Thursday February 16, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Despite formal combat end, U.S. troops join Baghdad battle

World Sep. 06, 2010 - 06:52AM JST ( 22 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

22 Comments

0

semperfiSep. 06, 2010 - 07:55AM JST

American troops found themselves battling heavily armed militants assaulting an Iraqi military headquarters in the center of Baghdad on Sunday. The fighting killed 12 people

"P.E.A.C.E" - - - American style.
0

SargeSep. 06, 2010 - 08:52AM JST

"left Iraqis wary of the U.S. drawdown"

Hey, didn't the Iraqis insist that the U.S. get out?

Gosh, I hope I hope none of the dead or injured were innocent civilians.
0

RomeoRamenIISep. 06, 2010 - 09:41AM JST

But, but, but ... the fighting is over for American troops in Iraq. Barack "turn the page" Obama said so.

RR
0

BeelzebubSep. 06, 2010 - 09:43AM JST

I suppose we'll be reading similar 'mission accomplished' stories like this for some years to come.
0

sabiwabiSep. 06, 2010 - 10:08AM JST

The number of U.S. troops has fallen from a high of 170,000 to just under 50,000 this August; all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by 2012.

I'm curious to know how many "private contractors" are in Iraq.
0

djuiceSep. 06, 2010 - 11:19AM JST

Guess the winds of war blew the turned page back, and now we are fighting again. Big mistake anyway. If the enemy still has the means to attack, then we haven't been allowed to finish our job.
0

TheQuestionSep. 06, 2010 - 11:27AM JST

I'm curious to know how many "private contractors" are in Iraq.

Not that many at this point. Ground based PMC's were used more heavily during the first 4 years when the U.S. needed guards in some of the calmer cities so troops could be used elsewhere. At this point they're used mostly for recon.
0

TriumvereSep. 06, 2010 - 11:36AM JST

"end of combat operations", "non-combat personnel", and "front line" mean very little in modern warfare.
0

sabiwabiSep. 06, 2010 - 04:09PM JST

I'm curious to know how many "private contractors" are in Iraq.

Not that many at this point.

I heard the opposite somewhere, but I don't remember where, that the number of private contractors has expanded significantly to compensate for the decrease in troops. That might be where some of the missing money has gone.
0

MistWizardSep. 06, 2010 - 06:27PM JST

So Obama fooled the "bad guys". But his detractors are pretty mum.
0

lostrune2Sep. 06, 2010 - 07:52PM JST

Iraq has to grow up sooner or later. The US can't baby them forever. At some point, Iraq has to go to the real world and start learning life's hard knocks for themselves and not have overprotective guardians.
0

YuriOtaniSep. 06, 2010 - 10:12PM JST

The US troops were used in a defense only. It is different from going and and seeking militants.
0

SargeSep. 06, 2010 - 10:15PM JST

Obama's Mission Accomplished."
0

lostrune2Sep. 07, 2010 - 04:00AM JST

Obama actually actively tried not to portray it as "Mission Accomplished" knowing how well that did not work out for Bush. Bush wanted "Mission Accomplished;" Obama wants to distance itself from such portrayal.
0

RomeoRamenIISep. 07, 2010 - 05:49AM JST

Obama actually actively tried not to portray it as "Mission Accomplished"

Heh, Obama kept it low key by giving a big speech about it -- calling it, "turning the page" -- on U.S. national TV from the Oval Office, the mainstream media made a big deal out of it and the left jumped up and down in excitement saying it was a "promise made, promise kept".

RR
0

MistWizardSep. 07, 2010 - 08:06AM JST

Of course, we don't have the rightist telling us about the difficulties and realities of war and how things can never be so neat. If it were Bush, they would. But its Obama and Obama is not on their team, so most of them keep quiet. The hardcore hypocrites have spoken though.
0

manfromamericaSep. 07, 2010 - 02:05PM JST

Maybe someone forgot to show the troops Obama's speech??
0

NolivingSep. 07, 2010 - 02:06PM JST

Of course, we don't have the rightist telling us about the difficulties and realities of war and how things can never be so neat. If it were Bush, they would. But its Obama and Obama is not on their team, so most of them keep quiet. The hardcore hypocrites have spoken though.

Oh give me a break! Why the heck should the rightists say anything at all in this situation?
0

manfromamericaSep. 07, 2010 - 02:13PM JST

Why the heck should the rightists say anything at all in this situation?

Spoken like a true Obama-zombie! In fact, I think you quoted directly from Obama's State of the Union address.
0

MistWizardSep. 07, 2010 - 06:11PM JST

Noliving said: Oh give me a break! Why the heck should the rightists say anything at all in this situation?

To defend their president for moving the goalpost a couple days like they did for their president who moved the goalpost several times over FIVE YEARS. What they did not realize is that their SILENCE also counts as hypocrisy.
0

adaydreamSep. 08, 2010 - 01:12AM JST

The US couldn't stay in Iraq until someday when all terrorists, insurgents and any other upset individuals finally lay down their guns and become all peace loving Iraqis. At some point the US military had to start leaving and coming home and making Iraq take control of their own protection.

Not only was it time to start leaving Iraq, it was time to start a test to see if Iraq can handle their own protection. As long as we had 130K in Iraq, there's no test of their capabilities. Take most of the US support out and they can be tested. We still have 50K to give back up if needed, but Iraq has to come up to the plate and do their own job of protecting themselves.

Every nation has to do their own policing. Iraq has to do their own, also. < :-)
0

NolivingSep. 08, 2010 - 07:39AM JST

To defend their president for moving the goalpost a couple days like they did for their president who moved the goalpost several times over FIVE YEARS. What they did not realize is that their SILENCE also counts as hypocrisy.

But no goal post has been moved at all, read the SOFA and terms for combat after the "combat" brigades left. They are not attacking him now are they? In fact republicans have been his biggest supporters in congress in terms of his Afghanistan Strategy and the current Iraq strategy, they don't like his withdrawal timeline though for Afghanistan but they are supportive of the Iraq timeline. In fact more republicans than democrats support Obama on Afghanistan and Iraq. The republicans being silent is not hypocritical at all and you know it!

Also you do realize that the reason why the republicans are beings silent is because no goal post has been moved. Read the SOFA that the US has signed with Iraq and you will see that this type of combat has always been part of the agreement especially when it comes to the withdrawal so I would like for you to show me where the goal post in the SOFA has been moved? Obama never said US forces would not engage in battles/gun battles after the "combat" troops left at the end of August 2010. What Obama said or meant, if you bothered to read the SOFA, is that at the end of August 2010 US forces would no longer engage in combat on their own without Iraqi approval, all combat US engages after the end of August has to be met with Iraqi approval and if I'm not mistaken conducted with Iraqi forces.

Unless you can show me where the goal post has been moved in the SOFA the republicans being silent is not hypocritical at all.