Troops Coming Home From Iraq

  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19133

    Oct 21, 2011 4:56 PM GMT
    Best news I have heard in a very long time. All troops coming home from Iraq by end of year. What an amazing Xmas present for thousands of American families.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 5:08 PM GMT
    Great News, Finally our soldiers will be out of harms way and home at last !! Now lets push for an end to the other fiasco Afghanistan.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 8:58 PM GMT
    r president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 9:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidBest news I have heard in a very long time. All troops coming home from Iraq by end of year. What an amazing Xmas present for thousands of American families.


    Just in time for the election 2012 season!


    Well, it could be worse. He could have conspired with a terrorist regime to hold American hostages longer in order to win an election like Reagan did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:17 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidBest news I have heard in a very long time. All troops coming home from Iraq by end of year. What an amazing Xmas present for thousands of American families.


    Just in time for the election 2012 season!


    Well, it could be worse. He could have conspired with a terrorist regime to hold American hostages longer in order to win an election like Reagan did.





    Now wait a minute Christian73, you don't expect these republicans to remember or admit any such illegal shenanigans done by the Bush crime family do you ? It was after all Bush's trick, since he was so well connected with the CIA to pull it off to 'win one for the gipper', I might add that it worked very well to win them the whitehouse, as did many other tricks by his son GW Bush in his own administrations.

    Of course republicans getting what they want no matter the method is all that counts, and that's how we ended up wasting trillions of dollars and 100,000's of lives in the Iraq fiasco in the first place, all through crooked politics with a little help from the PNAC.

    Now the righties can lambaste me for having the temerity to bring up the truth and ruining this special 'patriotic' moment where we all pat each other on the back in jubilation about how glorious and honorable that battle for freedom was. I'm sure we all feel so much safer from all those WMD's. now that we've won (what?) and are coming home victorious.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 10:20 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidBest news I have heard in a very long time. All troops coming home from Iraq by end of year. What an amazing Xmas present for thousands of American families.


    Just in time for the election 2012 season!


    Well, it could be worse. He could have conspired with a terrorist regime to hold American hostages longer in order to win an election like Reagan did.

    Aren't we going a bit far? Even your hallowed source, the Daily Kos on 10/11/11 by Jeff Lieber only referred to this as an allegation and correctly noted that both houses of Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation.

    So in the interest of protecting your reputation for honesty, I recommend you change the last part of your message to ....to win an election as Reagan was alleged to have done.

    Now of you change it and I remember to delete this message, no one will know. LOL
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 21, 2011 10:52 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    southbeach1500 said
    CuriousJockAZ saidBest news I have heard in a very long time. All troops coming home from Iraq by end of year. What an amazing Xmas present for thousands of American families.


    Just in time for the election 2012 season!


    Well, it could be worse. He could have conspired with a terrorist regime to hold American hostages longer in order to win an election like Reagan did.


    LOL .... icon_biggrin.gif

    Eight ball side pocket

    According to Firewall, the cover-up conspiracy took formal shape at a meeting of Reagan and his top advisers in the Situation Room at the White House on Nov. 24, 1986. The meeting's principal point of concern was how to handle the troublesome fact that Reagan had approved illegal arms sales to Iran in fall 1985, before any covert-action finding had been signed. The act was a clear felony -- a violation of the Arms Export Control Act -- and possibly an impeachable offense.

    The only reason Larry Walsh didn't push the issue with Reagan was because by the time he got around to interview him he was addled with Alzheimers so bad he couldn't remember anything
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 21, 2011 11:15 PM GMT
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    I'm so glad that Mitt Romney criticized the decision. For someone who is seen as somewhat in the lead of the Republican rat race, his insistence that troops remain will be a plus for Obama's reelection effort. If I were President Obama I would make sure to drive the point during debates and political ads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    creature said
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    I'm so glad that Mitt Romney criticized the decision. For someone who is seen as somewhat in the lead of the Republican rat race, his insistence that troops remain will be a plus for Obama's reelection effort. If I were President Obama I would make sure to drive the point during debates and political ads.

    Yes, it should be an issue, but not with the effect you might hope for.

    Some talking points:

    1. Obama pulled all the troops out for purely political reasons despite the recommendation of military commanders and the Iraqi government that a small contingent remain.

    2. In a diplomatic failure, the Obama administration failed to negotiate terms with the Iraqi government that would enable troops to remain, subject to US military law rather than Iraqi law.

    3. The resurgence of Iranian influence in Iraq will be tied directly to Obama's actions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:31 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    I'm so glad that Mitt Romney criticized the decision. For someone who is seen as somewhat in the lead of the Republican rat race, his insistence that troops remain will be a plus for Obama's reelection effort. If I were President Obama I would make sure to drive the point during debates and political ads.

    Yes, it should be an issue, but not with the effect you might hope for.

    Some talking points:

    1. Obama pulled all the troops out for purely political reasons despite the recommendation of military commanders and the Iraqi government that a small contingent remain.

    2. In a diplomatic failure, the Obama administration failed to negotiate terms with the Iraqi government that would enable troops to remain, subject to US military law rather than Iraqi law.

    3. The resurgence of Iranian influence in Iraq will be tied directly to Obama's actions.



    agreed
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 21, 2011 11:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    I'm so glad that Mitt Romney criticized the decision. For someone who is seen as somewhat in the lead of the Republican rat race, his insistence that troops remain will be a plus for Obama's reelection effort. If I were President Obama I would make sure to drive the point during debates and political ads.

    Yes, it should be an issue, but not with the effect you might hope for.

    Some talking points:

    1. Obama pulled all the troops out for purely political reasons despite the recommendation of military commanders and the Iraqi government that a small contingent remain.

    2. In a diplomatic failure, the Obama administration failed to negotiate terms with the Iraqi government that would enable troops to remain, subject to US military law rather than Iraqi law.

    3. The resurgence of Iranian influence in Iraq will be tied directly to Obama's actions.


    Regarding point 2, here's something from one of your favorite rags, the Wall Street Journal:

    U.S. officials insisted the Iraqi government, in the end, simply did not want the deal. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was not able to negotiate with the various groups in his parliament and win approval.

    "It represents a broader view in this very nationalistic country, that generally speaking, people don't like foreign troops in their country," said Christopher Hill, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576645150219910400.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    And as for point 3, I don't care if Iran gains influence in Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could have been fuck buddies with Saddam Hussein — it doesn't matter. We had no business going into Iraq. Let them have ties with whoever they want. We are talking about autonomous countries who have the right to freely associate themselves with whoever they choose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 21, 2011 11:40 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    I'm so glad that Mitt Romney criticized the decision. For someone who is seen as somewhat in the lead of the Republican rat race, his insistence that troops remain will be a plus for Obama's reelection effort. If I were President Obama I would make sure to drive the point during debates and political ads.

    Yes, it should be an issue, but not with the effect you might hope for.

    Some talking points:

    1. Obama pulled all the troops out for purely political reasons despite the recommendation of military commanders and the Iraqi government that a small contingent remain.

    2. In a diplomatic failure, the Obama administration failed to negotiate terms with the Iraqi government that would enable troops to remain, subject to US military law rather than Iraqi law.

    3. The resurgence of Iranian influence in Iraq will be tied directly to Obama's actions.




    Are you sure your not in the employ of William Kristol to forward his former PNAC talking points? You sound just like him and his chronies that fit the 'facts' to the policy they wanted.

    And if you have trouble with the true story of Bush working with the CIA to pay off the Iranians, Please google Robert Perry to discover where he tells all about Lee Hamiltons cover up of the verification papers he received on this subject from the Russians during Clintons term. Its quite interesting.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 21, 2011 11:43 PM GMT
    And going on your point #1, if most Americans want the US out of Iraq, then the President should make that decision. It's not viewed favorably, and those Defense officials who insist that we maintain presence were probably those who insisted we go there in the first place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 12:33 AM GMT
    creature said
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    I'm so glad that Mitt Romney criticized the decision. For someone who is seen as somewhat in the lead of the Republican rat race, his insistence that troops remain will be a plus for Obama's reelection effort. If I were President Obama I would make sure to drive the point during debates and political ads.

    Yes, it should be an issue, but not with the effect you might hope for.

    Some talking points:

    1. Obama pulled all the troops out for purely political reasons despite the recommendation of military commanders and the Iraqi government that a small contingent remain.

    2. In a diplomatic failure, the Obama administration failed to negotiate terms with the Iraqi government that would enable troops to remain, subject to US military law rather than Iraqi law.

    3. The resurgence of Iranian influence in Iraq will be tied directly to Obama's actions.


    Regarding point 2, here's something from one of your favorite rags, the Wall Street Journal:

    U.S. officials insisted the Iraqi government, in the end, simply did not want the deal. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was not able to negotiate with the various groups in his parliament and win approval.

    "It represents a broader view in this very nationalistic country, that generally speaking, people don't like foreign troops in their country," said Christopher Hill, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576645150219910400.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    And as for point 3, I don't care if Iran gains influence in Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could have been fuck buddies with Saddam Hussein — it doesn't matter. We had no business going into Iraq. Let them have ties with whoever they want. We are talking about autonomous countries who have the right to freely associate themselves with whoever they choose.

    Regarding point 2, there is a nuance that might not have been clear. Certainly a large deployment of troops would have created issues for the points mentioned in the WSJ article. However, the view among experts is that a small contingent could have been justified by the Iraqi government to the other factions, and negotiated with the US if the US government had the interest in achieving an agreement.

    Regarding the Iranian influence, you miss the entire point. No one is dictating to Iraq with whom they can associate. The menace of Iran to the entire region cannot be overstated, and a withdrawal under the current scenario leads to a greater degree of destabilization in the region. Not limited to Iraq. The next President will have to fix up the mess with Turkey as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 12:35 AM GMT
    creature saidAnd going on your point #1, if most Americans want the US out of Iraq, then the President should make that decision. It's not viewed favorably, and those Defense officials who insist that we maintain presence were probably those who insisted we go there in the first place.

    The military commanders who recommended a modest contingent remaining were not the ones who were involved in strategic decisions to go to war.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 22, 2011 1:55 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    I'm so glad that Mitt Romney criticized the decision. For someone who is seen as somewhat in the lead of the Republican rat race, his insistence that troops remain will be a plus for Obama's reelection effort. If I were President Obama I would make sure to drive the point during debates and political ads.

    Yes, it should be an issue, but not with the effect you might hope for.

    Some talking points:

    1. Obama pulled all the troops out for purely political reasons despite the recommendation of military commanders and the Iraqi government that a small contingent remain.

    2. In a diplomatic failure, the Obama administration failed to negotiate terms with the Iraqi government that would enable troops to remain, subject to US military law rather than Iraqi law.

    3. The resurgence of Iranian influence in Iraq will be tied directly to Obama's actions.


    Regarding point 2, here's something from one of your favorite rags, the Wall Street Journal:

    U.S. officials insisted the Iraqi government, in the end, simply did not want the deal. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was not able to negotiate with the various groups in his parliament and win approval.

    "It represents a broader view in this very nationalistic country, that generally speaking, people don't like foreign troops in their country," said Christopher Hill, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576645150219910400.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    And as for point 3, I don't care if Iran gains influence in Iraq. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could have been fuck buddies with Saddam Hussein — it doesn't matter. We had no business going into Iraq. Let them have ties with whoever they want. We are talking about autonomous countries who have the right to freely associate themselves with whoever they choose.

    Regarding point 2, there is a nuance that might not have been clear. Certainly a large deployment of troops would have created issues for the points mentioned in the WSJ article. However, the view among experts is that a small contingent could have been justified by the Iraqi government to the other factions, and negotiated with the US if the US government had the interest in achieving an agreement.

    Regarding the Iranian influence, you miss the entire point. No one is dictating to Iraq with whom they can associate. The menace of Iran to the entire region cannot be overstated, and a withdrawal under the current scenario leads to a greater degree of destabilization in the region. Not limited to Iraq. The next President will have to fix up the mess with Turkey as well.


    What makes you so sure that those other factions would be willing to compromise on a deal to allow the remaining soldiers to be held accountable only to US military law?

    US presence is not favorably viewed in the middle east. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

    The United States is not a world police. If the "menace" of Iran grows and influences Iraqi policies, so be it. We should not be involved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 2:08 AM GMT
    creature said...The United States is not a world police. If the "menace" of Iran grows and influences Iraqi policies, so be it. We should not be involved.

    To paraphrase:

    If Iran gets nuclear weapons and with its means to deliver, bombs Tel Aviv and kills a few million people, so be it. We should not be involved.

    If Iran gets a dirty bomb and provides it to a terrorist who comes to the US and detonates it in the middle of Silver Spring, MD, guess we can get upset at that point.

    When Hitler was gassing people, we should not have gotten involved. We are not the world policemen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 2:11 AM GMT
    notadumbjock saidr president kept his promise

    edit: his opponents respond

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/21/8433344-republicans-criticize-obama-over-iraq-withdrawal


    i think President Obama did want 2 keep troops in Iraq. yet w/o a guarantee of US troop immunity from Iragi prosection, and the apparent fact that Iraqis don't want us there, i think he made the correct decision.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/did-president-obama-want-american-military-troops-remain-210202850.html
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 22, 2011 2:29 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature said...The United States is not a world police. If the "menace" of Iran grows and influences Iraqi policies, so be it. We should not be involved.

    To paraphrase:

    If Iran gets nuclear weapons and with its means to deliver, bombs Tel Aviv and kills a few million people, so be it. We should not be involved.

    If Iran gets a dirty bomb and provides it to a terrorist who comes to the US and detonates it in the middle of Silver Spring, MD, guess we can get upset at that point.

    When Hitler was gassing people, we should not have gotten involved. We are not the world policemen.


    No, you didn't paraphrase correctly. Sorry.

    1. I have no issue with supporting Israel if it is in an actual war with Iran if Iran bombed the country.

    2. Iran supplying a weapon for the means of carrying out an attack on US soil is an act of aggression, and therefore an act of war. So no problem with settling the matter.

    3. I don't believe the US knew about the gassings until after it was involved in WWII, which was only after the US had been attacked by Japan.

    To paraphrase my posts:

    We should stop policing the world. You see how simple that is?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 2:49 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidSo..... we got no oil and not even a semi-permanent military base. Great!

    Oh, I guess the predictions of Dick Cheney and the neo-cons you supported weren't correct. You admit we went to war in Iraq for oil and a permanent military presence in Arabia, not anything to do with WMD & terrorists there.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 3:29 AM GMT
    creature said
    No, you didn't paraphrase correctly. Sorry.

    1. I have no issue with supporting Israel if it is in an actual war with Iran if Iran bombed the country.

    2. Iran supplying a weapon for the means of carrying out an attack on US soil is an act of aggression, and therefore an act of war. So no problem with settling the matter.

    Then you don't believe in acting preemptively. After Iran bombs Israel and Silver Spring, MD, we will get involved. We'll express our great concern, maybe go to the UN to see if we can get them to condemn, maybe send some first aid supplies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 3:30 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidSo..... we got no oil and not even a semi-permanent military base. Great!

    Oh, I guess the predictions of Dick Cheney and the neo-cons you supported weren't correct. You admit we went to war in Iraq for oil and a permanent military presence in Arabia, not anything to do with WMD & terrorists there.


    No, you misunderstood.

    The cries from the left were that we went there to "take their oil" - and it turns out during Bush and Obama we didn't "take their oil."

    Under a stronger leader, I do believe the USA would have been able to "negotiate" rights to maintain at least 1 airbase along with overfly rights.


    no, we went there so that baby Bush could uphold family honor and quiet papa Bush's critics. the criticism is that papa Bush didn't remove Saddam Hussein (although he did complete the mission as per the UN resolution). this, of course, is my opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 3:42 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidJust came across this tidbit...

    The US suffered a major diplomatic and military rebuff on Friday when Iraq finally rejected its pleas to maintain bases in the country beyond this year.


    So..... we got no oil and not even a semi-permanent military base.

    Great!


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/21/iraq-rejects-us-plea-bases
    So.. we have NO business there whatsoever..

    hmmmmm.. and why does Romney have issues with this?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 3:45 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    tailgater_3 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidSo..... we got no oil and not even a semi-permanent military base. Great!

    Oh, I guess the predictions of Dick Cheney and the neo-cons you supported weren't correct. You admit we went to war in Iraq for oil and a permanent military presence in Arabia, not anything to do with WMD & terrorists there.


    No, you misunderstood.

    The cries from the left were that we went there to "take their oil" - and it turns out during Bush and Obama we didn't "take their oil."

    Under a stronger leader, I do believe the USA would have been able to "negotiate" rights to maintain at least 1 airbase along with overfly rights.


    no, we went there so that baby Bush could uphold family honor and quiet papa Bush's critics. the criticism is that papa Bush didn't remove Saddam Hussein (although he did complete the mission as per the UN resolution). this, of course, is my opinion.



    And you were how old when we went in to Iraq? icon_lol.gif

    Please learn to think for yourself. What you just posted is nothing but a regurgitation of one of the left's stock "scenarios" about why we went into Iraq.

    Actually MANY of us IN the military uniform thought and still do that it is exactly why we went there in the first place..

    And you were in the actual military when?????

    Quit patronizing younger members here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 22, 2011 3:49 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    tailgater_3 said
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    southbeach1500 saidSo..... we got no oil and not even a semi-permanent military base. Great!

    Oh, I guess the predictions of Dick Cheney and the neo-cons you supported weren't correct. You admit we went to war in Iraq for oil and a permanent military presence in Arabia, not anything to do with WMD & terrorists there.


    No, you misunderstood.

    The cries from the left were that we went there to "take their oil" - and it turns out during Bush and Obama we didn't "take their oil."

    Under a stronger leader, I do believe the USA would have been able to "negotiate" rights to maintain at least 1 airbase along with overfly rights.


    no, we went there so that baby Bush could uphold family honor and quiet papa Bush's critics. the criticism is that papa Bush didn't remove Saddam Hussein (although he did complete the mission as per the UN resolution). this, of course, is my opinion.



    And you were how old when we went in to Iraq? icon_lol.gif

    Please learn to think for yourself. What you just posted is nothing but a regurgitation of one of the left's stock "scenarios" about why we went into Iraq.



    y is age such an issue 4 u? this is the 2nd post where u brought up my age.
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1887254

    btw, i came up w/ this on my own from studying US history. we're taught 2 think/read/write critically. u might try it. js