Obama weighing 23-month Iraq withdrawal option
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 3 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 3 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
32 Comments
Login to comment
0
proxy
What? A broken promise?
0
Sarge
Apparently.
0
adaydream
For those with short term memory, Barack Obama said he'd bring them out in 16 months, but that he would talk to his generals in the field and people on the ground.
Promise kept. < :-)
0
wuzzademcrat
More Carteresque waffling.
It's pretty clear that in the end our Community Organizer in Chief will do whatever Nancy Pelosi tells him to.
0
USNinJapan2
adaydream
Then that's what you call an EMPTY promise because no one in their right mind, let alone anyone with any practical/expert knowledge of the situation like the SECDEF or the Chairman of the JCS, would advise him that pulling all combat brigads out of Iraq by May '10 is feasable or recommended. President Obama should have known better.
0
TheQuestion
Following that logic I should be able to tell my boss "I will finish the report by tomorrow, but I have to talk to my secretary first." I'm sure that would go over well.
0
proxy
So, the generals are commander in chief? The US has a huge government spending problem something has to give.
0
SushiSake3
Good move by the President.
0
Sarge
TheQuestion ( 1:22PM ) - Good one.
Sushi - "Good move by the President"
What, delaying the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? I thought U.S. troops in Iraq were an obstacle to peace and killing our finances...
0
SushiSake3
Sarge - "and killing our finances..."
Sarge, are you talking about the Sarge-backed bankrupting of America?
0
Sarge
Sushi - "Sarge, are you talking about the Sarge-backed bankrupting of America?"
No, I'm against these bailouts.
0
SushiSake3
Sarge, so first you didn't raise your voice when the Bush Adminstration you backed to the hilt increased U.S. national debt by more than $6 TRILLION, and now you actually - oppose - a bailout package that WILL aid Americans????
Ah-ha, I get you......???
0
SushiSake3
Sarge, ehrr..Sarge...come in..ehhrr.....Sarge. :-)
0
Sarge
Sushi, so you didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and now you actually - support - a bailout package that will bankrupt America???
0
AlfGarnett
Sarge: Why does you support American army and its illegal invasions.
Obama must want to stop the killing and free Iraqis and that, so he can make it peacefull like before.
0
SushiSake3
Sarge - "Sushi, so you didn't support the liberation of Iraq.."
"Liberation?" Why are you the only left who still believes that line? :-)
Sarge - "Sushi, ....and now you actually - support - a bailout package that will bankrupt America???"
Sarge - NEWSFLASH - just in case you hadn't noticed what the rest of the world has known for years - your country is ALREADY completely and totally bankrupt, thanks to the last president's failed policies, you know, the ones that you backed to the hilt every time.
You effectively greenlighted every stroke of the action as the previous president you so ardently supported drove your once proud nation off the cliff.
And as you know but continue to ignore the reality of - this bailout is being funded by foreigners.
Your arguments are about as weak as the tea I just had. :-)
0
SushiSake3
AlfGarnett - "Sage: Why does you support American army and its illegal invasions."
Probably because Sarge simply listened to and believed all the simple soundbites that tumbled forth from the previous U.S. administration and never bothered to look closely at the facts.
That's one of the reasons his country is now completely bankrupt and in the worst financial condition in 80 years.
0
adaydream
Sarge at 10:49 PM JST - 7th February Sushi, so you didn't support the liberation of Iraq, and now you actually - support - a bailout package that will bankrupt America???
I never supported the liberation of Iraq and I never supported the murder of 100,000s.....
Yes, I support the bail-out that Obama is pushing through.
I'm just that way. < :-)
0
SushiSake3
I find it funny - people like Sarge sat on their hands and said and did nothing when the previous U.S. administration burnt through more $6 TRILLION.
And now, when the new administration is trying valiantly to salvage a semblence of honor and financial sensibility from the carnage created by the previous administration, the same people are sitting on their hands yet again.
Sometimes, you've just got to wonder who Republicans like Sarge actually support, because it sure as heck isn't America.
0
wuzzademcrat
Liberated Iraq has now held its second round of elections.
As much as this infuriates and terrifies the anti-liberation Left in the West, it has implications that none of them, wrong as they were about Iraq, could possibly understand.
The naysayers and the idiotic 'No Blood for Oil' people need to face the facts.
0
AlfGarnett
wuzzademcart: You is talking nonsense young fella.
Iraq is in tatters, with hundreds and thousands dead and refugges in other arab countries and all that.
Now it looks like the Shite people want to break away and form a new country in Southern Iraq. I reckon that are why My Obama is wanting to leave , before there is a full scale civil war. Mark my words, dark days are ahead in Iraq, and it is all because of Americas illegal invasion!
0
adaydream
I don't think it was worth the cost. Maybe you do wuzzademcrat.
Between the lives lost, the monetary output, the suffering of wounded for the rest of their lives... it was a fools war to start.
So if you're pleased, pat yourself on the shoulder. < :-)
0
USAFdude
wuzza - OK, here are some facts for you to consider:
The Taliban are rising again in Afghanistan. If they go unchecked, the so-called "liberation" of Afghanistan, touted by certain right-wingers on this site, will amount to absolutely nothing.
With the closure of Manas AB, US (as well as French and Spanish) actions in Afghanistan will be greatly affected, particularly regarding troop and supply movement lines, and air refueling.
President Obama, rightfully, has stressed moving us out of Iraq and into Afghanistan in greater numbers. Given the facts I've outlined above, this is inarguably the best move.
Most disturbing of all, OBL stated in the early days after 9/11 that his plan was to bankrupt America. Looking at the state of our economy, I'm forced to consider the idea that OBL's awful plan may be succeeding. When Russia can pay off Kyrgyzstan to, in part, close off Manas AB to the US, it bodes ill for both the economic and military might of the US.
Bottom line: Afghanistan is far, far more important to US interests than Iraq. That's why President Obama is prioritizing our efforts in Afghanistan (as he promised) while getting our troops out of Iraq, where we're not needed. Whether Iraq is "liberated" or not has absolutely no bearing on the security of the US; Afghanistan is quite simply the more important consideration.
0
OnTheRecord
USAFdude: Heck!!! I thought your goddone anti patriotic posts had ended.
Obama wants to cut and run in Iraq and allow Iran to come in and take over, is that what you want buddy?
Saddam was thwarted and brought to justice. To withdraw is to admit defeat. A disgrace to all true patriots.
0
USAFdude
OnTheRecord: Thanks for the laugh!
Nope, you're wrong again. Obama, like all good Americans, wants to ramp up efforts in Afghanistan, capture/kill OBL, and finally get justice for 9/11. Sorry if that's not what you want.
There hasn't been an attack on the US for seven years because Al-Qaeda has chosen not to hit us again... yet. For examples of what they've done since 9/11, check out their activites in London, Madrid, and Mumbai (among others) and those other places you've forgotten about. Tragically, Al-Qaeda is still strong. That's why President Obama is correctly prioritizing Afghanistan.
0
adaydream
OnTheRecord
Please provide me with the latest propoganda that says that Iraq is allowing Iran to come in and take over.
The problem is, the republicans continue to support those people like dick cheney who is have financial interest in Iraq like Haliburton.
Barack Obama is going to get us out of Iraq. That's my biggest concern. The republicans don't want to leave at all, but they whine because Barack admits it might take a few more months. < :-)
0
wuzzademcrat
Iraq holds their second free election (historically, this is in some ways more significant than the first) after Bush leaves office, Obama congratulates not our soldiers but the United Nations, and some guy calling himself USAFdude is still trying to tell us that our community organizer in chief, whose ties to failed terrorists like Bill Ayers would prevent him from obtaining even the lowest level of security clearance, really knows what is best.
Manas Base? Interesting timing:
Russia tests Obama - Boston Globe
Analysis: Kyrgyz base a Kremlin test for Obama - The Sacramento Bee
Analysis: Kyrgyz Base A Kremlin Test For Obama - CBS News
Kyrgyz base a Kremlin test for Obama - ABC News
Russia works angles to prod Obama - Int'l Herald Tribune
Moderator: The expression "community organizer in chief" is meaningless. Please lift the level of your contributions which currently are among the lowest on the discussion board.
0
USAFdude
Just pisses you off that so many Democrats are US troops, doesn't it? Heh!
0
USAFdude
Well of course Obama's weighing options for withdrawing from Iraq:
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7877505.stm
US President Barack Obama's envoy to Afghanistan has said that winning the conflict there will be "much tougher" than in Iraq.
The architect of the US surge in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, urged measures for Afghanistan similar to those in Iraq.
Gen James Jones, the new US national security adviser, told reporters at the conference that a planned doubling in the number of US troops in Afghanistan to about 60,000 was not in itself enough.
Finally, an administration that agrees with the military and security experts. No more demoralizing Republican bullsh*t to get in the way.
Back to top