Obama to announce Iraq troop draw down today.

[Spikesoldier]

savior obama, when are you going to bring home the troops from all the other bases too?

paul says he will bring home everyone, not just the handful in iraq.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

As far as foreign policy goes, Obama has really done an outstanding job.

Unfortunately for him, the economy will decide if he's a one/two term president.

"Bush and Saddam - One Trillion dollars and thousands of US lives.

Obama and Qaddafi - One Billion dollars and zero US lives.
"

 

[Gamingphreek]

So, you're okay what has been tallied at hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq since this mess started? Is there an asterix next to that particular commandment?

I'm certainly not ok with people dying, but I know that isn't what you are getting at.

At no point in time was our objective defined as "Targeting/Murdering Iraqi civilians". Certainly there are cases of rogue/immoral troops and I feel as though these should be dealt with in swifter/harsher fashion than they have been. Certainly there are cases of misfiring/friendly-firing and I think we need to evaluate how to better prevent against this, BUT I also realize that this is war and unfortunately there are going to be casualties of war.

So while I think we need to continue to improve on the above areas, I am also able to separate that from the occupying force as a whole maliciously targeting innocent individuals.

-GP

 

[Gamingphreek]

"Bush and Saddam - One Trillion dollars and thousands of US lives.

Obama and Qaddafi - One Billion dollars and zero US lives.
"

It's almost as if you believe that leaving out critical details will lend credibility to your argument. There are a lot more complexities to each situation than 2 simple sentences can detail - you do a disservice to both Presidents by not at least acknowledging that fact.

-GP

 

[Ausm]

So in your mind Christians are a bunch of people with our heads in the sand saying "If I can't see you, you can't see me"? And to think, if only Christians listened to your simplistic little incorrect representation of their faith... we could have been conquered a couple times and living under Japenese or Nazi rule....

Just because we believe in salvation and a defined set of morals, doesn't mean we would be opposed to standing up in various ways (War being one of them).

-GP

I think I understand how you answered the question because you think the War in Iraq was justified but I definitely am looking at this issue from a different perspective being an atheist but you have a right to your opinion and beliefs.

 

[Gamingphreek]

savior obama, when are you going to bring home the troops from all the other bases too?

paul says he will bring home everyone, not just the handful in iraq.

Paul has a terrible foreign policy plan.

Lowering our troop footprint is one thing. Managing who we give financial aid to is another. But withdrawing from everywhere world-wide and ceasing all foreign aid is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard.

-GP

 

[Gamingphreek]

I think I understand how you answered the question because you think the War in Iraq was justified but I definitely am looking at this issue from a different perspective being an atheist but you have a right to your opinion and beliefs.

Yea you are correct. Just to briefly qualify -- I'm not naive enough to claim that we didn't have certain ulterior motives that affect the legitimacy of the war, but I simply can't believe that they were the sole driving force behind the war -- I truly believe that America is above at least some selfishness in that regard.

Though we disagree, I can absolutely respect your opinions and beliefs.

-GP

 

[Fern]

This announcement is primarily an acceptance of failure on our part to negotiate terms we felt were quite important. From every indication I've seen Obama wanted a different outcome but finally accepted the reality of the situation.

I'm afraid Iraq is now moving to embrace Iranian influence and that is undeniably bad for our national interest, as well as that for many other countries in the region.

Fern

 

[Gamingphreek]

This announcement is primarily an acceptance of failure on our part to negotiate terms we felt were quite important. From every indication I've seen Obama wanted a different outcome but finally accepted the reality of the situation.

I'm afraid Iraq is now moving to embrace Iranian influence and that is undeniably bad for our national interest, as well as that for many other countries in the region.

Fern

I agree.

Do you think the UN or anyone does anything about Iran (Not necessarily boots on the ground)?

I personally feel like the time to do anything at all against Iran was when the people were in full revolt over the election results...

-GP

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

This announcement is primarily an acceptance of failure on our part to negotiate terms we felt were quite important. From every indication I've seen Obama wanted a different outcome but finally accepted the reality of the situation.

I'm afraid Iraq is now moving to embrace Iranian influence and that is undeniably bad for our national interest, as well as that for many other countries in the region.

Fern

Stupid conservative missing the big picture...again.

Had we never gone into Iraq, Saddam would still be dictator and there would be zero discussion of Iranian influence as he hated them with a passion.

 

[EagleKeeper]

"Bush and Saddam - One Trillion dollars and thousands of US lives.

Obama and Qaddafi - One Billion dollars and zero US lives.
"

Cost to get the guy or the cost of rebuilding afterward? You are mixing apples and oranges.

What was the actual cost to get Saddam?

The military did their job both times; Now will Obama let Europe do the rebuilding r we get suckered into it?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Stupid conservative missing the big picture...again.

Had we never gone into Iraq, Saddam would still be dictator and there would be zero discussion of Iranian influence as he hated them with a passion.

Nothing he said there was based on opinion... he restated facts.

In your little nightmarish scenario; however, we all would have had the displeasure of figuring out which evil was worse... Iran or Iraq -- Ahmedinjad or Hussein.

-GP

 

[Fern]

Stupid conservative missing the big picture...again.

Had we never gone into Iraq, Saddam would still be dictator and there would be zero discussion of Iranian influence as he hated them with a passion.

You're the idiot missing the "big picture".

The "big picture" has nothing to do with revisiting the past and speaking of 'what if's'. That's water under the bridge.

I'm quite familiar with Saddam, his hatred of the Iranians and the role of Iraq as a barricade against the Persians and Shi'a, shielding the Sunni regimes.

You've demonstrated no special knowledge here contrary to your arrogance and rudeness.

The 'big picture' is not the good news we're withdrawing, as was laid out under Bush's timetable. We had no choice anyway, our UN mandate expired. The 'big picture' is our failure to reach agreement. Al Maliki has tossed us out and the really troubling part is his acceptance of Iranian influence.

I'm not sure why we're even keeping the 160 there, or how we can assure their safety.

Fern

 

[Fern]

I agree.

Do you think the UN or anyone does anything about Iran (Not necessarily boots on the ground)?

I personally feel like the time to do anything at all against Iran was when the people were in full revolt over the election results...

-GP

No.

I'm pretty sure the Obama admin has resigned themselves to a nuclear armed Iran. Since there's a decent chance he'll be reelected it's all but certain they'll have the bomb before the 2016 elections.

Other than non-violent stuff like Stuxnet, I think only the Isreali's would actually take military action.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

No.

I'm pretty sure the Obama admin has resigned themselves to a nuclear armed Iran. Since there's a decent chance he'll be reelected it's all but certain they'll have the bomb before the 2016 elections.

Other than non-violent stuff like Stuxnet, I think only the Isreali's would actually take military action.

Fern

Do you think the U.S. should bomb Iranian nuclear sites? Last I heard there was over 100 of them.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Our long national nightmare will be over at the end of the year.

Check off one mess cleaned by Obama

Mission accomplished without the aircraft carrier and the flightsuit

You think he should actually DO that, just to rankle GWB?


"Mission REALLY Accomplished"

(Well, sorta...)

 

[Ninjahedge]

Credit for what?

Bush for f'n an ugly ho that he never should have...

and

Obama for finally pulling out....

FTFY.

 

[Ninjahedge]

How would cutting off "adult baby's" SSI check and forcing him to contribute to society negatively impact employment numbers?

It would cost less for us to employ the same number of men to, I don't know, repave our roads or help rebuild New Orleans, than it would to keep them in very big, very expensive high tech vehicles.

Hell, the cost of ammunition alone is staggering!


But, of course, we will not look to do that. The national guard is for standing in full cam with a n M16 "protecting" me from terrorists in Penn Station.

Like an M16 can stop shrapnel.

 

[Fern]

Do you think the U.S. should bomb Iranian nuclear sites? Last I heard there was over 100 of them.

Honestly, I don't know enough about their sites or our military capability to answer that. E.g., I have no idea if their sites are too far underground to successfully bomb them, or if we even know where they are. I'm the last guy around here to ask about military capability. I know zip about our weapons and such. And I've never given us bombing them any thought either, just too unlikely to happen IMO. I know others believe differently.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

If we can't exit Iraq in an orderly transition at this point, we'll never be able to do so.

I have no idea how that'll work out for Iraqis, but it's been the greatest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam for this country.

And if Repubs weren't sniping at Obama for pulling out the troops, they'd be sniping at him for keeping them there, not honoring his campaign promises.

Let 'em whine.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Honestly, I don't know enough about their sites or our military capability to answer that. E.g., I have no idea if their sites are too far underground to successfully bomb them, or if we even know where they are. I'm the last guy around here to ask about military capability. I know zip about our weapons and such. And I've never given us bombing them any thought either, just too unlikely to happen IMO. I know others believe differently.

Fern

Regarding the question you answered - I think it is unlikely the US bombs them unless there is strong multilateral support across the UN.

Additionally, I don't see anyone bombing Iran based solely on Nuclear capabilities. I think UN Sanctions are the most likely response to that.

On the other hand, if the plot continues to thicken with the assassination attempt, I think there are going to be some big questions coming Iran's way - and they better have some big answers or there is going to be some very tense political talks.

If there are further attempts like the above, I think some sort of military repercussion needs to happen (Even if it is just a Cruise Missile into the desert outside of Tehran to show them we aren't screwing around)

-------------

Regarding Jhnnn's post about Obama, I think the people disagreeing with Obama here simply don't feel that he tried hard enough during talks with Maliki. None of us really know and should leave the "judging" to those that were involved.

As far as his promise was concerned, Obama needs to look back and realize that was a dumb promise. He was a senator and had no military advisers that were intimately involved in Iraq; thus, that was a very risky/dangerous promise to run with - What something happened that prevented us from leaving by the end of this year? I would certainly hope he would do the right thing in a scenario like that and not just something to appease an ill-conceived promise.

-GP

 

[Jhhnn]

Regarding Jhnnn's post about Obama, I think the people disagreeing with Obama here simply don't feel that he tried hard enough during talks with Maliki. None of us really know and should leave the "judging" to those that were involved.

As far as his promise was concerned, Obama needs to look back and realize that was a dumb promise. He was a senator and had no military advisers that were intimately involved in Iraq; thus, that was a very risky/dangerous promise to run with - What something happened that prevented us from leaving by the end of this year? I would certainly hope he would do the right thing in a scenario like that and not just something to appease an ill-conceived promise.

Conjecture & innuendo based on attributions about an unknowable set of circumstances.

Didn't try hard enough with Maliki? None of us were there to make that assessment, so what we "feel" is merely projection.

The rest of it? The withdrawal timetable is as GWB and the Iraqis agreed upon years ago. I'm confident that changing circumstances could lead to changes of plan, but that seems unlikely. I'm also confident that if the Iraqi govt asked for US help, they'd get it.

The Iraqis want us out entirely, and if they are indeed a sovereign nation, particularly a non-belligerent friendly one, we're obliged to comply with their desires. That option was left open in the original agreement that GWB made, and the Iraqis have chosen to exercise it.

 

[duragezic]

http://costofwar.com/en/

Should be up to about 1.3 Trillion in cost by Monday

We're talking about Iraq though.

I thought it was a bit more than $800 billion by now... but knew it was not the trillions and trillions that people claimed for probably the past 3 years.

This isn't a huge surprise to me as I think even by about 2008 Bush was looking at a pretty big drawdown around this time. Although even under Obama I thought there would be a force in Iraq after 2011. I know it was always "troops out by 2011" but I thought that was kind of dumb because there was still probably going to be a sizeable force there. I guess it's only because they didn't come to an agreement with the Iraqis.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Conjecture & innuendo based on attributions about an unknowable set of circumstances.

Didn't try hard enough with Maliki? None of us were there to make that assessment, so what we "feel" is merely projection.

The rest of it? The withdrawal timetable is as GWB and the Iraqis agreed upon years ago. I'm confident that changing circumstances could lead to changes of plan, but that seems unlikely. I'm also confident that if the Iraqi govt asked for US help, they'd get it.

The Iraqis want us out entirely, and if they are indeed a sovereign nation, particularly a non-belligerent friendly one, we're obliged to comply with their desires. That option was left open in the original agreement that GWB made, and the Iraqis have chosen to exercise it.

I agree.... hence the reason I said this :

None of us really know and should leave the "judging" to those that were involved.

 

[HomerJS]

You're the idiot missing the "big picture".

The "big picture" has nothing to do with revisiting the past and speaking of 'what if's'. That's water under the bridge.

I'm quite familiar with Saddam, his hatred of the Iranians and the role of Iraq as a barricade against the Persians and Shi'a, shielding the Sunni regimes.

You've demonstrated no special knowledge here contrary to your arrogance and rudeness.

The 'big picture' is not the good news we're withdrawing, as was laid out under Bush's timetable. We had no choice anyway, our UN mandate expired. The 'big picture' is our failure to reach agreement. Al Maliki has tossed us out and the really troubling part is his acceptance of Iranian influence.

I'm not sure why we're even keeping the 160 there, or how we can assure their safety.

Fern

Many wise people have said if you don't study history you'll never learn from it.