world

Iraq wants all U.S. troops gone by end of 2011

81 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

81 Comments
Login to comment

If these Iraqis spent half the time on getting their country secured and it's act together as they do worrying about when the US troops will leave, we actually could leave. Like tomorrow.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanULTRA: "If these Iraqis spent half the time on getting their country secured and it's act together as they do worrying about when the US troops will leave, we actually could leave. Like tomorrow."

It sucks when the country that doesn't ask you to illegally invade turns around and stabs you in the back, eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

100 more years...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Ossan, all this time they been fiddling around and grabbing arse, and now they see fit to act all mighty and want the U.S. troops gone by 2011? Ya, real motivation there fellas. All this time U.S. and coalition lives were sacrificed and now they act all mighty and superior.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, now the Iraqi government, the same one propped up by the US - wants a clear timeline for a US withdrawl.

Why the heck did the Bush administration go in there in the first place and waster so many Americans' lives...for nothing?

rjd jr - maybe you have an answer?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All this time U.S. and coalition lives were sacrificed and now they act all mighty and superior.

They aren't the ones who invaded a sovereign state on the basis of a pack of transparent lies, destroyed the infrastructure as well as hundreds of thousands of lives, gave malcontents the opportunity to run amok settling historic scores, or sprinkled DU dust all over the land promising a legacy of deformed babies for decades to come.

So in that sense, they are superior.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All this time....

All this time they have continued to do what they have been doing for centuries. Some braniac in the administration thought they could change that in a few months.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez et. al.: The almost genius thing about it is that Bush is only going to appear to be a footnote, and Obama is going to take all the blame as president, when Iraq was a failed debacle from its planning to its execution, and now its. The righties on here lament and even vehemently oppose the opinion of the government they forced into power, and are calling them lazy-good-for-nothing...'s, but in the end even though Obama is simply realizing the truth and pulling the troops out at the Iraqi government's behest, said righties will have an excuse to blame him for the failure. Again, it's been a failure from the get-go, but that's not how the righties will paint it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lets talk sacrifice - How many Iraqi civilians have paid the ultimate price? Bet it beats the number of US and coalition troops.

I also agree with both Ossan and Smith (your arguments are part of a larger problem). True the Iraqi's didn't ask to be invaded on the flimiest of evidence (however, they are grateful that Saddam was shown the door and worse). At the same time, the Iraqi's probably didn't want the ineffectual leadership that they have these days. Who are these clowns that "run" Iraq. A large percentage of them are returnees, please not tainted by a Bathist background. The downside is, however, that a lot of them don't have a solid powerbase in the country. In the old days, people who Saddam saw as leadership threats were killed or the people in question made themselves scarce. What remained (and what now leads Iraq) are dregs of the talent pool. Moreover, US ignorance of the situation is amazing. The guy they first wanted to run Iraq "George Washington" (Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi) had a rather dodgy background as a bank swindler in Jordan. Indeed, the guy is now being investigated by the US. Anyway, until Iraq comes up with some form of effective leadership, I don't think it is in any position to dictate terms to anybody.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanULTRA at 07:49 AM JST - 31st October If these Iraqis spent half the time on getting their country secured and it's act together as they do worrying about when the US troops will leave, we actually could leave. Like tomorrow.

I understand that our School system is not the best these days. Especially after Bush and the Republicans trying to under fund our public schools.

But I Joe Bigs is always here to help.....Memo to the Far Right Wingers

Iraq is not part of the United States of American. It is not a State and it is not a colony either. Iraq is an independent nation and if they want us out by X date then that is their choice.

We are not Occupiers even though I understand you Neo-Cons would love to be but we are a democracy. Freedoms of this and that is what we try to promote.

So do not be outraged if they want us out, it is their nation.

BTW we should not of been there wasting all that money in the first place......That is my belief.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq wants all U.S. troops out of Iraq by end of 2011

So do we.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So first the US marches into Iraq, wins a war (lol), and now wants to quit the morasse before it descends into anarchy because it is taking casualties (excuse me if I don't cry). Can you say "cut and run?" What a gutless disgrace! The US should not have gone in to start with unless it intended to win, and it wouldn't have if anyobdy in power in Washington had an iota of intelligence or the bxlls to stand up to Curious George and his chicken hawk cabal. Too bad Uncle Sam! You created this problem, you fix it! Unfortunately casualties are the price that Washington will have to pay for this disaster. And what about its architect? In a couple of months he will be back in Texas, engaged in animal husbandry and absolved of any responsibility courtesy of a pardon by the new administration. What is wrong with this picture?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timor: "Anyway, until Iraq comes up with some form of effective leadership, I don't think it is in any position to dictate terms to anybody."

One of the reasons the US has justified what is rightly called a very poor decision to invade Iraq and start the war is that the US claims they have 'liberated the country in the name of democracy', etc., etc. Therefore, unless they are willing to say that that is an utter farce, and they had no plans for democracy at all, then they must admit that Iraq does indeed have the right to dictate terms to whosever it pleases. It is a democratic and sovereign nation after all... or isn't it? Do I think they have the ability to run it alone? Nope, not with how screwed up it's become via the US. Do I think they SHOULD ask the US to leave? Hmmm... that's a bit tougher, but again, if they cannot manage it themselves yet, no. BUT, they most certainly have the RIGHT to do it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They aren't the ones who invaded a sovereign state on the basis of a pack of transparent lies, destroyed the infrastructure as well as hundreds of thousands of lives, gave malcontents the opportunity to run amok settling historic scores, or sprinkled DU dust all over the land promising a legacy f deformed babies for decades to come.

JT should offer a prize to the poster who cuts and pastes this for the 1,000,000th time. Perhaps a $10 gift certificate to Applebees?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush lied to the nation and started a war in 2003...fast forward to 2008.

Iraq sees one of two things coming Barack Obama as the new president and he wants troops out by 2011. Or John McCain as the new president and he wants to try to stay in Iraq as long as he can.

The United States has been putting a lot of pressure to rewrite the agreement and stay in Iraq way past 2011. The bush administration has been trying to fabrikcate an agreement that would favor McCain and his vision for Iraq.

Knowing the above, Iraq is stating before 12/31/2008, the deadline to rewrite a new agreement, that they want the U. S. out.

Iraq has taken the step to demand of it's citizens to get their act together. The parliment has now layed out to the country a goal, a future to shoot for, something to look forward to.

I've been waiting for Iraq to stabd up and demand it's rights as a solvern country and illegally under U. S. occupation.

Way to go Iraq. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, we would like to be gone by the end of 2011 too. If the Iraqis are capable of handling security on their own, it'll happen. The way things are going, it looks like it'll happen - yet another province was turned over to the Iraqi security forces this week.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"John McCain ... wants to try to stay in Iraq ( keep U.S. troops in Iraq )as long as he can."

He does not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they had no plans for democracy at all

I was under the impression that your position had no plans for democracy in Iraq at all. But don't let that stop you... ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge -

If the Iraqis are capable of handling security on their own

And who makes that call? If this Iraqi government is so free and liberated and democratic, like you repeatedly attribute to your demi-god George W. Bush, we should respect their wishes. Who are we to question their sovereign decision?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

iraq has elections approaching. politicians like to posture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How clever is the American army? I think it is possible that they want out as well and the attack on Syria was done to provoke Iraq into NOT signing the SOFA so they could get the heck out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Forgot to mention, 10 Billion a month times 12 months tins 100 years.....Now how much will that cost?LOL

E-c-o-n-o-m-i-c-s is not old Johns strong suit.... Got to forgive him...LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib -

Or maybe they should give some kind of prize to the first poster who comes up with a credible rebuttal?

C'mon super, prove to us how George in fact invaded in good faith with nothing but the well-being of the Iraqi people at heart, bless 'im; how Iraq now functions just as well as if not better than it did before half the country was flattened; how the only Iraqi casualties were Saddam, his winsome sons and his evil government; how Bagdad needed concrete walls all over the city to protect people and buildings from roadside IEDs and suicide bombers before the invasion; and how the four- to six-fold increase in deformed births is nothing more than a statistical blip.

Applebees ain't got nothing I'd want. And they're in the wrong country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Who are we to question their sovereign decision?"

Because we have spilled the blood of thousands of our soldiers and spent hundreds of billions of dollars for their sovereignty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They didn't ask you to, Sarge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo - Yeah, they were hesitant to ask us for help. Saddam tended to torture and kill those who spoke out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge they never ever requested their sovereinty. It was thrust upon them. Now they are thrusting their power and kicking us out. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh Sarge, we both know what he said. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Now they are thrusting their power and kicking us out"

They'll never "kick us out" - we'll leave when we're good and ready. ( They'll be so glad we stayed until we did, even though they'll never admit it )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge: Yeah, they were hesitant to ask us for help. Saddam tended to torture and kill those who spoke out.

Classic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Oh Sarge we both know what he said"

I do, you don't, apparently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Because we have spilled the blood of thousands of our soldiers and spent hundreds of billions of dollars for their sovereignty?"

Tough luck, bud.

As Cleo rightly said, they never asked your country to do that (maybe you forgot that minor detail?)

Oh, and Sarge, Iraqis are STILL enjoying have less hours of electricity each day than they did under Saddam despite your country spending $10-20 billion a month.

Oh, and your country's economy is tanking.....I wonder......could there be a connection????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo - C'mon super, prove to us how George in fact invaded in good faith with nothing but the well-being of the Iraqi people at heart

As opposed to your good faith efforts to keep a genocidal dictator in power?

Bush's motivation for supporting democracy in Iraq is questionable at best, I'll give you that. But with you there was no question. Your plan guaranteed that there would be no democracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and Sarge, do you now not respect democracy?

The Iraqi government - the same one you have been saying again and again and again is 'sovereign' - has said they want your soldiers out.

How can you on one hand say the Iraqis government is 'sovereign' and on the other hand deny that sovereignity?

Do you believe Iraq has a sovereign government, or not?

For the record, you have claimed many, many times that they are.

Now, it appears you think they are not.

Which is it, Sarge, which is it? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "As opposed to your good faith efforts to keep a genocidal dictator in power?"

Was Saddam ever a threat to mainland USA?

Yes or no.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib, the funny thing is, Iraq was never a threat and it seemed most of the world knew it. Except a large number of Americans.

Remember those massive anti-invasion protests that were happening all over the world in early 2003, urging America not to invade?

Heh, even those dreaded Euro-types had a better grip on the truth than the majority of Americans.

Why do you think that was, Superlib?

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. The subject is the current and future situation in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushisake: Did you support keeping a genocidal dictator in power?

Yes or no.

Moderator: The question is not relevant. Saddam Hussein is not relevant to this discussion. Please focus your comments on the story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama said he will withdraw from Iraq.What is there for discussion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The subject is the current and future situation in Iraq.

Well said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How can you on one hand say the Iraqis government is 'sovereign' and on the other hand deny that sovereignity?

How can you attempt to deny Iraqis a democratic government then suddenly swoop in and tells us that you're their champion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, your argument seems to be going around in circles like a cat chasing its tail :-)

I'll only attempt to answer sensible questions, thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama said he will withdraw from Iraq.What is there for discussion?

obama also said he'd accept public financing. he lied.

he said the surge, which he opposed, succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations. he flopped.

maybe if people bothered to really listen...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tclh - "Obama said he will withdraw from Iraq. What is there for discussion?"

Well said......

Seems the Neocons want to stay in Iraq for who knows how many more years spending borrowed money and wracking up even bigger debts that are right now crippling their economy and forcing their government to borrow more money from foreigners, which subsequently increases national debt, putting even more pressure on valuable domestic programs, healthcare, educations, etc. FOR THEIR OWN FAMILIES.

Heh, seems like the Republicans haven't just scored one own goal by supporting the failed invasion of Iraq, they just keep on and on scoring own goals. :-)

It's going to take an Obama administration that listens to and respects the sovereignity of the Iraqi government to whip some sense into the Republicans and say - This senseless war is going to stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama has said it again and again. Anyway, the Iraqis dont have to worry at all. The Repubs have just a couple or so days to start packing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ImperiumMundi - "he said the surge, which he opposed, succeeded beyond everyone's wildest expectations."

Um....but the US economy is in its worst shape in 80 years, and it's gettting worse, and yes, the war in Iraq and the tanking US economy are directly connected.

Obama is - sensibly - focusing on the economy.

McCain has little to say about pocketbook issues and has since yesterday - in a stunningly dumb move - begun trying to shift the presidential debate away from the No. 1 issue on Americans' minds and back to foreign affairs.

Who advises this guy?????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Those demands, which were presented to U.S. officials this week, could derail the deal—delivering a diplomatic blow to Washington in the final weeks of the Bush administration."

Bush must be getting worried about his....um.....'legacy.'

(I'm pretending here that bush will actually have one. LOL!!!! :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems the Neocons want to stay in Iraq for who knows how many more years

It will be interesting to hear you call Obama a Neocon when he doesn't pull all US forces out of Iraq his first day in office....because we all know that in Sushi's book if you didn't leave yesterday then you must want them to be there forever...

Surely you can understand the concept of a responsible withdrawal. Even smith said about that he doesn't support an immediate withdrawal. I think just about everyone wants the troops home but everyone wants it done responsibly. Except for you.

Why are you going against what so many patriotic Americans and so many pro-American Europeans want?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "It will be interesting to hear you call Obama a Neocon when he doesn't pull all US forces out of Iraq his first day in office....because we all know that in Sushi's book if you didn't leave yesterday then you must want them to be there forever..."

Superlib, you really are making yourself look silly today :-)

"Surely you can understand the concept of a responsible withdrawal. Even smith said about that he doesn't support an immediate withdrawal. I think just about everyone wants the troops home but everyone wants it done responsibly. Except for you."

I, too, back a sensible withdrawl. (where did I say I didn't?)

Bottom line, I back a withdrawl with firm timelines. Little birds don't learn to fly until they are booted out of the nest. Ditto for the Iraqi military. Babysitting them isn't going to get many results. Telling them the US will get out, on hte other hand, will.

I think anyone who backs a continuation of a US presence in Iraq for any serious length of time is simply an idiot, I'm sorry.

The balllooning costs are clearly contributing to America's debt mountain, and - you will clearly recall - I have been asking Republicans for well over a year: where is the money going to come from to fund a continued US presence in Iraq? Now, it's pretty clear - the Chinese/Japanese governments.

The Republicans who back this insane 'strategy' clearly have no idea of basic economics and really should brush up on some fundamentals before baying for America to stay on in Iraq.

So, yes, a sensible withdrawl, but a withdrawl - no more questions, no more excuses, delays, 'ifs' or 'buts.'

Get the Iraqis to stand up (Bush has been saying this for years and it has taken Petraeaus to finally make it happen).

It's going to be interesting to see what happens now. In the latest negotiations, the bush administration is pushing for a 'flexible' exit strategy - basically, the US will withdraw only if certain security conditions exist.

The problem is, no one is sure whether those conditions will ever be met, who will confirm whether they do or do not exist, and worse still, whether the US will just keep moving the goalposts as they have done so many times before.

"Why are you going against what so many patriotic Americans and so many pro-American Europeans want?"

You're joking right? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If these Iraqis spent half the time on getting their country secured and it's act together as they do worrying about when the US troops will leave, we actually could leave. Like tomorrow.

I wonder if anyone here has considered that our boys are viewed as an occupying imperialist force and are therefore a magnet for violence? Our very presence is a core reason for the lack of security in the first place! Caught between a rock and a hard place.

The subject is the current and future situation in Iraq.

But the past tells us who is inconsistent. It also shows us who was just plain wrong, who was lying, and is therefore more likely to be wrong or lying again.

The Iraqis want us out by 2011. There is no need to drag neither Obama nor McCain into this unless one of them are going against the Iraqis. One of those men might want to do things differently, but I don't think he has a choice, so I find it moot.

Anyway, amazing how many here, no doubt, said it would be all over in weeks or months, but are now thinking that 8 freaking years in Iraq just won't be enough! (remember what I said about consistency and knowing who was wrong?).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your plan guaranteed that there would be no democracy.

There are lots of countries that have no democracy. Democracy isn't something you impose from above; it has to come from the people. Maybe if we had waited for the Iraqis to decide for themselves that they wanted democracy it may have taken longer but there would have been a better outcome. Maybe just as many people would have died, maybe not, but the end result would have been a real democracy, not a sham imposed by a foreign power and riddled with factional fighting.

You cannot seriously look at Iraq today, puff out your chest and say, 'Yay, we gave them democracy.' You cannot seriously say that that the whole episode has been a resounding success. You cannot say that America has done a good job.

But, now Iraq is a sovereign nation with a 'democratically' elected government. If they ask the US to leave, then the US has no alternative but to leave in good grace, unless they want to admit to the world that their purpose in being there is not the purpose they've been claiming it was.

Maybe leaving now could be seen as 'cut and run', but that's what you get for starting a war without first giving yourself a clearly-defined goal and exit strategy. Moral of this story - don't start half-baked wars on the say-so of a rich-kid fratboy who protected the skies over Alabama from the Vietcong, and an oilman who thinks shooting tame fat birds and geriatric lawyers is 'sport'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's misjudgements like this one - totally bungled by bush and the neocons - that Americans need to be wary of if they are considering voting for john mccain.

Sure, Obama doesn't have much experience, but he clearly has a far wiser head on his shoulders than john 'Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!' mccain.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Five years now that nation building did not work, and it isn't going to work, not in eight years, ten, or a hundred. I consider it a blessing that we can depart from Iraq with the Iraqis in full support of that withdrawal. Then we can all blame their failure on them, and stop this bickering amongst ourselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CavemanLawyer - I'm sure people like Sarge will still want America to stay on to 'honor' the memories of those who have died.

(Funny, Sarge never mentions that doing so will just get more Americans killed...I thought that was blindingly obvious.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, and the "humanitarians" crawl out to dust off their stale "arguments" whilst complaining about arguments they didn't want to hear for the first time, let alone the 1,000,000th time, with hundreds of thousands of dead cadavers à l'appui.

Nevermind - Iraq is making it clear the US won't be left to guard the oil, but Bush Co couldn't care less for the remaining time they have in power. The corporations have their booty, as do the arms manufacturers where bush's daddy and other administration pals hold stock.

Can I hear the "humanitarian" "argument" again? Especially when the Red Cross issued a report two days ago citing the "dire" situation in Iraq with even simple amenities such as dinking water, still not vailable to a good chunk of the population?

Mission Accomplished it 'aint, mates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The corporations have their booty, as do the arms manufacturers where bush's daddy and other administration pals hold stock.

a hot tip for clever anti war types like this one above who sussed out bush, who knew all along about his plan to use an illegal war in iraq to line the pockets of his relatives and crony pals:

joe biden is one of those democrats who voted in 1974 to pull the plug on financing and support for south vietnam. (yes, that's how long he has been in the US senate.) must be why obama picked him.

now's that long-awaited chance to get back at the neo-con military industrial complex.

start buying and shorting stocks accordingly.

put your money where your mouth is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

joe biden is one of those democrats who voted in 1974 to pull the plug on financing and support for south vietnam

Good for him.

Wish I knew what 'shorting stocks' meant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake: I, too, back a sensible withdrawl. (where did I say I didn't?)

Ah, very interesting. I was under the impression that you wanted the US troops out now, which I believe was your position at one point in the past.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In reality we're probably all in agreement. Both sides want the troops back again and Iraq to be stable as soon as possible, but neither side can really pull out a definitive date.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but neither side can really pull out a definitive date.

2011 is better than the dubya MCsame alternative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

We may be leaving in December if we can't get a SOFA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Proffessor ( 3:22PM ): "President Obama"

Not yet. And maybe not at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez - We won't be leaving in December. We have around 140,000 troops there, remember?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It sucks when the country that doesn't ask you to illegally invade turns >around and stabs you in the back, eh?

Invasions aren't legal or illegal. If you had your way Saddam would till be in power and the Iraqi people all happy right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq, we will leave when we deem you are safe and the region is secure, NOT before!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan/Capt'n - Great posts!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever happened to "We'll leave when the Iraqis tell us to leave"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's either we agree to the Iraqi terms of getting out by the end of 2011 or we get out by 12/2008.

There are posters like Sarge that thinks that we'll leave when we decide to leave.

I'm glad you're wrong Sarge. We'll be out when Iraq wants us out. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez - It's looking like we'll be able to leave by the end of 2001, when the Iraqis ( Iraqi politicians, not the Iraqi people ) want us to leave.

adaydream - "I'm glad you're wrong Sarge"

I'm not wrong.

""We'll be out when Iraq ( Iraqi politicians ) want us out"

Possibly!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq wants all U.S. troops gone by end of 2011

Well, dream on, if McCain gets elected.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "I'm not wrong."

Yes, you are wrong.

Oh, and Sarge, you seem to have conveniently forgotton the question I asked you earlier -

How can you on one hand say the Iraqis government is 'sovereign' and on the other hand deny that sovereignity?

Do you believe Iraq has a sovereign government, or not?

Looking forward to receiving your answer - thanks in advance!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever happened to "We'll leave when the Iraqis tell us to leave"?

valid question. i always took it to mean when the overwhelming majority want us to leave we should leave.

that is not the case in japan.

i doubt it is even the case in germany.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi - No, I am not wrong.

Thanks to us, Iraq has a sovereign government, and I don't deny that. I just say we're not going to leave Iraq before the Iraqis have the security situation in hand just because of some ungrateful Iraqi politicians. We wouldn't do that to the Iraqi people or ourselves. Unless Obama becomes president.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"f you had your way Saddam would till be in power and the Iraqi people all happy right?"

Nope... not at all, but do YOU have your way and saddam in control? or does your push button doll get a little confused.?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi: How can you on one hand say the Iraqis government is 'sovereign' and on the other hand deny that sovereignity?

How can you read the article above and then tell us that Iraq doesn't have sovereignty?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq, we will leave when we deem you are safe and the region is secure, NOT before!

Correction: we will leave when the President of the United States of America, a.k.a. the Commander-in-Chief orders us to. President Obama will seriously consider the input of the Iraqi government leaders (you know, treat them like a sovereign, liberated, democratic nation) and respond accordingly. Far cry from the sorry-assed "president" we have now.

Also, I'd advise you to be careful of using the term "we"; it implies you fight alongside us real US troops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ImperiumMundi,

I always thought it meant that we would leave when the duly elected government of the people asked us to leave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tell us Sarge or ImperiumMundi how we'll leave when we're damn good and ready.

Or maybe you have another definition of when we're getting our forces out of Iraq. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks to us, Iraq has a sovereign government, and I don't deny that. I just say we're not going to leave Iraq before the Iraqis have the security situation in hand just because of some ungrateful Iraqi politicians. We wouldn't do that to the Iraqi people or ourselves. Unless Obama becomes president.

So America(according to you) is going to dictate like any dictator worth his pay would, what it believes would be in the best interest of Iraq apon Iraqis. From one dictator to the next I suppose. Whatever Obama or McCain thinks is a moot point, Iraqi's via thier elected officials should be able to express their democratic rights and choose thier own future. If America doesn't like results, oh well, that is how a true democracy works.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

clearly, the left and the supposedly anti-war crowd are embarrassed and upset. the claim that America was simply making a grab for iraq's oil, which was the hysterical 'rationale' most of them had in opposing the liberation of iraq, was misguided and even lunatic.

and it reflects very badly on them.

daily.

every day that iraq grows and prospers.

U.S. fatalities in iraq hit the lowest ever this very month.

in the last 12 months more marines in iraq have died in motorcycle accidents than have died in combat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in the last 12 months more marines in iraq have died in motorcycle accidents than have died in combat.

Maybe asking the US to leave is part of an Iraqi road safety drive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To quote Bush, "The people have spoken", now will the US respond as the Iraqis have spoken?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites