Monday May 28, 2012

Obama: U.S. combat in Iraq over; 'time to turn page'

World ( 92 )

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

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

92 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    semperfi

    So Iraq can now be filed under the previous succession of humiliating defeats US government has experienced. The untold tragedy is the thousands of Americans who have been killed ( and those injured ) for a lost cause - - - whose families lives have been forever changed. Not to mention the chaos that American "liberation of Iraq" and engendered.

  • 0

    whiskeysour

    Obama is good- Bush is badddddddd !!!! How can Bush sleep at night knowing American and civilian lives we be totally lost due to his decision making. Bush's Blunders the economy,prevention of 9/11, aftermath from 9/11, WMD ???? in Iraq, Invasion, Katrina, approving Gulf of Mexico (oil drilling), Afgan war,CIA hunting bin laden for 20 years never finding nothing but air, and the way Bush uses English.

    Fittingly, Obama called Bush about Iraq on Tuesday, more than seven years after the former president declared that major combat operations were over. The White House said the call was private and would not say more.

    Obama's phone call conversation to Bush Obama: " Hey,you really f$&& things up didn't you ? " Bush: " I love War, I'm a War president ! " Bush: " My pet goat told me to go to War ! "

  • 0

    semperfi

    whiskeysour : >Obama is good

    Oh puhleeeeeze ! So what is Obama doing stepping up US presence in Afghanistan ??? . . . .Obama is just as much a puppet as Bush was - - -strings being pulled by the surreptious yet mighty US war industry.

  • 0

    KakiOko

    So endeth a shameful period in America's history.....but I bet, even as I write this, Fox News is spouting gibberish about the victorious outcome in Iraq and the good things America brought to the country....like....hmmm....somebody help me out here...what was it all for, again?

  • 0

    Beelzebub

    somebody help me out here...what was it all for, again?

    The day after 9/11 all the flags at the UN in New York were flown at half staff except Iraq's. It was Saddam's way of saying he felt no compunction to express sympathy to the country that had kicked his butt out of Kuwait nine years earlier. An infuriated GW Bush saw this as a provocation, which he turned into a justification for attacking Iraq. All of the pretexts successively offered for doing so -- Al-Qaeda complicity, WMDs, genocidal attacks against Kurds, bringing democracy to the middle east, etc. -- were spurious. Americans went along because they were angry and sought to recover their lost face by attacking a country they knew they could easily defeat militarily. So much for 'Mission Accomplished'.

  • 0

    KakiOko

    What a waste of time, money and human lives....on all sides. GW Bush should never have been given authority over anything more complicated than a GameBoy console.

  • 0

    rajakumar

    Love it,waited for this long time>>>End of US combat in Iraq.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    So, Obama is close to mopping up one of the long list of disasters left for him by bush. Now, perhaps Obama will have a little more time to focus on other disastrous bush legacies such as the explodding debt and the recession, both of which melted down under the former president. Back to Iraq, I think it's insulting to see certain posters on this site claim Iraq was 'liberated' when, after 7 years of conflict, millions of Iraqis are living in squalor, misplaced, and still with minimal power and water. Oh wait! They now have 'free elections'! If they don't have jobs and can't feed their kids, how will the ability to vote improve their everyday lives?

  • 0

    skipbeat

    Obama always include Bush in all his speeches as to make himself look better than Bush. This is immature and unprofessional of Obama. Obama lacks character and will say whatever will make him look good and get votes for the next presidential election.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    It is the people who are at fault where the country is at because no one wants to stand up for what they believe in regards to Iraq. If people are looking to blame Bush then look in the mirror. Obama and congress did not speak up against Bush when the decision was made to go to war in Iraq. They were too busy to look good for re-election.

    The media will go with whoever is in the WH.

  • 0

    porter

    The Iraq war is a failed investment. Sure the reasons to enter were lies but who would care now if the US was prospering like it did from the WWII war effort.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    Another failure by along line of failed politicians. Now Obama can also claim this failure as his own.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    The failed bush-legacy wars will likely drain at least $2 trillion out of U.S. coffers when - if ever - U.S. involvement ever ends. Ironically, many of the people who are wailing the loudest about the exploding deficit are the same folk who supported the coffer-draining wars. Will they ever admit this? No. To them, the Iraq invasion was all about invading a country they had never thought twice about to free a people they never cared about who had been ruled by a U.S.-armed dictator who wasn't a threat. But if you listen to their revisionist spin, you'll hear crap like 'liberation,' free elections' and how Iraqis are now 'better off' in a country where most people are lucky to get 4 hours of electricity a day. If you believe that, you'll probably also think Obama is a Muslim and isn't American...

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    manfromamerica, if your idea of failure is dramatically slowing the flow of borrowed money into the black hole of Iraq, I'd call it an a success.

  • 0

    adaydream

    There was no way to have the speech without mentioning bush. Obama was very gracious in his reference to him.

    Now let's get the rest of them out.

    Now let's start getting out of Afghanistan. < :-)

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    Fiercely opposed to the war from the start,

    Great revisionism by the AP. He wasn't in Congress at the time, nor is there any record of him being "fiercely opposed" to it.

    The left will believe anything.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    manfromamerica, if your idea of failure is dramatically slowing the flow of borrowed money into the black hole of Iraq, I'd call it an a success.

    LOL... so it's all about your money for you. I thought your opposition was humanitarian. You really need to get your arguments straight, you have no consistency. Or maybe this time you were finally honest that all you care about is money.

    Anyway, Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-trillion dollar debt Obama is getting us into.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    America was most likely looked upon as a liberator by the majority of Iraqis and now they will look at America as her turning her back on Iraq just like when Saddam was oppression people who oppose him. This was the same thing that happened before Saddam was was put into power with the U.S. backing him in the Iran and Iraq war. The U.S. allowed Saddam in power. The people who oppose Saddam lived a harsh life under him. America turned a blind eye to the Iraqis plight under Saddam.

    This speech Obama is giving is to save his post and win brownie points with the American people and people around the world. This move is not in favor of the Iraqis and is an unjust to the majority of the Iraqis when the country does not have the simplest and necessity such as clean water and electricity along with jobs and a stable government. The plight and fate of the Iraqis will be expandable for the sake of the getting votes.

    After Years of War, Few Iraqis Have a Clear View of the Future @http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html?ref=world

    "What American officials portray as their greatest accomplishment — a nascent democracy, however flawed — often generates a rueful response. “People can’t live only on the air they breathe,” said Qassem Sebti, an artist."

  • 0

    adaydream

    He got my vote when he promised to end combat operations in Iraq.

    Promise made, promise kept. < :-)

  • 0

    toguro

    "Obama always include Bush in all his speeches as to make himself look better than Bush. This is immature and unprofessional of Obama. Obama lacks character and will say whatever will make him look good and get votes for the next presidential election."

    @skipbeat-Exactly what was in tonight's speech, that made Bush look bad, and was so immature of Obama to say? Can you also please tell me exactly why the war was waged in Iraq? Because I heard a few different reasons coming from former President Bush, and if those were supposed to be valid reasons, then why is North Korea getting a free pass, among other countries? The U.S. is still at war with North Korea, and would have far more legitimacy for attacking them, as opposed to Hussein's Iraq.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    manfromamerica, it's all about the money for most Americans at the moment. And you thought I was opposed on humanitarian grounds? Sorry, you must have confused me with somebody else. I'm more opposed on idiot grounds, ie: deciding to invade was an idiot decision made and supported by a bunch of idiots.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    adaydream,

    That's why it is a travesty for the Iraqis. The U.S. have no credibility in foreign policy because they start these wars and end up leaving people in those countries to face their doom.

  • 0

    toguro

    "America was most likely looked upon as a liberator by the majority of Iraqis and now they will look at America as her turning her back on Iraq just like when Saddam was oppression people who oppose him. This was the same thing that happened before Saddam was was put into power with the U.S. backing him in the Iran and Iraq war. The U.S. allowed Saddam in power. The people who oppose Saddam lived a harsh life under him. America turned a blind eye to the Iraqis plight under Saddam."

    @skipbeat-It was the leaders of Iraq that wanted the U.S. out, and pushed for an exit plan. They have the option to ask the U.S. to stay if they feel that they want/need the U.S. there. As of yet, they have not done so. As much as you would like to blame the "early withdrawl" on Obama, it was the Bush Administration that negotiated it with the Iraqi leadership.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    toguro,

    Of course Obama didn't out right accused Bush because that would make Obama as guilty as Bush for not protesting against the war. Obama silence is indirectly saying he agreed with Bush decision. This speech is all about politics and how everyone is on one side, but wait til campaign season and Obama would accuse Bush for the domestic problems and foreign policy.

    Congress is the body that signed off on going to war.

    There is nothing in N. Korea to have except nuclear warheads. It's all about ego. Whether N. Korea or Iran have nuclear warheads makes the world safer because it keeps everybody in check. If N. Korea uses nuclear warheads N. Korea knows what will happen to her country. It's all threats. Obama is doing the same thing as Bush did in regards to Iraq with N. Korea. It's common sense that the elites in N. Korea are not going to be suffering as much as the common people. So more sanctions are not going to improve the situation because the leader does not care for the people. It only show that the U.S. still have some kind of authority.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    @skipbeat-It was the leaders of Iraq that wanted the U.S. out, and pushed for an exit plan. They have the option to ask the U.S. to stay if they feel that they want/need the U.S. there. As of yet, they have not done so. As much as you would like to blame the "early withdrawl" on Obama, it was the Bush Administration that negotiated it with the Iraqi leadership.

    By your omission, Bush should get credit for withdrawing the U.S. combat in Iraq, right.

    Then, Adaydream voted for the wrong the president.

    "He got my vote when he promised to end combat operations in Iraq. Promise made, promise kept. < :-)"

  • 0

    Klein2

    "He got my vote when he promised to end combat operations in Iraq.

    Promise made, promise kept. < :-)"

    Short and sweet. Nice. Maybe it should be that simple. Keeping promises to voters is hugely underrated. I wonder if Obama has a list of his promises somewhere and just ticks them off as he does them. People should support a person like that.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    adaydream - he never promised to end combat operations. He promised totally withdrawal from Iraq in 12 months from inauguration. Now "combat operations" are over, but 50,000 US troops are fighting. You Demos are hilarious.

    Sushisake - No, I believe the money was never the issue before, it was about your so-called "Bush war crimes". Now at least you finally admit that your arguments were worthless talking points, and that you are just a Democrat tool.

  • 0

    Klein2

    "Congress is the body that signed off on going to war."

    Oh yeah. And the Wall Street bailout too. But the Executive, if it works its timing and spin just right, can get the votes from a harried and panicky group of representatives. It is so obvious that George Lucas wrote it into his movies as Palpatine eclipses the senate. It is a really old trick to play on legislatures.

    "If N. Korea uses nuclear warheads N. Korea knows what will happen to her country. It's all threats. "

    And that is fine as long as we can keep track of all the nukes all the time. If one gets out, who knows WHERE it will turn up? For instance, where are South Africa's nukes? Do you know?

    Your arguments move along pretty quickly, but if you stop to look at them, it is hard to accept them at face value.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "hundreds of billions of dollars spent since March 2003"

    Even if Iraq had not been liberated, they would have spent most of that anyway, and most of that would have been wasted. The U.S. government is the biggest waster of money in history.

    "time to turn page"

    Yeah, since Iraq was liberated, we can turn the page. If Obama had his way in 2003, he'd be dealing with you-know-who, still running Iraq into the ground from you-know-where.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    Love the AP Obama cover-up: He was "fiercely against" the war from the start. Really? From the Illinois state legislature? What record is there that we was "fiercely against" it? Not merely "against" it, he was "fiercely against" it. It's called liberal editorializing = new "facts"

  • 0

    skipbeat

    Klein2,

    You don't have to accept them at face value, and you have your own interpretations as how you see the world from your living room.

    Congress have the power to declared war. That is stated in the Constitution.

    It is all threats as of now. If N. Korea was going to use nuclear warheads they would have done it by now. The problem with N. Korea is that she have isolated herself from the rest of the world unlike China. If capitalism was to flourish in N. Korea as we speak N. Korea would be S. Korea and Japan next rival in producing goods. N. Korea would move away from being a communist country.

    As far as nuclear warheads are developed, why do you think there haven't been a nuclear warhead war? Because all the countries who developed nuclear warheads knows the destruction it can do to mankind.

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    Anyway, Iraq is a drop in the bucket compared to the multi-trillion dollar debt Obama is getting us into......The U.S. government is the biggest waster of money in history.

    Yawn, yawn, yawn....

    The US government is debt due to the following. Cost of Iraq and Afghan wars, plus cost of Bush tax cuts, minus loss of government revenues because you bozos trashed your productive economy with 30 years of idiotic, voodoo economics.

    All three the responsibility of Republican administrations, with some help from Clinton on the third one. The debt has almost nothing to do with Obama, and voting back in the Repubs will change nothing about the debt either, other than it will give certain nutjobs an excuse to screw things up even more.

  • 0

    djuice

    I guess that Obama is right, it's time to turn the page. He will witness the page turning in November.

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    manfromamerica, I have been talking about the cost of this war for years. Are you sure you're not just making up accusations to cover up your lack of a coherent argument?

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    bozos

    Hey, namecalling - how grown-up of you!

    Besides that, everything you just said is wildly wrong. :-)

  • 0

    Sarge

    "The debt has almost nothing to do with Obama"

    Except that since his immaculation it's increased another $2.7 trillion.

    Obama: "We have met our responsibility"

    But if Obama had been president in 2003, we never would have.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    hey sushisake- I'm just trying to understand the evolution of your agruments. So you were never against it from the viewpoint of Iraqi sovereignty, or opposition to violence, opposition to pre-emptive action, so-called "unilateralism", danger to lives of US troops, or any of the above. You just didn't want to spend the money. That's fine, I just want everyone to be clear on this.

    So you're a capitalist!

  • 0

    GJDailleult

    Sorry mfa, but I just happen to think that taking the richest country in the history of the earth and running it into the ground qualifies one as a bozo.

    Except that since his immaculation it's increased another $2.7 trillion.

    And it will continue to increase when you throw him out and put in whatever Tea party/Republican you want. That is what happens in a depression. Oh sorry, recession. Sorry again - It's a RECOVERY!!! Silly me!

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    And it will continue to increase when you throw him out and put in whatever Tea party/Republican you want. That is what happens in a depression. Oh sorry, recession. Sorry again - It's a RECOVERY!!! Silly me!

    GJD - so the recession/depression/recovery is independent of government actions? But I thought you blamed Bush for it? So why then do you support Obama? You just erased all of your own arguments. :-)

  • 0

    SushiSake3

    manfromamerica, before you come out with any more wide-eyed accusations and run off the rails again, try making sure you've got the right poster.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    sushisake - just be clear when you post. You only care about the spending. Just want everyone to be clear why you oppose the actions in Iraq. Hey, I agree with you!

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    As I and my capitalist brother Sushisake agree, we should not have spent the money paying for a 8 year operation like this. The white house and congress in both administrations continually supported this. If we were ever going to enter Iraq, we should have obliterated them from the start, or we should be taking their oil now as payment to pay for our continuing support.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    I still want to know how the AP knows that Obama was "fiercely opposed to the war from the start". Ohhh, because Obama said "I was against it" in a campaign 5 years later. And where did the "fiercely" come from?

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    " Obama took pains to thank troops for their sacrifice but made clear he saw the day as more the marking of a mistake ended than a mission accomplished. He spoke of strained relations with allies, anger at home and the heaviest of wartime tolls."

    Obama setting things straight has really got to upset the nuts that have supported this disaster. Now they will no doubt shift to simply blaming Obama for the war in Iraq, and the chaos that follows as troops finish all missions there. Saying this war was a mistake is the understatement of the past decade, and it's amazing that people still can't see that.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    Obama setting things straight

    Thanking the troops set things straight? 50,000 troops still fighting in Iraq means we are out of Iraq? I guess that logic explains "we've added trillions of dollars in debt and caused a depression, but it has saved jobs and the economy" line that the Demos are offering.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    Promise made, promise kept.

    Time to dispense with the “promise kept” lie, because that’s exactly what it is.

    During the campaign Obama promised on his Website to have all American troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office regardless of conditions on the ground. That deadline passed on May 20th.

    Also, during the campaign, Obama repeatedly criticized the surge strategy when in reality it proved so effective that he is not only applying it in Afghanistan, but also now has its author, Gen. David Petraeus, running it.

    As for him taking credit for ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq, he did no such thing but instead followed the game plan left for him by Mr. Bush that was agreed upon by Iraq and the U.S. in 2003.

    What's more, combat troops are still deploying to Iraq. A combat brigade from Ft. Hood will be leaving for there on Friday. The only change is what they will be called: from BCT's (brigade combat teams) to "advice and assist" units. Same people, same weaponry, same job as before Obama's speech.

    Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    (Obama) said the nation’s most urgent priority now must be fixing its own sickly economy

    That will begin to happen when the democrats are voted out of office in November.

    RR

  • 0

    Junnama

    Reading the comments here it is apparent history began in 2008. What happened before... Nobody knows :0

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    RR -

    What's more, combat troops are still deploying to Iraq.

    That's exactly right. The speech was nothing more than that - a speech, and a bad and almost incoherent one at that.

    The Demos buy whatever lines the Obama gives.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    “It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset,” Obama said.

    No it's not. No one even heard of Obama at the war's outset. What exactly did he do to "fiercely oppose the war"? Run for office in 2008? Revisionist history at its best, and supported and helped by the liberal media.

  • 0

    proxy

    There are only two ways for Iraq to go, better or worse. I wonder which it will be. Hope for the best, fear for the worst.

  • 0

    ulysses

    Ending the combat role is a good start to calling the troops back home. Obama is focusing on what concerns the country most, setting right 8 years of economic mismanagement.

    RR: Bush and Co's game plan was unrealistic at the best with no understanding of Iraq's society. They were not even aware the country is divided on sectarian lines .

    What exactly did he do to "fiercely oppose the war"?

    Search the net and you'll know. Juvenile questions have no place in this forum.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    This war is not over and neither is American involvement in it. For Obama to act as though it is is a great disservice to those troops still very much in harm's way every day over there.

    RR

  • 0

    ulysses

    The war is not over, but what is going to get over is the US troops active involvement in it. If this is not clear, the issue is not as much with Obama's acting skills, but more with simple English comprehension skills of people.

    The troops are not only still in harm's way but they will be even more so till 2011, as they are not in active combat. Nobody denies this, but this is necessary to be able to pull out completely.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    manfromamerica -

    What exactly did he do to "fiercely oppose the war"?

    Well for starters, in 2007 then-Senators Obama And Biden joined fellow democrats who voted four times to cut funding for troops deployed in Iraq.

    RR

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    but what is going to get over is the US troops active involvement in it ... the issue is not as much with Obama's acting skills, but more with simple English comprehension skills of people. *

    Americans don't expect global liberals to know that the United States still has military personnel stationed in S. Korea nearly 60 years after hostilities between those two countries "ended" in the early 1950s (a peace treaty has never been signed by the two Koreas, FYI).

    It will take that long -- if not longer -- before the last U.S. troop is withdrawn from Iraq.

    RR

  • 0

    MistWizard

    manfromamerica said: Great revisionism by the AP. He wasn't in Congress at the time,

    And nobody said he was. No revisionsim on that score. I was not in Congress at the time either. And I was fiercely opposed to the invasion.

    nor is there any record of him being "fiercely opposed" to it.

    Nor is there any record of me being fiercely opposed. In fact, not everybody knew I was. Its called politics, and though you are so fiercely opposed to something you may wish to draw a katana and hack and slash all the fools who drank the war hawk Kool-Aid, you can't. In fact, it won't even do any good to yell and scream. So you bite your tongue and state your case, hoping words can over-ride the Kool-Aid, as if you are James T. Kirk convincing a well-programmed computer to change its mind.

    The left will believe anything.

    Yet, you are the only one who ran with this "fiercely" opposed thing as opposed to just plain opposed. Unbelievable that you make a big deal over this hair-splitting that only you are talking about instead of seeing the FAR more important point that at the very least Obama did not drink the Kool-aid unlike nearly every member of the U.S. Congress (of which Obama was not yet a member. Yeah, we know that.)

    Part of the reason many of us supported Obama in the election is the fact that he did not drink the Kool-aid if this quote from 2004 is accurate:

    I would have voted not to authorize the president to go to war given the facts as I saw them at that time. But, as I said, I wasn’t there and what is absolutely clear as we move forward is that if we don’t have a change in tone & a change in administration, I think we’re going to have trouble making sure that our troops are secure and that we succeed in Iraq.

  • 0

    MistWizard

    manfromamerica said: No it's not. No one even heard of Obama at the war's outset.

    First you complain that Obama was not high enough up the food-chain at the time, then you whine that you did not hear his opinion at the time. Well somebody knew who he was and even asked his opinion: Obama says "Nay!" from 2002 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po&feature=related

    But don't worry you still split that hair about just how opposed he was despite being one of the few Americans, like myself, who had not drunk the Kool-Aid. We all know you did.

  • 0

    whiskeysour

    Thank you george bush

  • 0

    sailwind

    While they bicker both left and right.......Our Military did the mission and completed the job.

    Thank you to all that serve presently and all who served in the past. Words fail to express the debt that all Americans owe you.

  • 0

    RomeoRamenII

    The left wants to ignor the fact that candidate Obama's original promise to voters was a total withdrawal of U.S. troops within 16 months of taking office. Heh, so much for a "promise kept".

    What's more, the withdrawl of U.S. combat troops was always Mr. Bush's game plan. Obama did absolutely nothing to alter the original timeline agreed upon back in '03. When the sun rises tomorrow morning look for Obama to take credit for that, too.

    RR

  • 0

    Yumimoto

    Fiercely opposed to the war from the start, President Barack Obama formally ended the U.S. combat role in Iraq after seven long years of bloodshed

    Get ready for the next step : war in Iran...

  • 0

    Spider

    America is a millitary dictatorship that dare not speak it's name.

  • 0

    adaydream

    manfromamerica at 01:38 PM JST - 1st September

    adaydream - he never promised to end combat operations. He promised totally withdrawal from Iraq in 12 months from inauguration.

    Prove your post.

    RomeoRamenII

    During the campaign Obama promised on his Website to have all American troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office regardless of conditions on the ground. That deadline passed on May 20th.

    I remember bush's reasons for going into Iraq, and you bought every reason bush mention hook, line and sinker. Every lie.

    What's more, the withdrawl of U.S. combat troops was always Mr. Bush's game plan.

    Sure it was, but we didn't need to wait 100 years. John McCain was liked bush's plan also. He was hoping on another 100 more years of occupation in Iraq.

    No matter what Obama had said, you republicans would be complaining. You want to support the republican war machine over ending the war.

    It's so wonderful the way 'most' of you posters are real good about complaining but have never served a single day of service for your country. < :-)

  • 0

    Taka313

    It will never be "time to turn the page" as long as the architecs of the Iraq invasion remain free behind bars.

    Taka

  • 0

    Taka313

    or we should be taking their oil now as payment to pay for our continuing support.

    That has to be the most spoiled, selfish and unrealistic thing posted here all year.

    Wow.

    Taka

  • 0

    lrodriguezsosa

    The war is over. There must be nothing more to be blow up o get killed...

  • 0

    alphawolf

    I dont' care for Obama, but I'm glad he done this.. I give him credit for fulfilling his promise. Now I hope he looses his majority in November. He is ruining the economy.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Taka313: "It will never be time to "turn the page" as long as the architecs of the Iraq invasion are free behind bars"

    What does "free behind bars mean?"

    And are you saying that you want the people responsible for Obama not having to deal with you-know-who jailed?

  • 0

    MistWizard

    manfromamerica said: he never promised to end combat operations. He promised totally withdrawal from Iraq in 12 months from inauguration.

    Politifact says: "Barack Obama will work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months."

    RomeoRamenII said: During the campaign Obama promised on his Website to have all American troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office regardless of conditions on the ground.

    Sorry boys, but I cannot even consider your words as spin. I don't know where you guys get your information, but the fact that you guys don't post very many links or direct quotes makes me think you make it up or have been misled by voices on the radio. You guys simply need to read more or you will always be wrong. He said what he said. Not what you wish he had said.

  • 0

    MistWizard

    alphawolf said: He is ruining the economy.

    This is like saying that Greece is ruining the Parthenon. You cannot ruin that which has already been ruined. You might want to give credit where credit is due there too.

  • 0

    toguro

    "By your omission, Bush should get credit for withdrawing the U.S. combat in Iraq, right."

    @skipbeat-That's the equivalent, of me walking up to someone, beating them up, then taking them to the hospital, and getting credit for the person not suffering from their injuries, because I took them to the hospital. So if it makes you feel better, then yes, Bush gets credit for pulling the troops out of a war that he never should've had them in, in the first place. With regards to North Korea, I think you were missing my point. Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were, at first because they had WMDs. Then when it was proven that they didn't, the reason changed to, because the Iraqi people were living in tyrany, and constant fear of their lives. When I asked why North Korea gets a free pass, is because, all of the reasons that he gave for invading Iraq, held, and still holds true for North Korea. So why is there no invasion of the North? It is a fact, that with Hussein in power, it kept the country of Iran in check. Now with Husseins Iraq gone, there was a significant shift in the power balance in the Middle East.

  • 0

    MistWizard

    toguro said: So if it makes you feel better, then yes, Bush gets credit for pulling the troops out of a war that he never should've had them in, in the first place.

    Partial credit only. Just because Bush made the promise does not mean that Obama had to honor it necessarily. I have to wonder if Bob McCain would have honored it. Obama could have stalled or backtracked. In some ways it does appear that he is stalling. But this is not some promise to wash the dishes. This is a freaking occupation of a foreign land. A promise mostly kept is as good as its going to get. Anyone whining about details on something like this needs to be shoved out of the car and made to walk home.

  • 0

    toguro

    @MistWizard-I agree.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    "fircely opposed to the war from the start"

    No one has yet shown anything that backs this up.

    RR - he voted against supporting the troops years after the war started.

    you are the only one who ran with this "fiercely" opposed thing as opposed to just plain opposed.

    It just shows the AP and other neo-commie outlets are part of the Obama propaganda machine, and shows the hypocrisy that the left-wingers and other Demos believe anything the Party tell them, like the good comrades they are. :-)

  • 0

    ulysses

    Obama had opposed the war even before it began, anybody who really wants proof can check themselves. The 2007 vote which few of the posters seem to be harping about was symbolic, intended to pressurize Bush & Co to pull out of Iraq.

    No one has yet shown anything that backs this up.

    Reading is a good habit, you might want to take it up one of these days.

    It just shows the AP and other neo-commie outlets are part of the Obama propaganda machine, and shows the hypocrisy that the left-wingers and other Demos believe anything the Party tell them, like the good comrades they are. :-)

    Doesn't mean much does it? Random words thrown together with an odd 'commie' , 'leftist' in between.

  • 0

    MistWizard

    manfromamerica, no need to thank me for giving you Obama's opinion before the war started. Also no need to admit that you only make a show of caring. Just go back to politically hacking that hair of whether his opposition was fierce or not.

    Course, when most of the country has grabbed their ankles for the president and his bogus war, just being one of the few who has the guts to refuse can be considered fierce. The word does not necessarily mean he got violent.

    But you should have just been happy with the description of him being fierce in his opposition rather than making me point out how so many were cowardly and stupid in their acquiesence. But you just can't please some people no matter how nicely you choose your words.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    ahh ulysses,

    How did Obama demonstrate his fierce opposition from the Illinois Assembly?

  • 0

    michaelqtodd

    PEACE

  • 0

    Junnama

    Amazing, when gwb was busy doing epic damage to the country, that it will likely take decades to fix, Obama was a state senator. How did that happen?

  • 0

    ulysses

    How did Obama demonstrate his fierce opposition from the Illinois Assembly?

    Do let me know where else you want him to have had shown opposition, at home, park, bar.......

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    hey ulysses, The AP is presenting this opinion as fact in the opening. When did this happen? How was he fiercely against it?

    The journo-lists and the left-wingers are like a cult of believers.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    It is a fact, that with Hussein in power, it kept the country of Iran in check. Now with Husseins Iraq gone, there was a significant shift in the power balance in the Middle East.

    toguro - so you agree with Reagan's policy towards Iraq in the early to mid 80s! Good for you!

    Moderator: Back on topic please.

  • 0

    ulysses

    The AP is presenting this opinion as fact in the opening.

    Because it is. Try to read and then light will dawn.

    The journo-lists and the left-wingers are like a cult of believers.

    Cult of believers are those who took their dear leaders word on Saddam being behind 9/11, stockpiling WMDs etc etc and went to a war where they lost 4400 of their own soldiers and achieved nothing.

    Cult of believers are those who blame Obama for the economic mess, while totally ignoring the rot that set in during 8 years of moronic rule.

    I can go on and on but it would be beyond the scope of your limited understanding.

  • 0

    skipbeat

    MistWizard: This is a freaking occupation of a foreign land. A promise mostly kept is as good as its going to get. Anyone whining about details on something like this needs to be shoved out of the car and made to walk home.

    It's called honor or character that does not translate "as good as its going to get." Because that translates into politics.

    No one is whining about anything here. Yes, insignificant details or significant details are all relevant when it concerns a person(s) decision makings that effect others. Toguro was saying Obama gets the credit for ending the U.S. combat in Iraq by keeping his promise. My point is look at the big picture. If you thinks this is over, the U.S. government will want their military in the Middle East just like in Europe and Asia.

    toguro said,

    It is a fact, that with Hussein in power, it kept the country of Iran in check. Now with Husseins Iraq gone, there was a significant shift in the power balance in the Middle East.

    Saddam used chemical warfare on his own people. Saddam was a leader who used fear and torture to control the country just like the leader in N. Korea. You are forgetting Saudi Arabia and Turkey two major countries that play a significant role in the Middle East along with other Arab nations. Iraq did not play a major role in the Middle East. The power may have shifted to Iran. The problem is the different tribes that don't get along due to past history that will cause Iraq and Iran to be unstable.

    So why is there no invasion of the North?

    If you are still wondering why then good luck in your search for the answers. Here is my take on it, there is already U.S. military presence in Okinawa and S. Korea.

    Regardless of Bush or Obama they both failed to rebuild Iraq like Japan. Think of all the possibilities of peace around the world if peace, freedom, and liberty were achieved in rebuilding Iraq, the problem of Iran and N. Korea would be non-existent. That's another debate.

  • 0

    manfromamerica

    Anyway, combat time in Iraq is over. Now it's fighting time in Iraq.

  • 0

    Spider

    All this chatter about keeping Iran in check; whose keeping the USA millitary machine in check?

  • 0

    toguro

    "toguro - so you agree with Reagan's policy towards Iraq in the early to mid 80s! Good for you!"

    @manfromamerica-please show me where I said that I either agreed, or disagreed with Reagan's policy towards Iraq in the 80's? I merely stated a fact. And since you feel it was only Reagan's policy, did you realize that the U.S. was already on it's 3rd president since Reagan, and Hussein was still in power?

    "Toguro was saying Obama gets the credit for ending the U.S. combat in Iraq by keeping his promise. My point is look at the big picture. If you thinks this is over, the U.S. government will want their military in the Middle East just like in Europe and Asia."

    @skipbeat-I wasn't saying that Obama get's the credit for ending U.S. combat in Iraq by keeping his promise. I was merely arguing your first post, with regards to your opinion of the speech. With regards to you thinking that Turkey, or Saudi Arabia are major players in the Middle East, IMO I think differently. Turkey didn't even want the war, and made it very hard for the U.S. to conduct the war the way it had intended to in the beginning. As for Saudi Arabia, they have nothing militarily, that would make them a major player in the Middle East, pre or post Saddam Hussein. Other than that, I agree with a lot of your last post. The U.S. will be in the Middle East for years to come, and those that think otherwise, are just kidding themselves.

  • 0

    sailwind

    The U.S. will be in the Middle East for years to come, and those that think otherwise, are just kidding themselves.

    No offense...... We have been in the Middle East for years past and will be years ahead, we need the oil and will look the other way to get it.

    The rest is just commentary.

  • 0

    zurcronium

    Once again the democrats have to clean up a collosal screw up by the republicans. All the phony promises from bush prior to the invasion based on lies, like cheap oil for all. Actually by driving the economy into a ditch in 2007 bush did deliver on cheap oil. Too bad 8 million Americans had to lose their jobs in the meantime.

    This huge bleeding failure is finally coming to end for the US. And now of course it will get worse there until some other cruel dictator takes over, who will hate the US for what it did to the country. Blowback. Just like everywhere else the neocons lead the US to invade.

  • 0

    toguro

    "No offense...... We have been in the Middle East for years past and will be years ahead, we need the oil and will look the other way to get it.

    The rest is just commentary."

    @sailwind-My apologies.You're correct. I meant to say Iraq as opposed to Middle East.

  • 0

    Blockntackle

    Run away, run away!!

    I feel sorry for Obama and the yanks having to clean up all of Bush's disasters.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in World

View all

View all