. But as the year wore on and the number of American troops that Washington was suggesting could stay behind dropped, it became increasingly clear that a U.S. troop presence was not a sure thing. The issue of legal protection for the Americans was the deal-breaker. Iraqis are still angry over incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or Haditha, when U.S. troops killed Iraqi civilians in Anbar province, and want American troops subject to Iraqi law. American commanders don't want to risk having their forces end up in an Iraqi courtroom if they're forced to defend themselves in a still-hostile environment. http://www.theolympian.com/2011/10/21/1847009/obama-announces-total-iraq-troop.html applaud the Iraqis for standing fast on the matter of immunity, that makes sense. But I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dried as you and Wulf think. If it weren't for the immunity issue, as it says some of them would like troops to stay. It's easy to see things in black and white, but in my opinion the world is made up of many shades of grey. I don't see it as much a matter of being "kicked out" as of them very rightly not being willing to have things like Abu Ghraib happen again, or at least to be able to prosecute those involved if they did. WE should have been responsible for that, but obviously we weren't. Barring that, I think there are many who would like the help we could give them to remain. I'm NOT in favor of any troops remaining, let me be clear. But I've also long believed that once we DO leave, things will worsen. Our government screwed up, big time, and now the Iraqis will be left to face the vacuum that will be left behind. Wulf, you're an idiot. The terms of our leaving were set back before Obama even came into office.
Friday, October 21, 2011 9:33 AM
Friday, October 21, 2011 9:57 AM
JONGSSTRAW
Friday, October 21, 2011 10:06 AM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: "Wulf, you're an idiot. The terms of our leaving were set back before Obama even came into office." So.... Bush set an end to the war he "illegally" started?
Friday, October 21, 2011 10:12 AM
Friday, October 21, 2011 12:43 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: Hello, No need for Mr. Raptor. The negative for Obama is that this should have been done ages ago. Also: We were trying to get permission for the troops to stay longer under the auspices of 'training programs.' The troops will be leaving only because we have essentially been kicked out. Thank God for THAT though. --Anthony
Friday, October 21, 2011 5:56 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Friday, October 21, 2011 6:44 PM
OPPYH
Friday, October 21, 2011 7:33 PM
Quote:Either you like him, or you don't. So which is it?????
Saturday, October 22, 2011 3:48 AM
Saturday, October 22, 2011 4:49 AM
PIRATENEWS
John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!
Saturday, October 22, 2011 4:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by piratenews: When you change the name of a unit from Combat Troops to Combat Support Troops, that's the same thing as removing them from Iraq.......or removing the WORD from Iraq. Besides, most of the troops are needed for the invasion of Iran next month.
Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Nonetheless, I don't see the world in black and white; he's accomplished somethings, he's neglected to accomplish others, and he's done some things I abhor. I guesss 30% should have been about what I expected in the first place. Here in RWED,I try to give him credit for the good things he's done and bitch about the shit he screws up. Why can't we appreciate him for what he does right and excoriate him for what he does wrong...isn't that what Presidents are for?
Saturday, October 22, 2011 10:51 AM
HKCAVALIER
Quote:Originally posted by OPPYH: I'm sorry Niki, but this is outrageous. His number one priority as president should have been to pull all military from the middle east ASAP. He didn't. How much blood should be spilled while he decides an opportune time to make himself look better?
Saturday, October 22, 2011 11:57 AM
BYTEMITE
Quote:Honestly, do you think a sane human being is going to let tens of thousands die just because he intends to improve his poll numbers at some later date? Or are you one of these sorry misanthropes who claim that all politicians are psychopaths?
Saturday, October 22, 2011 12:14 PM
Quote:Despite their inability to agree on the economy or much else, Republican presidential candidates spoke with one voice in reaction to President Obama’s announcement of a full U.S. withdrawal from Iraq this year. They were against it. It was an “astonishing failure” that risked all the gains made “through the blood and sacrifice” of thousands of Americans, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said. Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he was “deeply concerned” that Obama had put “political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) cited it as another example of the president’s foreign policy weakness, and Jon Huntsman, Obama’s former ambassador to China, called it a “mistake.” Herman Cain let stand his assessment of last weekend, in which he announced that withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan were “a dumb thing to do.” They didn’t necessarily all agree on why they were outraged by the news, only that bringing U.S. troops from Iraq is just awful. Let’s remember exactly what these candidates were saying yesterday: they want at least some U.S. troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. This disastrous, costly war began nearly nine years ago, but nearly all of the Republican presidential candidates still aren’t in any rush to end the U.S. mission. As the nation’s attention has largely shifted to domestic concerns, there’s been far less polling on the public’s attitudes on U.S. policy in Iraq. The most recent data, however, shows that most Americans simply do not support the war. The American mainstream will very likely consider yesterday’s announcement a terrific development. That the Republican presidential field doesn’t care is rather amazing. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/gop_candidates_decry_iraq_with032982.php if you want to excoriate anyone for not wanting to get out, try the right, not the left, and if you think a President can just say "okay, let's get out" on a whim, to improve his numbers, or for any OTHER reason with no backing, well, what can I say?
Saturday, October 22, 2011 5:36 PM
Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:33 PM
Saturday, October 22, 2011 8:40 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: The commander in chief and the secretary of state can't control the military, then something is wrong with all three elements: commander in chief, his secretary of state, and the military. Period.
Saturday, October 22, 2011 8:53 PM
Quote:Originally posted by HKCavalier: Honestly, do you think a sane human being is going to let tens of thousands die just because he intends to improve his poll numbers at some later date?
Sunday, October 23, 2011 5:05 AM
Sunday, October 23, 2011 6:25 AM
Sunday, October 23, 2011 12:14 PM
Sunday, October 23, 2011 1:13 PM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Quote:Originally posted by Bytemite: I'm just frustrated.
Sunday, October 23, 2011 4:26 PM
Quote:Originally posted by AnthonyT: It literally can be done on a whim, but this president has shown no desire to go against the grain, even to fulfill his campaign promises.
Sunday, October 23, 2011 6:21 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL