- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
It's not going to. The military is to big and slow to do a withdrawl that quickly. 2013, maybe. Probably 2015.
We have an agreement with the Iraqis to remove all our combat troops by 2011. We made that agreement in 2008. Are you trying to tell me we cannot remove our troops in a 3 year timetable?
It doesn't matter. No one cares about Iraq anymore. It will be another promise Obama made to the left that he will break.
We have an agreement with the Iraqis to remove all our combat troops by 2011. We made that agreement in 2008. Are you trying to tell me we cannot remove our troops in a 3 year timetable?
Obama's reelection will depend on his removing the troops from Iraq
No, we can't and won't. You know the trick right?
The Army is made up of "Brigade Combat Teams". Thus, your term "combat troops". If there are no BCTs in Iraq, then there are no Soldiers, right? Wrong. The Army recently re-named a dozen of it's BCTs. Now we are calling them "AABs" (Advisory and Assistance Brigades)...not "combat troops". (And it was just the units scheduled for Iraq, too...what irony) The units didn't change, just the name. So, no we won't have all combat troops out of Iraq by 2011. That is so rediculous that it's laughable.
And you think the Iraqi and American public will allow that? I don't!
No it won't. No one will give a crap.
And you think the Iraqi and American public will allow that? I don't!
We shall see!
Iraqis are more likely to be mad than Americans. They don't give a crap. I hope it does end, I don't want to go back. My buddies over there now say that they aren't doing anything.
My son left the Air Force after 13 years due to our treatment of the Iraqis.
If Obama loses, Iraq won't have anything to do with it.
On the list of hot issues, Iraq is down by Gay Marraige. Probably farther down the list at this point. No one cares.
In Gulf War 1. Is this the first you've heard of it?
You are the one that brought up Germany and Japan. We did not go to war with either to bring Democracy to them. They were threats, Iraq was not.
That is why your analogy does not apply.
Exactly, that's the same thing I am saying. It was about controlling the region militarily so no one can mess with our oil interests. After we invaded and occupied Iraq, US oil was able to return to the US for the first time since Saddam had kicked them out years ago, and now there is no worry about the pro-west government we installed switching to the Euro as Saddam had threatened to do. And we have bases and troops readily available to prevent any attacks on our government there or sabotage of the oil infrastructure.
Most likely strongly influenced by Iran.
He would not be where he is with out us.
ps quit writing in blue inside the quotes. It's annoying to try and respond. Learn how to multi-quote.
I hope it does end, I don't want to go back.
My buddies over there now say that they aren't doing anything.
If Obama loses, Iraq won't have anything to do with it.
On the list of hot issues, Iraq is down by Gay Marraige. Probably farther down the list at this point. No one cares.
My son left the Air Force after 13 years due to our treatment of the Iraqis.
They are not associated with Commondreams.org.
Even though IBC is as partisan as they come, the media took the bait — hook, line, and sinker. And in the rush to publish the blaring headers of the report — U.S. forces killed four times as many civilians as “anti-occupation forces”! — hardly anyone examined the underlying data.
But they should. The report itself is premised on two years worth of newspaper and web data — well, “data” in a loose sense. IBC rests its laurels on numbers generated from newspaper reports of deaths and newspaper reports of mortuary and hospital logs. The methodology is flawed from the get-go, and though the citations are noted, there are no links to the articles. (That’s not exactly true; there are a couple links to particularly gory stories, like one with the headline, “I saw the heads of my two little girls come off.”) The lack of transparency, however, is only a small flaw in an ocean of methodological errors. Deaths only have to be verified by two of their accepted sources — which include (the non-fair and balanced) CommonDreams.org, Al Jazeera, and ReliefWeb — and often the second source is just a reprint of the first. A death count only has to be mentioned in passing in the article, like a doctor or bystander who gives a reporter casualty estimates.
Alston B. Ramsay on Iraq Body Count on National Review Online
considered by both the right and left to be the most authoritative source on Iraqi deaths.
Let's see your source that is more authoritative than Iraq Body Count? I have asked you before and you have provided nothing.
Do you have anything to add to this discussion?
Ancient history.
We still have two active wars that were spawned from it. To me, that makes it relevant.
My analogy does apply. It is not about the differences with how we got to those places and Iraq. It is about what we did when we got there and rebuild the countries.
It makes a difference if our reason for being there was invalid.
We are buying it on the open market.
Iraq was not safe for oil contractors (and US oil companies were not allowed) before the war. Now, via our heavily armed occupation they are.
We'll see how the Iraqis decide the Open List/Closed List issue to see how much influence the Iranians have.
True, but we didn't install him. The Iraqi coalition that won the election selected him.
Damn, that's a big decision. Is he happy about his choice?
I think I would stick with the link kansaswhig was so gracious as to provide. iCasualties | Operation Iraqi Freedom | Iraq They seem sound, and fair.
If it makes you feel better to use Kansaswhig's site, we can go with that. Being responsible for the needless deaths of 46,000 civilians to me is just as immoral for being responsible for 100,000 civilians as determined by the British Research Group.
The terrorist were only responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11.
Aside from that I have always relied on what the Pentagon has said in relation to numbers in Iraq.
If it makes you feel better to use Kansaswhig's site, we can go with that. Being responsible for the needless deaths of 46,000 civilians to me is just as immoral for being responsible for 100,000 civilians as determined by the British Research Group.
considered by both the right and left to be the most authoritative source on Iraqi deaths.
The terrorist were only responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11.
"We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.
We still have two active wars that were spawned from it. To me, that makes it relevantreefedjib said:Ancient historyCatawba said:In Gulf War 1. Is this the first you've heard of it?reefedjib said:We did not do this in Operation Iraqi Freedom. When did we do this?Catawba said:You mean excepting when we strike water treatment plants and electricity plants that result in the deaths of a hundred thousand innocent civilians?reefedjib said:Yes. Perhaps you just don't realize the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians. You need to ackowledge that.
It makes a difference if our reason for being there was invalid.reefedjib said:My analogy does apply. It is not about the differences with how we got to those places[Germany, Japan, Korea] and Iraq. It is about what we did when we got there and rebuild the countries.
Iraq was not safe for oil contractors (and US oil companies were not allowed) before the war. Now, via our heavily armed occupation they are
That's right, it is all up in the air. Much too early to be talking successes which all are likely to evaporate after our troops are removed.reefedjib said:We'll see how the Iraqis decide the Open List/Closed List issue to see how much influence the Iranians have
Could not have happened without our invasion, armed occupation and appointment to the Interim government. We enabled the whole pro-west government we still defend with American tax dollars and lives today!reefedjib said:True, but we didn't install him[al'Maliki]. The Iraqi coalition that won the election selected him[al'Maliki]Catawba said:He would not be where he is with out us
Now, about the 46,000 casualties. Regrettable ofcourse, and they gave their lives in the making of a free Iraq.
You speak as if the 46,000 Iraqi citizens voluntarily gave their lives for freedom, when in fact it we that sacrificed their lives so we could control the middle east oil reserves.
But I think that is amazing. At NO time in the measurement of casualties in wartime has a count been so low.
It is not a war it is an optional and immoral invasion and occupation of a country that never attacked us.
The US showed great restraint, and technological know how to keep collateral damage so low.
What are you talking about? Is your defense that we kill more people accidently than the terrorists do on purpose?
Oh, so war should be a tit for tat exercise should it?
No, there should be a reason for invading and occupying another country.
So?
Catawba, welcome back. I thought you had conceded these last few points! We have put a lot of sweat into it! We are reaching points which we will not resolve so it may be best to say "we don't agree". I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is a lot of work on me to sort out your lack of correct multi-quotes in your responses. Please start multi-quoting, or I will have to end my participation this interesting debate.
You will be missed.
No concession, just life.
It has nothing to do with "the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians." in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
You need to ackowledge that!
I see no difference in us knowingly bombing civilian infrastructure that we knew would result in the deaths of tens of thousands.
The Islamic extremists certainly saw it that way, hence their attack on 9/11!
Not one bit. My analogy was that we have previously built democracies successfully and that has nothing to do with how we went in. Our reason for being there is not invalid. We are there.
We are there for immoral reasons which some try to validate by saying we killed thousands for their own good.
Yes, indeed. This is another good thing. The US oil companies won their contracts through open bidding. What you consider a good thing I consider an immoral trading of human lives for future oil.
You are right, I will never agree with you on this.
It is all not up in the air. Only the amount of Iranian influence is in question and that is a question for the Iraqis to answer. They are not "likely to evaporate after our troops are removed". Prove that.
Just as soon as our military occupation ends, I will! Until that happens all that you can say for sure is that we have a successful occupation. We outgun Iraq. We knew that before we attacked them.
Yes, you are correct. That is the meaning of my "True" above. My point still stands: we didn't install him, he was placed in power through the Iraqi democratic process.
It looks like Iraqis chose against Iran's wishes, Catawba. The 'open list' takes it in the election law.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tion-law-smoothing-way-january-elections.html
Great! After our 6 years of occupation we almost have Iraq back at the point of stability under Saddam, and it only cost tens of thousands of lives and a couple trillion in taxpayer debt, and it all collapses when we stop occupying Iraq.
Whoopee!
Pathetic. You would condone Saddam's malicious rule as stability.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?