Obama sets 2010 as Iraq End Date

#1
W

WA_Vol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2005
Messages
18,663
Likes
12
#1
The administration now considers Aug. 31, 2010, as the end date for Iraq war operations.
That timetable is slower than Obama had promised voters, but still hastens the U.S. exit.
Even with the drawdown, a sizable U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq under a new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism.
The last of the U.S. troops will be in Iraq no later than Dec. 31, 2011. That's the deadline set under an agreement the two countries sealed during George W. Bush's presidency. Obama has no plans to extend that date or pursue any permanent troop presence in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Officials: Obama sets Aug. 2010 as Iraq end date
 
#2
#2
I saw this too this morning. Its a little far fetched, but if there is enough stability over there in 2 years, good deal. I dont think there will be though.
 
#3
#3
"Even with the drawdown, a sizable U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq under a new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism."

Some democrats are extremely pissed about this. Good for Obama to at least let them know that this will be needed.
 
#4
#4
He might as well go ahead and tell all of them that we're going to be there in substantial numbers long past 2011.
 
#5
#5
What gets me ticked is that, he'll never admit that he is in over his head when it comes to this. He has approached this issue like he's still running for office, by making these promises he cant keep. Thats just what helped him get elected and the idiots that voted wont be over there taking shrapnel anyway so, "what the hell" right?
 
#6
#6
Thank you General Patraeus for making this possible. I never doubted you.

----signed Barack Obama
 
#9
#9
Does Mr. Biden have a website or a number we can call about this issue?
 
#10
#10
Nice fluff political rhetoric.

(Barry's only strong point.)

According to Gates; Some American servicemen will remain in Iraq in 2011, 'their mission will change.'

Even though Barry is trying to reap political hay, this isn't any departure from previous planning.

And let me add this, if he goes into Afghanistan thinking a surge will work like it did in Iraq, he is going to get his skinny butt handed to him.

He probably should consult with some Russian Generals on how that worked for them, or going back a bit farther, ask the British how they did trying to conquer that region.

We should keep our troop levels there to a minimum and concentrate on training an Afgan army and police forces to maintain order.
 
#11
#11
it may have been covered elsewhere, but in the Obamassiah's budget proposal, he shows funding for Iraq at 186 billion/year through 2019.

Then he uses the typical song and dance by claiming that since we'll be "out" of Iraq by 2011 or 2010, all that money is being "saved", thus reducing the deficit.

again, where is the "change"?
 
#13
#13
MG1968 said:
it may have been covered elsewhere, but in the Obamassiah's budget proposal, he shows funding for Iraq at 186 billion/year through 2019.

Then he uses the typical song and dance by claiming that since we'll be "out" of Iraq by 2011 or 2010, all that money is being "saved", thus reducing the deficit.

again, where is the "change"?
Click to expand...

Leaving your pocket along with whatever paper money, checks, and credit cards you have.
 
#15
#15
MG1968 said:
it may have been covered elsewhere, but in the Obamassiah's budget proposal, he shows funding for Iraq at 186 billion/year through 2019.

Then he uses the typical song and dance by claiming that since we'll be "out" of Iraq by 2011 or 2010, all that money is being "saved", thus reducing the deficit.

again, where is the "change"?
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton; "We'll be out of the Balkans in one year."

2007, Holbrooke was calling for more troops in the Balkans.
 
#17
#17
I don't know about Afghanistan, so I'll leave that alone. However, I'll give President Obama credit on this. After the Gitmo blunder, I really expected him to come out and say that he was doing an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. And while I always hated a timeline that they always demanded, I think this one is realistic. Honestly we can't be there forever in the current capacity that we are. Sure, we still have troops in Japan and Germany from WWII, but that is not the point we are at by a long shot now in Iraq, and if it's not approaching that in two years, then we need to reexamine our approach.
 
#18
#18
Obviously we were going to withdraw troops at one time or another. Bush would have probably done the same thing, but he didn't want to announce it. Why do we have to announce when a majority of the soldiers are coming home? To please a few code pinkers?

It is proven that our enemy is patient and don't think for a minute that they will take full advantage of this announcement.

Funny how the world knows when we will withdraw our tropps over a year in advance and yet our Senate doesn't even get to read what they are voting for/against immediately.
 
#19
#19
I agree with that sentiment and that is a fear of mine, but I'm kind of wondering if we shouldn't take a Reagan like approach to dealing with them. Remember he stood up to, and brought down, the Soviet Union without firing a bullet. Build up our defense to the point that if a country tries to attack, or sponsors a group to attack us, they will be instantly turned into a sea of glass.... We simply can't afford to unilaterally go into a country to try to turn things around again. So, if the rest of the world are idiots and won't truly help, the best we can do is make sure we have enough built up to make an example out of the first country that tries to mess with us.
 
#20
#20
OrangeYankee said:
I agree with that sentiment and that is a fear of mine, but I'm kind of wondering if we shouldn't take a Reagan like approach to dealing with them. Remember he stood up to, and brought down, the Soviet Union without firing a bullet. Build up our defense to the point that if a country tries to attack, or sponsors a group to attack us, they will be instantly turned into a sea of glass.... We simply can't afford to unilaterally go into a country to try to turn things around again. So, if the rest of the world are idiots and won't truly help, the best we can do is make sure we have enough built up to make an example out of the first country that tries to mess with us.
Click to expand...


we've got plenty built up..
It's when to use it that's in question, we're so tied to that region of the world for Oil Production that we'll never go in and Annihilate even one of those axis of evil countries.

Once their Oil is gone, they'll cease to matter to rest of the world and can have all the archaic Islamic rule they want and can fight amongst each other
 
#23
#23
OrangeYankee said:
I agree with that sentiment and that is a fear of mine, but I'm kind of wondering if we shouldn't take a Reagan like approach to dealing with them. Remember he stood up to, and brought down, the Soviet Union without firing a bullet. Build up our defense to the point that if a country tries to attack, or sponsors a group to attack us, they will be instantly turned into a sea of glass.... We simply can't afford to unilaterally go into a country to try to turn things around again. So, if the rest of the world are idiots and won't truly help, the best we can do is make sure we have enough built up to make an example out of the first country that tries to mess with us.
Click to expand...

You're crazy if you think a policy of mutually assured destruction will work in the Middle East. The only side worried about being attacked is us.

In their twisted view, dying is beautiful and being attacked on their own land is an opportunity, not something to be feared.
 
#24
#24
If we get to the point where we have the technology that lets us give them the middle finger when it comes to our energy policy the whole system over there will crumble.

Problem solved.
 
#25
#25
rjd970 said:
You're crazy if you think a policy of mutually assured destruction will work in the Middle East. The only side worried about being attacked is us.

In their twisted view, dying is beautiful and being attacked on their own land is an opportunity, not something to be feared.
Click to expand...

Thats what they want you to believe
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top