EPTUS pulling out of Iraq - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
| ||
|
QurtStarcraft
United States162 Posts
On October 24 2011 01:23 zeru wrote: what "enemies" are you talking about and how will they prepare to do what? What do you think they are going to do with the remaining 150 troops? Are they safe? Also why would you tell the world the number of troops your a withdrawing? In his case it is to increase him approval not benefit the country. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On October 24 2011 01:19 QurtStarcraft wrote: No see our nimrod of a president says the exact amount of troops we are pulling HOME. Completely letting the enemy prepare for anything they would like to do. Obama's foreign policy is laughable and i cant wait for 2012 so we can get someone with a brain as the head of our country. Mr. Obama and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta kept the door open to further talks on trainers. While civilian and military officials characterized the withdrawal as a clean break, negotiations could always resume. “As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces,” Mr. Obama said. “After all, there will be some difficult days ahead for Iraq, and the United States will continue to have an interest in an Iraq that is stable, secure and self-reliant.” At the Pentagon, however, senior officials said that without a change in the tenor of Iraqi domestic politics, it was unlikely that any enduring American military presence could be negotiated with the Iraqi government. Instead, these officials said, the two countries might look to create what one Pentagon official called “a smaller footprint and more flexible relationship.” That might include organizing joint exercises, inviting Iraqi officers to American military schools and offering to train Iraqis in other Middle Eastern nations where the United States has a presence. Intelligence assessments that Iraq was not at great risk of slipping into chaos in the absence of American forces were a factor in the decision, an American official said. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta held out the possibility of keeping a small force of American military trainers in Iraq in the future, although there are no negotiations under way on numbers or a mission. “We’re prepared to meet their training needs, we’re prepared to engage in exercises with them, we’re prepared to provide guidance and training with regard to their pilots, we’re prepared to continue to develop an ongoing relationship with them in the future,” Mr. Panetta told reporters on his plane on Friday en route to Indonesia. On Friday evening, an American official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the deliberations are confidential, said that negotiations would now center on arrangements that would begin next year, after all United States troops leave. Possibilities being discussed are for some troops to return in 2012, an option preferred by some Iraqi politicians who want to claim credit for ending what many here still call an occupation, even though legally it ended years ago. Other scenarios being discussed include offering training in the United States, in a nearby country such as Kuwait, or having some troops here under NATO auspices. Seriously, go read before posting bullshit that. Pulling back troops doesn't equate to leaving Iraq forever. The partnership has already been established and obviously US top officials aren't going to just leave the country to become unstable since it's strategically and more importantly, our responsibility, important to make sure Iraq is stable and safe. | ||
|
Aberu
United States968 Posts
The skeptic in me can't help but hate Obama for doing this because Election time is coming up. On October 22 2011 02:09 AcuWill wrote: Trying to win an election. This still makes Obama a liar to his base. He ran on the ticket of getting out and outlined how he was going to do it and never once proceeded with what he said. He ran on putting MORE troops in Afghanistan, and he did say he was going to take us out of Iraq... at the end of 2011. Guess what time it is. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On October 24 2011 01:28 QurtStarcraft wrote: What do you think they are going to do with the remaining 150 troops? Are they safe? Also why would you tell the world the number of troops your a withdrawing? In his case it is to increase him approval not benefit the country. First of all, "you're withdrawing" not "your a withdrawing" Secondly, how would a withdrawl of troops work WITHOUT releasing the number of people you're going to pull out? Other people have intelligence networks anyway, even if you didn't say, a mass exodus of people wouldn't be a very easy thing to hide and even if it was it'd be very easy to figure out the number of personnel being left behind. This is called transparency. It's not like when he said we're leaving 150 people behind he listed all the names and locations of those people. What you said is akin to "Hey! Let's establish an embassy in this country but tell no one so the people in the embassy will be safe!" WTF kind of logic is that? | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
QurtStarcraft
United States162 Posts
On October 24 2011 01:30 chaoser wrote: Seriously, go read before posting bullshit that. Pulling back troops doesn't equate to leaving Iraq forever. The partnership has already been established and obviously US top officials aren't going to just leave the country to become unstable since it's strategically and more importantly, our responsibility, important to make sure Iraq is stable and safe. So why leave for a year. The fact of the matter is if the top US officials believe that we need to keep control of the strategically important Iraq/Middle east there is no reason to leave. The reason they stay they may come back is they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again. | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
So why leave for a year. The fact of the matter is if the top US officials believe that we need to keep control of the strategically important Iraq/Middle east there is no reason to leave. The reason they stay they may come back is they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again. Because there was an agreement to pull out the mass majority of troops by the end of 2011 that was signed in 2008??? The only reason the issue of keeping troops there is even an issue is because the IRAQI MILITARY feels they need more training and support before they can fully be self-sufficient. We currently have 39,000 troops in Iraq. We only need from 3k to 5k troops there to train. Of course we're pulling back the vast majority of our troops. God, if you're not going to post sources about "they have some intelligence that the country could fall to shit again." then I'm not going to bother responding since the military has already stated that Iraq has very low chances of falling back into a shithole. You already failed at arguing your point with evidence backing it up. | ||
|
Fus
Sweden1112 Posts
| ||
|
Rafael
Venezuela182 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On October 24 2011 01:51 Fus wrote: While i read the comments i realise most of them are about how good it is that USA is pulling their troops out. But why did USA even go to war? There must be a majority of the people in USA who supports the war aswell... They went to war over WMD's. There has been extensive coverage on how this was sold as a sure thing whilst it was a lot more in the area of "might have WMD's, need to keep an eye out". Iraq also had the "advantage" of being near Afghanistan so it was an easier sell for a war. People will pitch you all kinds of alternative reasons like oil or removing an unfriendly dictator. Both those views fall horribly short and can be refuted by looking at how the US has handled Iraq. The truth is that the official reason was WMD's. Maybe they really believed it, maybe George Bush suffered from an inferiority complex to his father and wanted to do what he couldn't. You see how crazy the reasonings can go? The only answer to your question that is honest is two fold: 1) The war was held because of the fear of WMD's. 2) We do not know and cannot prove there was a greater motive. 3) We can conclude based on behaviour that creating puppet states or obtaining oil was not the intended goal. If that was the goal then it would show in the Iraq we have today. | ||
|
znowstorm
Australia281 Posts
On October 24 2011 01:16 QurtStarcraft wrote: Do you even know the population of Iraq? Destroyed millions of lives? Please. 31 Million as of 2009. Can we say that US involvement in Iraq destroyed the lives of %6.5 of the overall population...probably. At least in the short term (5-10 years since commencement). | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On October 24 2011 02:35 znowstorm wrote: 31 Million as of 2009. Can we say that US involvement in Iraq destroyed the lives of %6.5 of the overall population...probably. At least in the short term (5-10 years since commencement). 6.5% would actually be a very large percentage. It is also based on nothing. You can't just name a number that "feels" right and consider that enough basis for it to be true. | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
Do you see the Arab protests and revolutions this year? If their people don't like their government, then they will fight against it. The only problem is... foreign influences has kept some of the current governments in power. Their own people should revolt against their own oppression, not by a foreign power that seeks much more than that. If there is to be democracy in the Arab nations, then they must want it for themselves and not for us. | ||
|
Sovern
United States312 Posts
They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government. | ||
|
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam. They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government. Religion is not even one of the reason for terrorism. Terrorists use religion to fuel their own agenda. They warp it to a point to get others that follow that religion to gain power. The underlying cause of terrorism is much more than religion. Terrorism is created by fear to invoke fear. Fear causes anger which then in turn causes hate. Some people want to get rid of fear instead of facing it in this world. | ||
|
tjosan
Sweden120 Posts
On October 24 2011 03:45 Sovern wrote: Personally, I think that war is a disgusting thing and I hope that in the future wars aren't fought with living human beings as it seems stupid to waste life on it. But, I do believe that going to war with the terrorists was a good thing as it helps the Iraqi civilians live a better life not having their life ran by evil dictators such as Saddam. They wont have to worry about being killed by suicide bombers or other Iraqi based terrorist groups as much now that Iraq is starting to get a formidable military. The next step in my opinion is to get rid of religion as a whole (one of the sole things responsible for most of the terrorist groups in the middle east) and to start to bring the worlds dictators together so that we can have a unified government. What does "war with the terrorists" have to do with Iraq? There were no suicide bombings or Iraqi based terrorist groups (except those fighting against the regime, and the PKK) before the American invasion and subsequent military occupation. And when it comes to religion I think you should first take care of your own Christian extremists before "getting rid of" religion in the Middle East. Iraq was a highly secular society by the way. Much more secularized than USA is. | ||
pyaar
United States423 Posts
| ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
That being said, wow, 9 years. | ||
|
Ghost-z
United States1291 Posts
| ||
| ||
