It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iraq agrees to extend US military stay

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:51 PM

Originally posted by ZombieJesus
Please visit the source in the OP, they have recanted their original headline.

Iraq denies extending US military stay

I find myself wondering about this choice of 'official' phrasing.....

We have not yet agreed on the issue of keeping training forces

Why was the word "training" used, rather than the flat assertion "military presence?"

I suspect gamesmanship in play... watch the exchange tickers... they'll know before we do.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:06 PM

Hey guys.

Thanks for the laugh, I found this thread to be a riot.

The US is staying...

"Damned Warmongers/Bankers OIL Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah"

The US is leaving....

"Damned Warmongers/Bankers Disinfo Yadda Yadda Blah Blah Blah"

I'll stop back by when you're finished falling all over yourselves and get the story straight.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Why bother?

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by Vitchilo

Im glad that the Iraqis have agreed to let this US peace keeping force stay and take care of their country and their loved one's for alittle longer.
As we all know that the US and its Allies( my country included) have done a wonderful job taking care of the average innocent iraqi civilian.

You yanks and us allies wont stop until we get all that oil, will we?????????????

edit on 19-8-2011 by meathed because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by SLAYER69

Why bother?

Because I'm very interested in the FACTS of the situation. I'm looking forward to bringing ALL our boys home. My son was stationed in Iraq for 18 months. My second to the eldest Nephew may be headed that way soon. Hopefully we'll find out one way or another.

I was hoping to find out some factual information from our very own "Breaking alternative News" board for some helpful information.

That's why I'll bother.
I appreciate the concern though.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
The US force extension is not a done deal yet, and the Iraqis seem to be flip flopping over making the decision. With that, I find an extension agreement happening as very likely. Lets face it, the Iraqi government is being strong armed by the Sadrists with threats of renewed violence if they decide to extend US forces past the withdrawal date. It is up to the Iraqi government to decide the destiny of their country, and not a bunch of rag tag Iranian proxies. Shiite insurgents have been taking pot shots at US forces for the last to months. Moreover, US forces have engaged in unilateral military strikes on insurgent positions, and on the contrary to the official mission parameters.

Year after 'end' of Iraq combat, peril on the ground for Americans

Although the Iraqi military is supposed to have the lead in security operations throughout the country, Buchanan revealed two unilateral airstrikes that U.S. forces conducted this summer.

U.S. Apache helicopters fired on several insurgents who were spotted firing rocket-propelled grenades at a U.S. base near the Basra airport in southern Iraq, he said. There was no Iraqi military involvement in the Apache strike.

In another incident in June, U.S. forces spotted several insurgents planting a roadside bomb to target an approaching U.S. convoy. U.S. helicopters fired on the men, preventing the convoy from striking the bomb. There was no Iraqi military involved in this incident, either.

The Sadrists must be dealt with, and finished once and for all. US and Iraqi forces had them up against the wall before, and they were allowed to disband without facing any retribution. That was an unfortunate decision by the Iraqi government, because once again they are dealing the same individuals. I have a feeling an agreement will be made. With that agreement, the security situation will be more or less in the hands of the US. If this does happen, it could be another disastrous development for President Obama's re-election campaign. Perhaps, it would have been wise for him to spend a little more time reflecting on the situation in Iraq before issuing an ultimatum? Time will tell what transpires from this?
edit on 19-8-2011 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Good catch on the "training" bit, I missed that while reading the short and uninformative article.

A bit odd coming from Iraqi media as well, I would definitely not be surprised to hear U.S. media call it "training", but the other way around just seems a lil fishy to me.

Hopefully some more facts will be coming out soon

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Which facts are you interested in though? The one's presented by the publication Stars and Stripes "Panetta: Iraq has already said yes to extended U.S. presence" or the one presented by PressTV "Iraq denies extending US military stay"?

That pang of anger you felt at the obtusely delivered question was equivalent to the one felt over the characterization of the discussion as "falling all over yourselves."

When the story becomes so sharply contradicted in such a short time, it seems normal to be confused....

edit on 19-8-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Either will do.

I keep an open mind and review all sides on many situations. I believe the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Hindsight being 20/20, history tells us that each side slants a story in their favor. In this case, I figure the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of both sides propaganda.

I'm attempting a new thing these days...

That's not to be too quick to judge nor interpret a situation [Or Others] before I know the facts or their intentions.

I did however find everybody's interpretation entertaining
edit on 19-8-2011 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:47 PM
So are all the people whining about "war" going to stop driving their cars, so we don't have to get involved in the affairs of oil countries anymore? Any of you going to stop crying about the price of gas anytime soon, so the government doesn't constant;y keep doing deals with the devil to try and keep prices down? Any of the chronic complainers who are so morally opposed to this, checking to make sure they aren't putting any gas in their cars that came from Iraq oil, when they go to the gas station? How about you non US people... You asking the guy at the station where that gas came from when you go to fill up, so you can make sure you're not supporting the alleged hideous, terrible things us warmonger Americans are doing?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:56 PM
I mean, we still have forces in Germany and Japan and Korea and many other places. Unless an isolationist gets into power, we're not leaving anywhere anytime soon.

There's a simple rule. If the US comes to visit, it won't leave. That's not bad nor good. It's just a fact of the last near 100 years of military policy.

And considering our track record of, you know, not leaving a country in civil war and anarchy like our European friends, I'd say its more on the favor of good than bad. But now that money is tight, I can see reasons for leaving areas that have no need for our presence, such as Germany and elsewhere. Iraq? Well I'm not too sure. We have promised them our new Abrams went it comes out in a few years. So I suppose that's at least a hint that we don't plan to leave until 2030ish.
edit on 19-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2011 by Gorman91 because: le spelling

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by kn0wh0w

it would be time for the USA (and other countries) too pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, spend the money at home.

on better healthcare and schooling for starters...

No part of my current paycheck comes from Iraq, so spending or not spending money there will have no bearing on my healthcare.

Now then, I distinctly saw "non-combat U.S. forces" in the quoted text, so I'm not sure where all the "endless wars" advocates are getting that, right out of the gate.

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 03:09 PM
Theories for staying:

We broke, it we bought and we have not glued this bad boy back together yet.

Strategic position right next door to Iran.

The President typically has a lower security clearance than some the good ole folks in the military industrial complex. I hope this is no longer true. We protested against this. The argument is that people work for 30 years in the military and an 8 year presidency...well, you get the drift. The President is already taking hits from the right and the Pentagon for agreeing to de-fund.

Pennetta is long time hawk, our real dove is Patraeus. Why switch boats in the middle of the stream? Gates is gone and its clear the President wants this to be an Intelligence, Special Ops and technology war. Their cheaper and less people die. Or so I am told.

As for the economy, yeah, lets put more people out of work. Some would argue...

This table talk I have heard...I have researched nothing. But it looks like I better.

posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:19 AM
Get used to hearing "Office of Security Cooperation - Iraq" As it stands now the troops will be attached to that, which in turn is attached to the US Embassy.

The State Dept will have 10-12 facilities throughout Iraq in which troops will be assigned to as "trainers". Some of the facilities will include large airfields like Kirkuk, Erbil, Basrah and part of Baghdad airport.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in