PDA

View Full Version : War in Iraq Over. All US Troops back by years end. [mod: except mercenaries]




LiveToWin
10-21-2011, 11:09 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/index.html


How will this effect the election? Political move? Readying troops for Iran?

cpike
10-21-2011, 11:11 AM
Obviously I'm very happy they are coming home, but it makes me sick the troops are being used for political purposes.

V3n
10-21-2011, 11:14 AM
Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, only about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales.

arms sales?
arms sales??
arms sales???

What's the over/under on how long before they turn those arms against us? Holy crap this is so STUPID!

eduardo89
10-21-2011, 11:15 AM
I'm glad it took Obama only 16 months to end the war.

AJ187
10-21-2011, 11:16 AM
I''ll believe it when I see it..

zHorns
10-21-2011, 11:16 AM
What about the manning the bases? Are they closing them down?

EBounding
10-21-2011, 11:17 AM
I''ll believe it when I see it..

Ditto. Dollar to Donuts that there will still be a significant number there in January.

libertarian4321
10-21-2011, 11:17 AM
They'll probably get on the plane and fly directly to Afganistan.

LiveToWin
10-21-2011, 11:17 AM
What I just heard is that all US bases in Iraq will be closed. Sold or abandoned.

dbill27
10-21-2011, 11:20 AM
What I just heard is that all US bases in Iraq will be closed. Sold or abandoned.

That would be amazing.

cdc482
10-21-2011, 11:20 AM
I swear on my life the following is true:

At a political science course at Carnegie Mellon University, Kiron Skinner predicted this exact event during the 2008 election between Obama and McCain.

She said, (paraphrased) 'If Obama wins, he wouldn't bring the troops home right away because people forget. He'll bring them home right before reelection, to stay in power another 4 years.'
She went on to say that most political scientists thought this would be the right move. Kiron Skinner is a conservative.

sailingaway
10-21-2011, 11:22 AM
Will they leave 'contractors'? Because so far when they bring home troops they bring in even more contractors.

Having said that, we've passed a bunch of deadlines by which the troops were supposed to be brought home. Since we have also started NEW wars in Libya, Yemen etc, I don't see a change in overall policy here, do you?

ApathyCured
10-21-2011, 11:32 AM
What I just heard is that all US bases in Iraq will be closed. Sold or abandoned.

And the money saved from this will be used to fund something new and exciting I'm sure...

Chainspell
10-21-2011, 11:34 AM
oh did you guys really not expect this? :( :( i see some of you are kind of surprised.

its re-election season... it's either the economy gets better or this. after he gets elected again then it's back to business as usual! when and if we run against obama we need to call him out on this! that it is NOT gonna be just business as usual! that the role of government needs to change for real!

Philosophy_of_Politics
10-21-2011, 11:35 AM
350,000 Troops Deployed right?

Obama says 39,000?

MJU1983
10-21-2011, 11:38 AM
What I just heard is that all US bases in Iraq will be closed. Sold or abandoned.

What about our new $700M embassy?


Will they leave 'contractors'? Because so far when they bring home troops they bring in even more contractors.

Having said that, we've passed a bunch of deadlines by which the troops were supposed to be brought home. Since we have also started NEW wars in Libya, Yemen etc, I don't see a change in overall policy here, do you?

Funny you mention that:

Mercenaries to Fill Void Left By U.S. Army
As American troops leave Iraq, private security contractors will take over many of their tasks.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/08/10/mercenaries-in-iraq-to-take-over-soldiers-jobs.html

^ Odds US Taxpayers will pick up the check?

MJU1983
10-21-2011, 11:42 AM
Good reminder: Ron Paul Video: “Ron Paul: The Real Anti-War President” (http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/10/ron-paul-video-ron-paul-the-real-anti-war-president/)

Crystallas
10-21-2011, 11:45 AM
Is this the 4th announcement from Obama about leaving Iraq? Yet, we still don't leave Iraq entirely.... we occupy their land again and somehow expect this to be okay after everything we have learned. UGH.

Zarn Solen
10-21-2011, 11:48 AM
The less troops over there, the less neocons have to complain, when it comes to Paul's foreign policy.

Chainspell
10-21-2011, 11:55 AM
so we're taking the patriots out and leaving the goons in?

this is really stupid but how is taking soldiers out and leaving private security contractors ending the war??
soldiers and security contractors:
#1 arent they getting paid to be there
#2 arent they americans
#3 arent we still going to be paying for ALL THIS SHIT...

dannno
10-21-2011, 11:58 AM
Ya I'd like to know how many contractors will still be there.

Brett85
10-21-2011, 12:07 PM
I'm certainly not going to complain about this. I'm glad that Obama finally did something right, even if it was done for political reasons.

MJU1983
10-21-2011, 12:10 PM
Ya I'd like to know how many contractors will still be there.

State Department readies Iraq operation, its biggest since the end of World War II - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-readies-iraq-operation-its-biggest-since-marshall-plan/2011/10/05/gIQAzRruTL_story.html)


Attention in Washington and Baghdad has centered on the number of U.S. troops that could remain in Iraq. But those forces will be dwarfed by an estimated 16,000 civilians under the American ambassador — the size of an Army division.
...
There are 43,000 U.S. service members in Iraq. Under an agreement negotiated by the George W. Bush administration, they are to leave by the end of 2011.

Iraqi leaders said last week that they want a small contingent of U.S. military trainers to remain, but without immunity from local prosecution, a condition the Obama administration has said it cannot accept. The administration has been planning to keep 3,000 to 5,000 military trainers in the country if the two sides can hammer out an agreement.

The list of responsibilities the State Department will pick up from the military is daunting. It will have to provide security for the roughly 1,750 traditional embassy personnel — diplomats, aid workers, Treasury employees and so on — in a country rocked by daily bombings and assassinations.

To do so, the department is contracting about 5,000 security personnel. They will protect the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad plus two consulates, a pair of support sites at Iraqi airports and three police-training facilities.

The department will also operate its own air service — the 46-aircraft Embassy Air Iraq — and its own hospitals, functions the U.S. military has been performing. About 4,600 contractors, mostly non-American, will provide cooking, cleaning, medical care and other services. Rounding out the civilian presence will be about 4,600 people scattered over 10 or 11 sites, where Iraqis will be instructed on how to use U.S. military equipment their country has purchased.

sailingaway
10-21-2011, 12:14 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-readies-iraq-operation-its-biggest-since-marshall-plan/2011/10/05/gIQAzRruTL_story.html

note that the authority to use force in Iran ran out in Dec 2008 since it is based on violation of UN resolutions and the UN allowed its extended resolution to expire at this time. Remainder since then has been entirely under 'executive agreement.'

So much, yet again, for our Constitution.

Brett85
10-21-2011, 12:18 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-to-speak-about-iraq-troop-levels/

Capitol Hill sources indicated Friday that, while the troops will come home, the standard presence of Marines will be kept to guard the U.S. Embassy there.

So there's still going to be some troops left there. What would be the alternative if we didn't use our troops to guard embassies? Who would we get to do it? Or should we just not have any embassies overseas?

AlexG
10-21-2011, 12:24 PM
Overall, this is good news. It seems Obama may be coming around to his promises a bit late, but better late than never.

Todd
10-21-2011, 12:27 PM
Ya I'd like to know how many contractors will still be there.

well...they won't be protected anymore by Apache's and QRF ground forces anymore. Let's see them try to keep up with the rebels without trained troops.

Danke
10-21-2011, 12:30 PM
Obama Says US Not Deserting Iraq: ‘We Will Continue to Follow You on Twitter’

Promises Strong Social Networking Ties with Iraqi People

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) Announcing that it would completely withdraw its troops from Iraq by the end of the year, President Barack Obama today maintained that the United States was not deserting Iraq, promising the Iraqi people, “We will continue to follow you on Twitter.”

Mr. Obama indicated that the United States’ relationship with Iraq would soon transition from a military one to a social networking one, with the United States promising to “Like” Iraq’s Facebook page and share contact information on LinkedIn.

He added, however, that the United States would not have a presence on Google+ “because no one else does.”

In summing up the United States’ eight-year military mission in Iraq, Mr. Obama said, “We have done everything we set out to do in this mission, except figure out what the mission was.”

Turning to Libya, Mr. Obama expressed pride in the successful NATO effort to topple dictator Muammar Gaddafi: “It is my hope that Libya will soon have a functioning democracy, and that someday the United States will, too.”

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney also congratulated the Libyan people, releasing the following official statement: “With Gaddafi gone, Libya’s right to determine its future is now safely in the hands of multinational oil companies.”

:D

http://www.borowitzreport.com/2011/06/23/obama-says-us-not-deserting-afghanistan-we-will-continue-to-follow-you-on-twitter/

MJU1983
10-21-2011, 12:33 PM
Overall, this is good news. It seems Obama may be coming around to his promises a bit late, but better late than never.

Uh....

"There are 43,000 U.S. service members in Iraq. Under an agreement negotiated by the George W. Bush administration, they are to leave by the end of 2011."

dannno
10-21-2011, 12:34 PM
Or should we just not have any embassies overseas?

I have little problem with embassies in friendly countries where we have good relations and don't require security forces.

However, it seems like embassies could be privatized. Maybe when you travel you could get embassy insurance in case you get into trouble or need legal advice, they have a legal team on stand-by who speak english and will help represent and protect you legally while you're in the other country.

AlexG
10-21-2011, 12:46 PM
Uh....

"There are 43,000 U.S. service members in Iraq. Under an agreement negotiated by the George W. Bush administration, they are to leave by the end of 2011."

I dont care who did it or even if Bush "paved the way," I'm glad it's being done.

Verrater
10-21-2011, 12:46 PM
This may hurt turn out for non republicans voting for Ron Paul.
Opinions?

heavenlyboy34
10-21-2011, 12:47 PM
Ya I'd like to know how many contractors will still be there.
Ditto. If contractors are brought in to fill the "void" left by occupying troops, I predict spiraling costs-as normally happens in fascist models.

heavenlyboy34
10-21-2011, 12:49 PM
This may hurt turn out for non republicans voting for Ron Paul.
Opinions?
I don't think so-it seems this agreement was worked out under the Bush regime. That said, voters have short memories. One never knows. /shrugs

Lucille
10-21-2011, 12:50 PM
Is that when the last Christian (http://the-classic-liberal.com/conservative-war-christians/) will finally have fled the glorious Islamic theocracy we built there?

rideurlightning
10-21-2011, 12:52 PM
Will they leave 'contractors'? Because so far when they bring home troops they bring in even more contractors.

Having said that, we've passed a bunch of deadlines by which the troops were supposed to be brought home. Since we have also started NEW wars in Libya, Yemen etc, I don't see a change in overall policy here, do you?

I was about to ask the same thing, and I wouldn't be surprised.

No Free Beer
10-21-2011, 01:04 PM
State Department readies Iraq operation, its biggest since the end of World War II - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-readies-iraq-operation-its-biggest-since-marshall-plan/2011/10/05/gIQAzRruTL_story.html)

soooooo, how many? 16,000?

sailingaway
10-21-2011, 01:06 PM
National Journal says they were asked to leave, the immunity for troop actions expires in DEc and Iraq wasn't willing to extend it.

No Free Beer
10-21-2011, 01:08 PM
so, what is the final number? how many will be left there

sailingaway
10-21-2011, 01:17 PM
so, what is the final number? how many will be left there

I've seen both 3,000- 4,000 and 45,000, I think one is a residual Iraq wants and the other is what Obama had wanted to leave (the larger) but I'm not sure.

MJU1983
10-21-2011, 01:57 PM
National Journal says they were asked to leave, the immunity for troop actions expires in DEc and Iraq wasn't willing to extend it.

Good link:

U.S. Troop Withdrawal Motivated by Iraqi Insistence, Not U.S. Choice - Yochi J. Dreazen - NationalJournal.com (http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraqi-insistence-not-u-s-choice-20111021)


President Obama’s speech formally declaring that the last 43,000 U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year was designed to mask an unpleasant truth: The troops aren’t being withdrawn because the U.S. wants them out. They’re leaving because the Iraqi government refused to let them stay.

Obama campaigned on ending the war in Iraq but had instead spent the past few months trying to extend it. A 2008 security deal between Washington and Baghdad called for all American forces to leave Iraq by the end of the year
...
Maliki himself said in a recent Reuters interview that U.S. troops could only remain in Iraq if they had no immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, an absolute nonstarter with the Pentagon.

nobody's_hero
10-21-2011, 02:03 PM
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Anyone care to name the document that passage is from?

flightlesskiwi
10-21-2011, 02:10 PM
one of the Charges against the King in the DoI, of course.


He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

Anyone care to name the document that passage is from?

flightlesskiwi
10-21-2011, 02:14 PM
National Journal says they were asked to leave, the immunity for troop actions expires in DEc and Iraq wasn't willing to extend it.

DoD would have a person believe that's the public stance the Iraqi gov has taken, when behind closed doors they want troops to stay.

guess the mercenaries are a compromise. ha!

Lucille
10-21-2011, 02:16 PM
one of the Charges against the King in the DoI, of course.

"By today's standards ... a very mild tyrant indeed." /Sobran (http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/040701.shtml)

Jake Ralston
10-21-2011, 02:22 PM
Okay great, all the troops leave. Who is left holding the bag? WE ARE.

We need to start collecting money and oil to pay back the BILLIONS we spent there and the THOUSANDS of lives lost.

The handouts and bailouts must stop. Iraq needs to pay.

nobody's_hero
10-21-2011, 02:34 PM
one of the Charges against the King in the DoI, of course.

Yep. Amazing how far we've gone—that we're right back to exactly where we started.

jmdrake
10-21-2011, 02:42 PM
Am I the only person here that remembers that George W. Bush signed a status of forces agreement to have all of the troops out of Iraq by Dec. 11, 2011? So the troops aren't out any faster than John McCain would have had them out if he honored Bush's agreement. Of course the neocons will cast this as "cut and run" on Obama's part and the liberals will cast this as "Obama keeping his promise to be better than Bush" when it's really just a big smoke screen.

http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/01/18/sofa_not_the_surge