Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

U.S. mission in Iraq being renamed 'Operation New Dawn'

World Feb. 19, 2010 - 10:44AM JST ( 21 )

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

21 Comments

0

adaydreamFeb. 19, 2010 - 12:45PM JST

And bring our troops home. Thank you. < :-)
0

AzabuSamuraiFeb. 19, 2010 - 12:54PM JST

Some brilliant re-branding work that must of cost a fortune to launch.

You can take a turd and put a pretty ribbon on it but its still a turd.
0

SushiSake3Feb. 19, 2010 - 01:42PM JST

A new name.

This changes everything......
0

sidjtdFeb. 19, 2010 - 04:48PM JST

Remember, only combat troops come home. There'll be plenty that stay behind.
0

wanderlustFeb. 19, 2010 - 05:22PM JST

Completely re-branding the mission will require new uniforms as well. Maybe we'll see Rising Sun BDUs, sunlight pink Hummers, New Dawn paint jobs on the drones.
0

stirfryFeb. 19, 2010 - 06:06PM JST

lipstick on a pig
0

adaydreamFeb. 19, 2010 - 11:00PM JST

Completely re-branding the mission will require new uniforms as well.

Wrong.

Remember, only combat troops come home. There'll be plenty that stay behind.

That's right, but this stay the course mentality from the prior administration is over. The idea that we'll stay there as long as it takes, even 100 years, is dead.

lipstick on a pig

After the last 8 years you need new lipstick sometimes.

The troops are slowly coming home. "Coming Home!" < :-)
0

sabiwabiFeb. 20, 2010 - 12:03AM JST

As of Sept 1, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” becomes “Operation New Dawn.”

“Operation Iraqi Freedom” was initially called “Operation Iraqi Liberation” but then people were talking about its acronym.
0

kinnikuFeb. 20, 2010 - 10:31AM JST

adaydream,

If you check you will see McCain's statement about "100 years" meant exactly what you quoted from sidjtd. He was talking about troops staying behind to maintain the peace. You say, 'that's right'. Does that mean you agree with him?
0

adaydreamFeb. 20, 2010 - 11:29AM JST

No. John McCain said he'd stay in Iraq as long as he thought that he needed to stay, even if it took 100 years. (to paraphrase) He was willing to commit the US to 100 years of war in Iraq. < :-)
0

kinnikuFeb. 20, 2010 - 11:44AM JST

adaydream,

I think McCain knows what he meant better than you do. He spefically was not talking about committing the US to 100 years of war in Iraq. It seems you are mistaken:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Republican presidential front-runner Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq -- saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.
0

kinnikuFeb. 20, 2010 - 11:46AM JST

To add, it seems Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain agree on this point and adaydream agrees with both as well.
0

adaydreamFeb. 20, 2010 - 11:57AM JST

And you're okay with out troops staying in Japan, Korea and Germany for another 100 years? I know exactly what he was talking about. He'd be willing to leave US troops there for 100 years to see to the peace. I'm not willing to leave troops there for 100 years for anything, let alone to be peace keepers. < :-)
0

adaydreamFeb. 20, 2010 - 11:58AM JST

Don't fool yourself. Obama isn't leaving troops in Iraq 100 years either, for whatever reason. < :-)
0

kinnikuFeb. 20, 2010 - 12:38PM JST

adaydream,

You claim to know what McCain 'means'. However, he told you what he meant in the quote I provided for you. There is no need to guess. BTW, US troops have been in Japan and Germany for about 60 years, and in Korea for about 50 years.

Obama isn't leaving troops in Iraq 100 years either, for whatever reason.

I sincerely doubt (though with medical science improving day by day one never knows) that either will be around in 100 years. So, the point is rather moot.

Anyway, you were mistaken about McCain and what he said about 100 years. You might want to continue not referencing incorrectly in the future.
0

adaydreamFeb. 20, 2010 - 12:49PM JST

kinniku

Sen. John McCain on Thursday defended his statement that U.S. troops could spend "maybe 100" years in Iraq -- saying he was referring to a military presence similar to what the nation already has in places like Japan, Germany and South Korea.

I understand every word he said. I'll repeat.

I'm not willing to leave troops there for 100 years for anything, let alone to be peace keepers. < :-)

Or 50 or 60 years. It's not a moot point when my grandchildren and great grandchildren would be fighting this war. Not moot to me by a long shot.

Bring all our troops home ASAP. No peace keeping crap either. < :-)
0

kinnikuFeb. 20, 2010 - 01:06PM JST

adaydream,

When sidjtd wrote:

Remember, only combat troops come home. There'll be plenty that stay behind.

You wrote:

That's right, but this stay the course mentality from the prior administration is over. The idea that we'll stay there as long as it takes, even 100 years, is dead.

Since McCain did not say he wanted the US to be in combat for even 100 years, you were mistaken. Since both McCain said and Obama have said they will leave some troops there for peace keeping, you are going to be just as disappointed with Obama as McCain. No one, except you, is saying anything about fighting a war for 50, 60 or even 100 years.

I understand you don't want a peace keeping mission in Iraq, however you are going to get it with Obama just as you would have with McCain. That is my point. You seemed to miss that point when you agreed with sidjtd that some troops would stay after the combat troops left. I merely pointed out that that is exactly what McCain said. He did not say he wanted to fight a war in Iraq that would last even 100 years. You are misquoting McCain when you say that.
0

adaydreamFeb. 20, 2010 - 01:13PM JST

We'll see what happens, won't we? < :-)
0

aBout_thatFeb. 20, 2010 - 09:05PM JST

adaydream

Although you claim to know that Obama will not leave American troops in Iraq for 100 years, Obama will actually only have a say in this matter for a little less than three years. After that he'll be booted back to the political swamp land from which he came.

The actual duration of our presence in Iraq will be one of "wait and see" and could actually be a hundred or more years. Its quite obvious the opposing political forces agree......and from you own comment it seems you agree your just confused and hurt that obama has used your vote to do his war mongering without your permission.
0

adaydreamFeb. 21, 2010 - 01:30PM JST

I was well aware that Barack Obama was going to increase troop levels, with the intent to end this war. george bush left this war to fester while he wasted 6 years in Iraq.

We might have been out a long time ago, but we were diverted to Iraq by the bold faced liar, bush.

I voted for Obama and I think he's done a pretty good job. I'm not disappointed. < :-)