Reply With Quote
Maybe we should have a poll that asks how many people think this wouldn't have happened anyway... Even if bush had a third term.
Most our goals are accomplished in Iraq. Why is Obama being so slow at moving the troops out is my question.
Another campaign promise - Filled....and this is a good one..
BBCUS President Barack Obama is to confirm the withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq by the end of August.
Some 50,000 of 65,000 US troops currently in Iraq are set to remain until the end of 2011 to advise Iraqi forces and protect US interests.
Mr Obama is to make the announcement in a speech to disabled veterans in Atlanta, Georgia.
It comes amid a dispute between the US and Baghdad over the latest casualty numbers in Iraq.
If we had spent half the money, half the creativity, half the manpower we put into the Iraq War into becoming energy independent and developing alternative energy, we would be able to say goodbye and good luck to the Saudi princes, Chavez, the whole lot of them....
Maybe we should have a poll that asks how many people think this wouldn't have happened anyway... Even if bush had a third term.
Most our goals are accomplished in Iraq. Why is Obama being so slow at moving the troops out is my question.
Of course they won't all be coming home, many will probably be shifted to Afghanistan
"Most our goals are accomplished in Iraq"
bull revisionism.
Repugs and neo-cons SAID they went to get the WMD, but they lied about WMD.
They really went in for the oil, but the US/UK oilcos aren't getting their part of the oil on their terms. I really wouldn't want to be working for a US/UK oilcos in Iraq without the US military guarding me all day everyday.
Do you think those goals will stay accomplished once we leave?
Goals will change as the changing situation demands.
You should know by now that I believe in things being dynamic rather than static.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-02-2010 at 05:12 PM.
LOL, is that because it would be so difficult to rant on spurstalk all day long if you were over there?
The "goals" were goal-of-the-week as the Repugs were building their transparently, now proven, false case in 2002/2003.
So we get UN approval for mobile weapons labs as part of WMD goal, and we find nothing at all, so WC has to invent new goals.
Holy !!! WC is creating the goals now? , I didn't realize how much stroke a dude from this website had in the White House.
Maybe nbaDan is correct, maybe this is an influential place to discuss politics.........
Then again, maybe not.
How can you say that we've met our goals then, if those goals constantly shift? Surely there have to be definite goals that must be met, and then new goals created?
Didn't Bush and McCain essentially want a permanent occupying force? Isn't that what got McCain in trouble during the campaign, saying that he wanted troops there for 100 years, then 1,000 years, and then 10,000 years?
Having troops there isn't the same as having troops in South Korea, Germany, etc...
Why? and I'm not trying to be a , but how do you figure?
Much less infrastructure in Iraq, for one thing.
Yeah, but why should that change the decision on whether or not to remain there?
It's all dynamic... that's why he'll never criticize anybody from missing goals...
Our ability to have a base in S. Korea and Germany seems predicated on the idea that the countries they're in are relatively stable. Iraq, much less so.
Same general principle (as far as having a presence in these countries) but much different in actuality. The S. Korean and German bases are true "bases", with commissaries, BX/PXs, etc etc.
Any base in Iraq would probably have a hard time staying indefinitely, as the chances of it being attacked (by IED or mortar or just coming under fire) would seem to be much greater.
We could certainly do it; but I don't think it would be quite the same as a base in S. Korea and/or Germany. People at those bases don't have to worry about IEDs when they leave the base to go downtown.
I'm gonna respond to this later, I'm getting the out of this office now though.
Good points though.
What would be the goal of a permanent occupying force in Iraq? It would be to fight off insurgents, and that means more troops dying since the insurgency may never end.
The goal in other countries is different. Take Korea for example; the goal there is to show American support for a country that has tensions with a defined state actor. Nobody has to die, a presence alone accomplishes all it needs to and acts as a deterrent for keeping North Korea out. Not a single shot has to be fired.
Met goals are the past. Future goals are hard to determine a time frame, yet the democrats want to give a date certain?
How stupid is that?
...actually Korea is still an active war zone and people get killed in the DMZ semi-regularly, but good point none-the-less...
I would disagree.
If we maintained troops there, I would contend it would be for the same reasons. At first, as a reminder of not only who freed them, but we are ready to squelch insurrection. Afterwards, just because we have established a symbiotic relationship.
Ever been on a foreign military base?
I think not by your assumptions.
How good was the infrastructure in Germany or Japan when we were there in the 40's after the war?
How about Korea in the 50's?
Seems to me there was a lot of infrastructure destroyed!
Iraq was a bustling region in the 70's before Saddam took over. It can be that again. Enough people remember.
Obama (whom I feel no need to defend) is, in this case, WC, consistent with his campaign promises. He said during the campaign that he would bring the troops home within 18 months of taking office, and that is just about on track.
Had he gone in and pulled out combat troops immediately, you would have criticized him. He has done a responsible thing in this instance. Why not give the man credit for 1) keeping a campaign promise regarding wars, and 2) doing so in a responsible manner.
There is plenty to criticize about Obama, legitimately. This is not one of them.
Ease up. You will only gain credibility in your attacks by doing so.
My point is, this would have occurred anyway. He deserves no credit for that.
No, it's not for the same reasons. Troops in Iraq are actively ENGAGED in war with insurgents. Troops in South Korea and Germany are not.
Having troops there as a reminder of who freed them is a desperately pathetic legitimization of their presence.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
