It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama finally announces Iraq withdrawal

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Well there we go kids, Obama will be withdrawing all troops from Iraq by August 31st 2010. A war waged under false pretenses... an unconstitutional war... a war that has cost us in the 100's of billions.... costing us $200 million a day... I never understood why in an economic situation like ours there are still those who support the war and justify it.

Nevertheless atleast Obama is reaffirming his promise... although actions speak louder than words so I guess by 2011 we will be sure of this.


President Barack Obama consigned the Iraq war to history Friday, declaring he will end combat operations within 18 months and open a new era of diplomacy in the Middle East. "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama told Marines who are about to deploy by the thousands to the other war front, Afghanistan.

Even so, Obama will leave the bulk of troops in place this year, contrary to hopes of Democratic leaders for a speedier pullout. And after combat forces withdraw, 35,000 to 50,000 will stay behind for an additional year and half of support and counterterrorism duties.

Just six weeks into office, Obama used blunt terms and a cast-in-stone promise to write the last chapter of a war that began six years ago. It has cost more in lives, money and national stamina than ever envisioned.

news.yahoo.com...

With Obamas announcement Republicans such as John McCain embraced the planned gradual withdrawl as opposed to the speedier withdrawal some Democrats may have preferred. Obama will be cutting forces in half by the 2009/10 year while a force of 30,000-50,000 troops will be kept back towards the end of 2010.


While liberal Democrats — led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — have voiced discontent over the past few days over Obama’s 50,000 troop commitment in Iraq, top Republicans are embracing the troop announcement today.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took to the Senate floor to declare “the president’s withdrawal plan is a reasonable one.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) commended “the president's decision yesterday for making it possible to take another step toward realizing our goal of a stable Iraq.” Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House GOP whip, said Obama “deserves credit for not listening to the chorus of voices calling for a rapid drawdown of forces.”


Many in the right have claimed that the president would not withdraw troops from Iraq or will keep them beyond 2011, some have claimed that he will merely place them in another part of the middle east, such as afghanistan. It appears that to the rightfringe here get the circumstances of Iraq and Afghanistan confused.... lets not get confused here. We are fighting a war against the very individuals who attacked our soil on sept 11 2001 in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq was one based on lies and was unconstitutional. It has been a waste of money to us, yet it appears amnesia has hit the rightwing fringe in mixing the two up.

Now Obama has committed another 30,000 or so troops to afghanistan, most of them will be taken out of those troops withdrawing from Iraq. Atleast I know those men and women will be fighting for a meaningful cause, not one based on lies. I understand that the same group confusing the circumstances of the two wars will go on to claim that "Osama is not responsible", but then that same individuals will justify Iraq or will make excuses on behalf of it. That doesnt make sense to me.

Estimates of the total cost for the war could be between $700 billion and $1 trillion when the final costs are added in 2011 by the administration. This was has been a complete waste... just today we lost another $200 million or so, the money that could have been used on americas cities and towns. I can only hope now that the war ends peacefully. Focus put back on core priorities for the nation.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Southern Guardian]




posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
I'm happy about that, atleast I won't get called up for duty in Iraq.

Didn't Bush start the ball rolling on this though? I could be mistaken, but I thought a 2011 withdraw deal was on the table when he left.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
two things come to mind:

1. NEVER trust a Politicians word.

2. Isn't this the time for Republicans and democrats up for Elections, man...what timing. no need to say more.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
theres no way we will leave iraq. its too important to 2012. we didnt invade for terror/oil. there are much bigger things afoot that we are not told about due to the jesus dogma.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
... I never understood why in an economic situation like ours there are still those who support the war and justify it.


Because the lies of our government which were repeated over and over again became the truth in minds of many...

Because, some people just love the war, as long it's not on US soil, it's like watching a good movie or a baseball game, very exciting ...

Because some people believe that we are gonna run out of gasoline soon and we need Iraq's reserves...

Because some people think that it would be wonderful to introduce our not so special flavor of capitalism and democracy with a lil' hint of Christianity to the Middle East...

The real truth is that many who support it now have no damn idea why they do it (9/11 was in many cases triggering event), it just what they do, for the hell of it.

Army ?

Well, that is what they are built for, they love it, reserves of ammunition are huge, and soldiers are itching to go somewhere and kick some butt, no matter where and why...

Money ?

Who the hell cares about that. Need for the money is very EASY to sell to the American people, that is what the presidents are for



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
A war waged under false pretenses... an unconstitutional war...


You could at least get your facts straight in your first paragraph.

The Iraq war is a war that was authorized by congress, based on the best intelligence available.

Saddam's unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions following his expulsion from Kuwait following his illegal invasion is what was responsible for the misinformation.

Now of course, the enemy has a timetable for our withdrawal and they can wait it out before rushing in to create a new terrorist safe haven.

But, let's be optimistic and hope that the new democracy created in Iraq will continue to flourish and will stand as a beacon of freedom in a region of terror and repression.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You could at least get your facts straight in your first paragraph.

The Iraq war is a war that was authorized by congress, based on the best intelligence available....


Congress was majority Republican at the time. The evidence that lead congress to sign it were either false or misleading. Iraq did not make an official declaration of war against us. The UN confirmed a none existence of nuclear weapons or development, just empty shells. When it became evidence there were to WMDs the president and his league of rightwingers continued to justify it.

A war waged on false pretenses, an unconstitutional war.


Saddam's unwillingness to comply with UN resolutions following his expulsion from Kuwait following his illegal invasion is what was responsible for the misinformation.


Iraq was one of many nations at that time, even at that there were no WMDs, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 as fox and co and many rightwingers attempted to do, we are not the police of the world. We are not the police of the world neither in that case do we have that right to choose which country we should police.


Now of course, the enemy has a timetable for our withdrawal and they can wait it out before rushing in to create a new terrorist safe haven.


Iraq was not a terrorist haven prior to this invasion. Iraq considered Iran and enemy prior to invasion. Iraq did not hold any of the terrorists we were hunting in responsibility for 9/11. Damn straight its a terrorist haven now, now thanks to the invasion.


But, let's be optimistic and hope that the new democracy created in Iraq will continue to flourish and will stand as a beacon of freedom in a region of terror and repression.


At what cost? Sure lets hope, but we left that nation more open to terrorist havens, we left that nation much more closer to Iraq, under Irans influence. That nation isnt going to completely stabilize even if troops were kept there for 10years. We had no business there, however it was evident other interests were more important in Iraq than focusing barely two years after 9/11 on the monsters who attacked us.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'm sorry but your argument hold no merit whatsoever..

The House and Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY.... While Republican Controlled, the unanimous vote is the issue..

Also let us not ever forget that the 06 Dems campaigned on a platform of getting the troops out IMMEDIATELY..

As GWB never vetoed any legislation, and the House and Senate have been under almost complete Dem control since 06... Why do you continue to blame Republicans?

Is it that hard to accept the truth?


A war waged on false pretenses, an unconstitutional war


Unless you are somehow a sitting court justice, that is simply your opinion and not even remotely resembling a fact.


even at that there were no WMDs,


What killed the 100's of thousands of Kurds? Daisies?


Iraq was not a terrorist haven prior to this invasion


If you will kindly go back and read some news reports, you will find that in the first few days of fighting, several people named as "Leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq" were either captured or killed. Now of course you will simply call that propaganda, but if that is your stance, an intellectual discussion is impossible.


We are not the police of the world neither in that case do we have that right to choose which country we should police.


Your opinion again..


now thanks to the invasion.


Easy to say and a very popular by-line, but without merit or substance.

Summary:

It is easy to sit on the sidelines and make "assumptions" based on the total trash being fed you from the MSM. I have been there and I can tell you that what you are stating is nothing more than your opinion and you are entitled to that, but you are not entitled to present it as fact.

Semper



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I'm sorry but your argument hold no merit whatsoever..

The House and Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY.... While Republican Controlled, the unanimous vote is the issue..


Under faulty intelligence, misleading information. The war was based on the existence of WMDs, that was the original intention however UN weapons inspectors and other sources found no such weapons. The possibility of war should of then ended. I dont give a damn whether dems voted for it, this was a republican pushed and promoted war. 3 republicans voted for the stimulus, are we going to assume then that this was both a republican a democrat bill?


Also let us not ever forget that the 06 Dems campaigned on a platform of getting the troops out IMMEDIATELY..

As GWB never vetoed any legislation, and the House and Senate have been under almost complete Dem control since 06... Why do you continue to blame Republicans?


Majority does not give the dems the power to completely make that decision. This year the dems had more of a majority than the prior two years and yet they still had to bend over backwords to get 3 republicans to support it to get it through. It takes more than just the one half of congress to completely end the war. It requires support on multiple fronts and yet the rightwing fringe still stubbornely stuck to the war of lies


Is it that hard to accept the truth?


What truth? Your truth? This is what you and the rightwig fringe believe in semper, that doesnt make it "truth".


What killed the 100's of thousands of Kurds? Daisies?


So your admitting there were no WMDs? Funny how you switched to the "they were harming other people" excuse Semper. The original intent was WMDs in Iraq and a danger to the international community, which in that proved false. Now its a matter of switching reasons to justify the war.

They killed 100s of kurds? Thats why we invaded them? What about Durfur where there are killings? Or Iran, why not justify invading them aswell semper. Hey lets just be the police of the world semper and invade every bad nation there is semper, because thats what we would have to do inorder for your justification of the iraq war to be valid.

We'r not the police of the world semper and our focus should have been on afghanistan. Why dont you find it curious that bush distracted us so much into his invasion with the worlds second largest oil reserves? Of all the "bad" nations semper.


If you will kindly go back and read some news reports, you will find that in the first few days of fighting, several people named as "Leaders of Al-Qaeda in Iraq" were either captured or killed. Now of course you will simply call that propaganda,


The original reason was WMDs semper, then it switched to terrorism in iraq then the reason quickly changed to taking out the saddam regime. The reasons keep on changing semper and yet you folks dont seem to give a damn because it does not cross partisan lines.

[edit on 28-2-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Can you really call it a withdrawl when your leaving 50,000 troops for training purposes?


[edit on 28/2/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 


The first half will be withdrawn this year and early 2010 and the last 30,000-50,000 will be withdrawn by the end of 2010 or just into 2011. Obama stated in the campaign that all troops will be withdrawn by 2011.

As said though only 2011 will be really be sure, but for now nobody can say he held back on his promise.


[edit on 28-2-2009 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   

The war was based on the existence of WMDs, that was the original intention


No it was not..

Listen to the speech and you will hear the exact reasons.. Yes WMD's the kind used to attempt genocide on the Kurds was mentioned, but also was the UN sanctions..

To even begin to assume any war is over any single issue is absurd.


this was a republican pushed and promoted war


Proof please? Source material, references etc


3 republicans voted for the stimulus, are we going to assume then that this was both a republican a democrat bill?


3 Republicans does not make a unanimous vote...Your slipping back into silly comparisons.. Does nothing to make a point.


It takes more than just the one half of congress to completely end the war.


Please show me ANY legislation that was put forward by the Dems on this issue, and how the Reps stopped it....
Sources.... References ... again please?


What truth? Your truth? This is what you and the rightwig fringe believe in semper, that doesnt make it "truth".


Everything I have asked you for and presented to you, is supported by the initial speech and your lack of references to your opinions..

The Strawman argument is to demand proof when YOU are the one making the allegations and I am simply refuting them.


So your admitting there were no WMDs?


Incorrect... I never said that...

Posting obvious falsehoods is also not conducive to supporting your side of any issue, much less this one.




and that proved false.


Again, either incorrect or you are just posting false information.


The original reason was WMDs semper, then it switched to terrorism in iraq


You obviously never listened to the speech or read any of the Congressional Reports..

For again this is completely incorrect and I wonder how much you really know about this issue.

All you have posted so far have been opinions and falsehoods. Now as stated earlier, you are certainly entitled to an opinion, you are not entitled to a falsehood and should expect to be challenged when you make some of the absurd statements you have made.

Here let me help:


Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped — by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge — be his deceptions, and by his cruelties — Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

Text of Pres. Bush Speech to UN

Another Pres. Bush speech on iraq in 02


The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

Speech

Now as you will note, he does speak of WMD's in the next paragraph, so again I ask you...

What killed the 100's of thousands of Kurds? Answer please?

Here you can actually WATCH Saddam gas the Kurds?

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES!!!!!


If that is not "Possessing WMD's" what is it?

So to say that Saddam never possessed WMD's is completely inaccurate..

This should help you understand the many reasons we went into Iraq, and just so you know, the Democratically Elected Government of Iraq has REQUESTED that we stay there in some form or another..

You can Google that for yourself, my fingers grown tired of providing sources and factual material..

Semper





[edit on 2/28/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The war was based on the existence of WMDs, that was the original intention however UN weapons inspectors and other sources found no such weapons.


This is incorrect.

The war was based on the consensus that the US could not wait to find out the hard way whether Saddam had WMDs and if he did if he would allow them to be deployed against the US and other nations of the world.

www.davidstuff.com...

www.rightwingnews.com...

www.my-orbit.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Well there we go kids, Obama will be withdrawing all troops from Iraq by ....


Um .. no he won't. TV news is reporting that he's leaving 50,000 troops behind as 'advisors and trainers'.

This is no different then what McCain said he'd do.

Leave a presence for an unspecified and possibly unending period of time.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Obama stated in the campaign ....

Obama also stated in the campaign that no lobbiest would ever find a job in his White House. Now there are dozens of them. He lied to get elected. The campaign promises of a lawyer-politician mean nothing.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Obama on Iraq War -

He claims that he was always against the war. But the facts say otherwise.

In July of 2004 Obama said this when asked how he would have voted in regards to the war if he had been able - “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know,”

And then Obama said this: “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.”



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Planned Date August 2010...yeah 2 years before WW3



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Regardless of which politicians voted for/against whatever, the common wisdom is that announcing a specific pullout date is not a wise measure. It does nothing for us, and gives the opponent a distinct advantage in terms of intel.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Um .. no he won't. TV news is reporting that he's leaving 50,000 troops behind as 'advisors and trainers'.


You fail to listen. The last 30,000 to 50,000 will be withdrawn by late 2010-2011. His original promise was to withdraw troops by 2011. Withdrawal will begin this year.


This is no different then what McCain said he'd do.


McCain and Mr Bush had every intention to keep troops in iraq for the next few years, until it became an conor stone issue within the beginning of the primaries, when the calls of withdrawal became loud. It was only towards the end of the general elections that McCain and Bush and the GOP got desperate and decided to change their tone.



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I'm sorry but your argument hold no merit whatsoever..

The House and Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY.... While Republican Controlled, the unanimous vote is the issue..


That is incorrect

House
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0



posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Forgive me if someone else pointed this out, but is that not exactly the same as the plan Bush left in place upon his departure? I believe it is.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join