Iraqis celebrate US pullback but bombing kills 27

There isn't a single government in the Middle East that wants a democracy to succeed; that would point out to their own citizens that dictatorships and monarchies aren't the only way to govern. It's going to be a long summer in Iraq.

Obama said. “The future belongs to those who build, not to those who destroy.”

And not to those who caused the destruction (bush/cheney). < :-)

"to those who caused the destruction ( bush/cheney )"

Or, the liberation.

Well Sadam is gone, US troops are gone, now it's up to the Iraqi people. Harping on Bush at this point is asinine. Unless of course one wants to blame GW for the various religious differences.

How many more have to die before President Obama surrenders to the will of the Islamists? No blood for oil!!! hehehehe...

OssanAmerica. No matter what happens, this all began with Bush. He is responsible for the destabilization of Iraq and for the futher empowerment of Iran as well as the many thousands of deaths associated with this conflict. Point this out is hardly asinine. On the contrary, it should be remembered as the catalyst of all this hardship.

We should remember that the worstening sitution in Pakistan and Afghanistan have their roots in the policies that led to Iraq. Had we focused our attention on the real war on terror and not on the Haliburton war on profits, we may have saved all three countries a lot of hardship.

We celebrate the opportunity of Iraq to move on now. But it is also clear that there will be those who will resist. I agree there is a long road ahead. And Sarge, we are a long way away from liberation in Iraq. Until economic prosperity and wide spread individual personal support by Iraqis for a peaceful nation replace infighting and factions, the outcome is very far from certain.

We should have high hopes, but be aware that the most significant part of the conflict may rest ahead as Iraqis determine their own next steps.

No matter what happens, this all began with Bush.

I'd say it - the mindless sectarian violence - began with Muhammed.

wrong again telepromter.

the violence started when a mindless christian president of the USA heard god tell him to invade Iraq. He thought that was his mission after screwing up his life for 40 years. Million dead now and many millions displaced due to this crusade from one mindless clueless idiot and the dittohead swarms who supported the invasion and failed occupation.

We should have left Saddam in power, worked out a deal with him, which I believe a guy like him would have been game for, and he probably would have brought AQ down.

However, tkoind3 states that Bush is responsible for bring destabilization to Iraq, how is that, by removing Saddam? I'm no criticizing, I am asking. And if so, then we stop here, we should go back to when we should have supported so many other leaders who rule with an iron hand and throw support behind them. or, of course the other option would have been to let Saddam pass on his power to his sons.

In a way, you point is saying that the people there are so crazy that a person like Saddam is necessary and you don't don't trust them to lead on their own.

zurcronium:

the violence started when a mindless christian president of the USA heard god tell him to invade Iraq. He thought that was his mission after screwing up his life for 40 years.

Zurc, buddy, look - Clinton had his little weaknesses - we all do - but his 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was a good call.

I reckon even your fellow Canadians were on board.

The US and all other countries should pull out of this region and let the idiots wipe themselves out. There are plenty of ton-katsu shops around to make bio-diesel, plus oil in Alaska, north America and off the coast of Australia. Then there is also natural gas. How can a peace-keeping force be effective in a country that does not want peace?

but his 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was a good call." I don't get it? you mean the US gov was planning to remove Saddam even before the war?

The could be one of the reason so many voted to invade in the first place.

Tele ol pal,

Even Putin, your leader, warned bush that invading Iraq was stupid.

Lets stroll down memory lane here a bit to those innocent days when the bush people were lying constantly so they could justify the failed invasion.

It began with lies like this:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002 ... and this: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002 ... and this: "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 1/9/2003 ... and this: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to the UN Security Council 2/5/2003 ... and this: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ABC Interview 3/30/2003

Of course, the almost daily bombings that have occured for the past 7 years are now going to be Obama's fault.

Get our brave men and women back home and into to politics at every level. Both parties need new blood, and lots of it. They have seen firsthand what a disaster it would be for America to become like Europe or the UK (85 officially recognized Sharia courts).

Of course, the almost daily bombings that have occured for the past 7 years are now going to be Obama's fault.

Middle Name Hussein wanted the job.

Skipthesong. Exactly. Destabilization resulted from the precipitous removal of Sadam. Anyone looking at the nation's history could have predicted the outcome of such a decision. Many voiced this opinion but were unheeded.

I still believe that Sadam was leveraging for attention and bargaining points to strike a deal. Had the US pursued this option we could have had a gradual power shift in Iraq that would have made it a hostile place for such radicalism as Al Qaida.

Rushing in to invade we opened the door to every sectarian faction who wanted a piece of the nation.

But this is typical of bad US policy. Post Soviet war we just abandoned Afghanistan to internal fighting and set the stage for both the Taliban and Al Qaida to take root there. Just as we created and supported Sadam.

You cannot look at the situations in either country and miss the connections to direct US policies that drove these outcomes.

"The latest blast was a deadly example of the violence many Iraqis fear will increase with the departure of U.S. troops from urban areas" Why does the media continue to give us such conflicting accounts of what the Iraqis want? They want us out, but they fear for their safety if we leave. If we stay, they don't like the way in which we attempt to protect them (with our "cowboy attitudes" that one Iraqi in this article refers to). I can't wait for this whole fiasco to end.

Of course, the almost daily bombings that have occured for the past 7 years are now going to be Obama's fault.

Middle Name Hussein wanted the job.

Well, the left and right sure got a win-win situation here. President Obama is in power for the left, and now the right has someone to blame for their king's grievous war crimes and also have a "weapon" in President Obama's middle name. By that logic, every person who ever received that name is automatically an evil F. What's YOUR middle name? It could probably be linked to a criminal or evil person at some point in history. That makes you equally culpable, and from now on, everyone should refer to YOU by what someone else with the same name did or does. Great, GREAT logic

Telepromter, Adaydream, etc, first I ask you to realize that you guys just jump into these threads to bash the otherside. You're essentially the same in that respect. You think your side is perfect and blame all the problems on the policies and choices by the otherside, all the while when real people are being murdered.

You must unite.

First, you must let go of this self righteousness that engrosses your stance. See the other side as humans like you. Acknowledged that we are all flawed.

Then work together to find the roots of these problems. There are so many more factors at play that you cannot possibly give all blame to one side.

Just to list some with my limited knowledge:

ethnic differences, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd; Sunni minority controlling majority with iron fist; US propping up Sunni minority to counter balance Iranian Shiite majority; 1991 gulf war; oil, Bush family; Clinton's continued bombing of Iraq, Cheney, Haliburton; Bush's grudge, false intelligence, 2003~ REAL WAR, real responsibility, now passed to Democrats

See, both sides are at fault here and both have responsibilities. Sure, the Republicans started this, but the Democrats inhereted it twice, now. I remember Clinton's bombings and sanctions that hurt the people of Iraq.

Let's factor EVERYTHING into the equation before we go off blasting people on the otherside just because they are on the other side. It's so childish and absurd. Not to mention completely disrespectful to the people who are living and dying in this war.

I voted for Barack Obama to complete this pull out. This is the start and he'll complete it.

bush and cheney dreamed of many permanent U. S. bases where halliburton and bush's connections would continue to received the spoils of a war created in the room of cheney and feith.

If McCain and Palin had been elected, well they'd be looking for ways to stay another 100 years.

Bring our boys and girls home. < :-)

moonbeams, you think this pullout would be going on now if McCain got elected?

You think that we'd be looking forward to leaving Iraq in 2011 if McCain or Romney or any of the other republican candidates? They be working their butts off to stay in Iraq just as long as possible. < :-)

Logistics have often been cited as among the main weaknesses of the Iraqi security forces, with a reliable fuel supply network, for example, not yet in place. Iraqi officers also complain of the time it takes to repair broken vehicles.

And so begins the crash course in defending your own cities. It's as if they didn't have time to prepare for this.

where halliburton and bush's connections would continue to received the spoils of a war

I don't know what broker you're using but Halliburton stock has been a little volitile, it was more stable before the war during the Clinton years. Recently it's taken a pretty nasty tumble. And their revenues don't break any long term trends. So whatever may have gone on with that doesn't appear to have effected the company in any profound way. But then it's annoying little things like that which spook investors, so I don't trade in the oil market, GD is where it's at.

If McCain and Palin had been elected, well they'd be looking for ways to stay another 100 years.

McCain backs Obama Iraq pullout plan

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE51Q3VH20090227

You where saying something relevant here?

Bring our boys and girls home.

I know it's fun to say, but the reality is that they'll likely be sent back into afghanistan.

You think that we'd be looking forward to leaving Iraq in 2011 if McCain or Romney or any of the other republican candidates? They be working their butts off to stay in Iraq just as long as possible.

Irrelevant, they were not elected and comparing the President's actions to their theoretical ones is absurd. As is comparing his actions to his predecesors. I happen to disagree with a majority of what the current president is doing, for that matter I disagreed with a majority of what the last president did. In my honest opinion we got two duds in a row based on preformance so far... then again I'm a laissez-faire libertarian so I'm a relativly difficult man to please.

TheQuestion, I think the Iraqi forces have had enough time to train, so it would be their fault for not absorbing what the US forces were trying to teach them. We warned them about it, and obviously they voted for us to leave. Now we're leaving, it's their responsibility now. Our soldiers have other, more pressing battles to fight, and families to get home to (depending on where they get sent after their Iraqi deployment. A lot will NOT be sent straight home).

Again, TheQuestion, it is relevant that he has to clean up the actions of his predecessor(s). The onus is on him to come to a solution, but we can't just slam the door on what got us here in the first place. Ignoring history is exactly what makes history repeat itself

With the US gone will the Left still call the suicide bombers "freedom fighters" and "the equivalent of American revolutionaries"?

Looking forward to watching the contortions of Socialism's sentimental,jilted cheerleaders get even more tortured...

Again, TheQuestion, it is relevant that he has to clean up the actions of his predecessor(s). The onus is on him to come to a solution, but we can't just slam the door on what got us here in the first place.

There's a difference between learning from history and hiding behind it. At the time the U.S and other nations were convinced that it was the right move to invade Iraq, now we know it wasn't. Now we've cleaned up most of the mess and we're leaving the cities in the hands of the local defense teams, fine. But there comes a time when we need to wrap up analyzing the past and focus on the present, I belive that time has been long in waiting.

US citizens celebrating even more, and probably less concerned now with how things go in Backwards-land

TheQuestion - "I know it's fun to say, but the reality is that they'll likely be sent back into afghanistan."

bush and cheney should have sent them there in the first place.

Why did it take a relatively young Senator/President with not a lot of experience to work that one out??

teleprompter - "With the US gone will the Left still call the suicide bombers "freedom fighters" and "the equivalent of American revolutionaries"?

We never did. Stop making things up to defend a case you never had.

TheQuestion--I guess that may work, but we're less than 7 months into a new presidency. Is it okay to forget so soon? Yeah, I'm with you in thinking we just need to fix the problem and stop fighting and arguing over whose fault it is, and analyze it after it becomes history. I also agree that the left doesn't help the situation by hiding behind history instead of focusing their energy on fixing it. I think it would be a far greater victory for the left now and in future history if they would just fix the problems they inherited and stop letting themselves get pulled down to the far-right's level of hurling blame instead of finding solutions. History would look kindly upon that sort of thing (solutions, not hurling blame). Alas, Democrats are fit to playing the same games. I truly believe that President Obama is doing what he possibly can to fix the mess he inherited, but admittedly his constituents aren't helping as much as they could be when they'd rather play political games with the right than find solutions to the problems we all are facing together.

This is a very good move, despite it being authored by bush.

The GOP under McCain would have wanted US forces to baby-sit Iraqi forces for who kows how many more years.

President Obama wants US forces out to focus on the threat they should have been focused on in the first place - Afghanistan - had bush and cheney not blindly blundered into Iraq and created the most ill-planned, poorly fought war in recent US history.

Iraqis are now free to stand on their own feet and whether or not they stand or fall is no business of Americas.

Meanwhile, conservatives, sure as the sun rises in the morning, will still come out with the fatally flawed argument of the need to protect Iraqis from an "evil dictator running his country into the ground from his many palaces" or however the line goes.

America has far greater problems at home, many of them existing due to the money-draining war in Iraq that should never have been fought in the first place, and it's long past time to get real and get working on solving them.

Which President Obama and his team are now well into tackling, despite the seemingly endless river of criticism coming from the GOP and conservatives wishing for him to fail.

Well done, Mr. President.

Couldn't have said that better myself, SushiSake3. As someone with a vested interest in seeing the Iraqi forces fend for themselves and the US focus on more pressing issues at home and in Afghanistan (and maybe soon, North Korea), I'm extremely happy to see the US forces pulling out of Iraq.

Celebrate while you can before the civil war starts.

sailwind sure he backs it now. He didn't back it then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

McCain changes his stripes now. < :-)

Yeah, we'll see how long their celebrations last when they realize they didn't take advantage of the US forces being there to help train and prepare them for the coming storm. Regardless of why we were there, the US forces WERE THERE, so it's now on the Iraqis to use that to their advantage or ignore it.

aerockyulhim we have trainers still in the cities. Most of the troops are out, but some US trainers are staying behind to finish their training. < :-)

Recently, a US inventor discovered a means of applying a particular radio frequency to salt water which caused the escaping gases to readily burn at 1500 centigrade. An endless supply of power to run engines, cars, power grids and so on. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone, and the oil age won't end because we ran out of oil.

Seems to me the real home of Al-queda terrorism and the billions of dollars for extreme Watanabe Islam was Saudi-Arabia. It is not Afganhistan or Pakistan.

President George W Bush had to play the hand that was dealt him. After 9/11 his main task was to keep terrorism out of mainland US. He was eminently successful. He also played a big part in assisting the rest of the world minimise or block terrorist attacks on their citizens too. I would give him close to 100% for that as well.

Interestingly, it is the same three Protestant Christian countries countries that played such a big part in ending German military expansion in WW1, again in WW11 and now misplaced Islamic extremism and terrorism in the Middle East. The US., Britain and Australia.

When you look at the several hundred millions that either died or suffered unspeakable misery and terror when Japanese militarilists got control of Japan and much of SE Asia, Bolshevik Communism and Nazism got control of Russia and German respectively before the same three aforementioned bastions of western freedom and democracy defeated them in Europe and in the "cold war" at no small cost to themselves, then I wish to express my gratitude and admiration to them. I would not want children or grandchildren living under the brutal jackboot of any fascist or communist.

It is amazing how happy happy and peaceful Iraqis living in the US and Australia are. Why not in Iraq? I believe they will and good on them.

[wrong again telepromter. the violence started when a mindless christian president of the USA heard god tell him to invade Iraq. He thought that was his mission after screwing up his life for 40 years. Million dead now and many millions displaced due to this crusade from one mindless clueless idiot and the dittohead swarms who supported the invasion and failed occupation.]

Methinks Zurcranium, that it is the locals and a few others that keep those 'millions and millions' 'displaced' due to their own agendas. Hey look at the bright side. At least now they can decide for themselves. Good luck and hope your Wonderboy Hussein can help them realize true utopia.

Brunobear, bush didn't have to play any hand like your imagination puts together. bush, cheney and feith took a weak moment in American history and took advantage of the American people and the world, period. < :-)

And bushlover joins in the base use of President Obama's middle name. Must be the same guy, different account, as teleprompter. FAIL

TheQuestion: But there comes a time when we need to wrap up analyzing the past and focus on the present, I believe that time has been long in waiting.

Well said. It's time to put aside the debate about the war and move on. Iraq is moving into a new phase and I wish them luck.

adaydream: I guess your psuedonym fits! The American people largely supported Bush at the outset and the war was over in 22 days when armchair experts were saying years. Perhaps if the US Civilian Administrator, Paul Bremmer, hadn't sacked the Iraqi 500,000 strong Army shortly after against the wishes of Colin Powell and the Pentagon things may have been much different. There is never a soft warm cuddly solution when the likes of Suddiam Hussain and his brutal sons, get absolute power, and brutally misuse it on their own people and their neighbors. Who knows where it would have ended if Pakistan had sold him or his sons some nuclear weapons? We don't have to worry about it now.

The GOP under McCain would have wanted US forces to baby-sit Iraqi forces for who kows how many more years.

you do realize the troops haven't left the country, right?

A majority of the American people followed george bush right into a lie he helped create, fabricate and execute. They were in the mood after 9/11, which bush allowed to happen, for anything. < :-)

A majority of the American people followed george bush right into a lie he helped create, fabricate and execute.

I think you speak for yourself on that one.

I was never a supporter of bush or any of his ideas.

But as for the Iraq people. I'm glad that the Americans have started the plan of bringing our boys home. < :-)

adaydream: After the brutal horror of 9/11, the US and the world was not in the mood for asking questions and shooting later from any potential threat. The jobs done now. You can sleep tight now and email JP in your spare time. I say thanks to the servicemen of Iraq, the US, Britain, Australia, Japan, Holland, Poland, Canada and all the other countries that saw it through. For those male suicide bombers, I guess it is every Moslem girls dream to go through life as a virgin, so she and 71 others can go to Heaven and spend the rest of eternity married to an pamper a crazy suicide bomber. I think it's just "a daydream".

Brunobear think what you like.

Like him or not and I didn't care for Saddam, but Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. You're satisfied with your following of a renegade and all the deaths and collateral damage for his actions. Your choice.

I sleep well knowing the truth and being against those actions. My choice.

I'll sleep even better when the last US Soldier, Sailor, AirWinger and Jarhead are out of Iraq. < :-)

Brunobear - "The American people largely supported Bush at the outset and the war was over in 22 days when armchair experts were saying years."

This line always makes me laugh. They supported bush because the intelligence that came out of the CIA that stressed there was no solid evidence Saddam had WMD was white washed by the bush White House before being presented to Congress.

They believed false "evidence" and subsequently backed an invasion based on lies, distortions and mistruths presented to them by the bush White House.

But you knew that already....

adaydream: I am underwhelmed by your comment, "like him or not, I didn't care for Saddam...". Wow! I imagine you wouldn't have cared if Ouday Hussein was running the show now, or perhaps the US hadn't bombed Gaddafi, a secret purchaser of Pakistani nuclear bomb no-how, or if he was still funding terrorism around the free world. Our world is essentially free, thanks to the US and Britain. As they say tyrants prosper, when good men do nothing. You sound like Goody, Goody Two- shoes! I bet you put a clean hanky in your pocket everyday and change your underwear everytime another male inadvertently looks aggresively at you. Bush did his job!

Brunobear - "The jobs done now."

What job? The ME hasn't been this unstable for decades.

There is every chance of a civil war in Iraq and Iran has never been so strong, thanks to bush and co. taking out Iraq for all the wrong reasons.

If you think "The jobs done now," I've got news for you and it's all bad.

Republicans never fail to amaze me -

They look at failure and call it success.

They look at defeat and call it victory.

They look at lies and call it truth.

Absolutely amazing, if you ask me.

Brunobear - "Bush did his job!"

LOL!! See my comments above.

i too would like to send out a congrats to the coalition troops, if any are checking in here. great job. you should be very proud of the work you did (and continue to do).

My litmus test on whether or not the GOP was doing a good job is:

By what margin did the GOP win the 2008 U.S. election?

Oh, yeah...... :-)

The GOP has succeeded in making themselves irrelevant and yes, they have every right to speak, but no, they should not be listened to, let alone taken seriously, especially after the abject disaster their failed policies created in the ME that I'm sure President Obama dearly wishes he didn't have to waste time mopping up.

Despite some conservatives still pretending to care for ordinary Iraqis' freedoms and liberty, there is no point America remaining in Iraq.

In the medium term, this withdrawl - and yes, it is a withdrawl - is going to be good for everyone involved - the Iraqis, to give them a chance to get back on their feet, and Americans, to stop them being killed for nothing and pouring billions into a country most of them couldn't even point to on a map.

But some people still cannot understand this.

sorry but i have to say this

it was the widely accepted consensus that he had illegal WMD.

i think only people in America or bush supporter in America "widely accepted consensus that he had illegal WMD."

he jerked the world around for years.

bush?

he was refusing to live up to his treaty obligation to provide the evidence he had destroyed them.

weapon inspectors from UN did confirm they found no WMD in Iraq. only americans under bush didn't believe it. they wanted the war anyway!

result of 9/11 some people took the threat of WMD considerably more seriously.

that still doesn't give American any right to go to war with anyone. i see that american were the one jerk around

TheDeath - good comments, and you put some of JT's U.S. conservative posters to shame.

Let's face it ladies and gentlemen, what justification did the aerial attacks of 9/11, which involved 16 Saudi nationals and precisely zero Iraqis, present to invade Iraq?

President Obama is doing the right thing by drawing down U.S. troops.

"It's time to put asise the debate about the war and move on."

I wouldn't have any problem with that, but when I see posters blaming Bush and Cheney for all the deaths and problems in Iraq and claiming that Iraq would be better off without the liberation, I must take issue with that.

Iraqi government employee:"I hope our forces will be up to the task"

If they're not, that's too bad. President Obama is not going to send U.S. forces back into the cities. Or would he? He certainly wouldn't want to see defeat in Iraq on his watch ( even though he actively sought defeat during Bush's watch )... But I think they are up to the task.

"he jerked the world around for years"

"bush?"

No, Saddam. Look it up.

Sarge, bush lied, you and thousands of other GOP followers believed him, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have subsequently died as a result of an invasion that should never have happened.

No, we will not believe you if you claim to care for ordinary Iraqis, neither will be believe you if you claim "spreading freedom and democracy" was necessary in a country that certainly did not ask for it and at the end of the day, America had no right whatsoever to impose it.

Sarge - "I wouldn't have any problem with that, but when I see posters blaming Bush and Cheney for all the deaths and problems in Iraq and claiming that Iraq would be better off without the liberation."

Another conservative poster who has failed to do his homework - a few years ago, more Iraqis were dying at a faster rate than they ever did under Saddam.

Thanks to the misguided policies of the GOP, Iraqis were not only being persecuted by Saddam and his men on one side, they were also being bombed, attacked and shot at by Americans on the other side.

Not only that, but Iraqis had more reliable power and water supplies under Saddam than they do now. U.S. bombing of crucial infrastructure sure didn't help in that regard.

Disputing the fact that Iraq would have been better off without the liberation is to not understand reality and a slap in the face to every innocent person who has died for nothing.

And Sarge, a helpful hint - saying 'Look it up' while at the same time not presenting any evidence whatsoever to back up your point doesn't make you look very good.

I guess when the US leaves the libs won't have to pretend to care about Iraqi innocents being blown up anymore. No more political mileage.

“The Iraqi people are rightly treating this as a cause for celebration,” Obama said. “The future belongs to those who build, not to those who destroy.”

At Least Obama is looking FORWARD on this. Most posters here prefer to look BACKWARDS on this.

Helter - "I guess when the US leaves the libs won't have to pretend to care about Iraqi innocents being blown up anymore."

What on earth are you talking about?

Us "Libs" didn't want Iraq invaded in the first place.

That would sure as heck protect many thousands of innocent Iraqis who have subsequently been killed thanks to extremist suicide bombers that were unleashed after the nutjob invasion that you supported was launched.

Sailwind - "Most posters here prefer to look BACKWARDS on this."

..says a poster whose unthinking support of the invasion of Iraq unleashed all this totally unnecessary bloodshed in the first place.

Sailwind, I think if you - and other conservatives - actually had a conscience, you would be gutted by what your support for this war has unleashed.

As it stands, quotes like the ones you have been making for years now simply underline how little you really understand about what you have done.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Wait, HelterSkelter, isn't that the reason that you and your ilk are constantly defending the reasons we went to war? Saddam was persecuting these poor helpless Iraqis and the only people who could come in and save the country was Bush and the US military. Isn't that the reason you fall back on time and time again when someone (not of the right) says that we should get out or that there were no WMD's or that Iraq and Saddam were culpable in 9/11? That's the RIGHT'S political mileage, not the left's. I guess you're all being consistent though. The right's political mileage now becomes the left's, just like the gigantic cluster-F that Bush left for Obama has now become solely Obama's. Sailwind is right, at least Obama is looking forward and isn't resorting to all this switching of tactics, which can't be said about EITHER side of the bickering and blame-slinging constituents of both the left and right.

Australia has 21.5 million people and 140,000 die naturally each year. Iraq has 25 million people so lets say 150,000 natural deaths each year. Since the coalition forces interceded and freed Iraqi's from Saddam's family's brutal rule in March 2003 - then 6 years by 150,000 = 900,000 Iraqi's would have died naturally. Official UN records indicate 80,000 died from the civil and insurgent war that followed plus 4,000 US troops. Few US or Iraqi's died from the 21 day war itself. Sadly few countries march into a long period of real freedom and democracy without massive bloodshed. Hopefully, Iraq and eventually Iran will become strong free, democratic secular states over the next decade and places we would all want to visit. It is just a tragedy with us humans that so many have been called upon to make the supreme sacrifice so that others may live in peace. Despots rarely leave without sacrificing huge numbers of their subjects. Hitler would have preferred all Germans died.

"Sailwind is right, at least Obama is looking forward and isn't resorting to all this switching of tactics, which can't be said about EITHER side of the bickering and blame-slinging constituents of both the left and right."

Despite it being annoying, I think it IS necessary to keep reminding conservatives where they screwed up, if only for the sole reason to make sure they never screw up this bad again.

Some of them have for a few years now already started revising recent history in their heads with regard to causes and justifications of this war - you see it almost every day on this board.

There is a lot of truth in the maxim, 'Those who forget history are bound to repeat it.'

SushiSake, that's exactly what I said earlier in this thread about it being too early for conservatives to shut the door on the Bush years 7 months into a new presidency as if nothing happened before. Ignoring (forgetting) history is what makes history repeat itself. So I'm very glad that Obama is man enough to move forward, using the mistakes of the past to help him come to his many, many decisions that he has to make about fixing this mess, even though most people underneath him still revel in name-calling and blame-slinging and the same old political BS that got us into this mess in the first place.

t IS necessary to keep reminding conservatives where they screwed up,

i agree we need to keep the debate going. people need choices, an alternative philosophy if and when obama's vision unravels.

the mid term elections will be very interesting indeed.

The bombing will go on for years - as it has in Algeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Philippines, S Thailand, Nigeria, Somalia, "Palestine", Lebanon and the many other fronts in militant Islam's War on Civilization.

"It's time to put asise the debate about the war and move on."

I wouldn't have any problem with that, but when I see posters blaming Bush and Cheney for all the deaths and problems in Iraq and claiming that Iraq would be better off without the liberation, I must take issue with that.

sarge,

i think it goes beyond that. going back to when howard dean made that surprise run for the nomination the dems realized the thicker the rhetoric against the war and bush the more milage they got. they fell all over themselves trashing whatever they could to get results.

the press went along for the ride. outrageous accusations were made. very little was done to challenge them. the political winds were changing and politicians being what they are were either running scared (on the right) or joining the feeding frenzy (on the left).

as much as the press joined the drum beat for war they turned and joined the drum beat against bush.

so as a result the dems were able to control the message of the war. for instance their position of cut and run was allowed to just fade away with out so much as a look back. whatever the dems needed the press supplied.

but it's not that simple. the same problems that existed before the war still exist today. will the dems be the ones to deal with them? the republicans have to find the person who can go back and challenge the 'conclusion.' playing it safe and just moving on would seal the liberal victory of hijacking the issue.

of course i realize the political winds still have not shifted. and the right person to deliver the goods is no where to be seen. i doubt it could be palin. but i have to believe there will be some one who takes on this challenge and opportunity.

as the obama's poll numbers fade it will encourage new blood on the right.

moonbeams, you think this pullout would be going on now if McCain got elected?You think that we'd be looking forward to leaving Iraq in 2011 if McCain or Romney or any of the other republican candidates? They be working their butts off to stay in Iraq just as long as possible. < :-)

No, I voted for Obama, too. But I approach manners with a cool head and take into consideration that there is more to one side of things and I definitely don't use an internet forum to slander people.

teleprompter's desperation is palpable - "Saddam's own generals thought he had nukes.I think the international Left genuinely misses him."

I guess this pullout - and look! All a da oil, still there in Iraq! Whuddaya know, no pipeline straight to Texas after all - and the success of the surge is why susisake3 kept hidden all this time his nationality.

teleprompter - "I guess this pullout - and look! All a da oil, still there in Iraq! Whuddaya know, no pipeline straight to Texas after all - and the success of the surge is why susisake3 kept hidden all this time his nationality."

My nationality??? Very occasionally I think teleprompter has a point. Other times I know I'm dreaming.

This is one of those times.

If it was up to SushiSake3, Saddam Hussein, along with his winsome sons and Chemical Ali, would still be running Iraq into the ground and thumbing his nose at the Useless Nations from his many luxurious palaces.

Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Sarge, please tell all of us why, considering the fact that the CIA knew that lacked hard evidence of Saddam's 'WMD' before the invasion, and the evidence that we now know that Saddma was never a threat, do you still think that America had the right to just barge in and invade Iraq?

You keep posting your 'running Iraq into the ground and thumbing his nose at the Useless Nations from his many luxurious palaces' (or variations thereof) line but you have repeatedly failed to provide a credible explanation as to why thousands of Iraqis had to die needlessly due to the US invasion.

Until then, I think the rest of us will treat your posts with about the same level of credibility that Americas now treat the GOP.

Nigh on zero.

.

"Saddma ( Saddam ) was never a threat"

Go talk to the Kurds, the Iranians and the Kuwaitis, and then get back here and admit how wrong you are.

Sarge - "Go talk to the Kurds, the Iranians and the Kuwaitis, and then get back here and admit how wrong you are."

Sarge, last year Russia invaded Georgia.

Using your argument, America should have invaded Russia.

Why didn't that happen?

Sarge - "Go talk to the Kurds, the Iranians and the Kuwaitis, and then get back here and admit how wrong you are."

Sarge, these countries are regional neighbors.

America is 8000 miles away.

Again, what right did America have to invade?

I know you don't have an answer.

Well, you might have another cliche or 6. :-)

Saddam Hussein, along with his winsome sons and Chemical Ali, would still be running Iraq into the ground...

Tens of thousands of Iraqis would be alive, along with tens thousands of Americans who wouldn't have come back to their families in pieces, mentally and/or physically. Billions upon billions of dollars down a rathole. What a waste.

If we could only turn back the clock. If an authoritative voice from on high could have proclaimed with absolute certitude the Truth that "Iraq has no WMD," would the US still have attacked? The answer is "No," and Saddam would still be in charge. So what.

Only someone who hates what is really good about America would believe that a totally contained Saddam with no WMD is a worse situation than the deaths of thousands of Americans it took to create the current mess.

Sorry, SushiSake3, Russia and Georgia are irrelevant to this discussion.

I'll be interested to know what the Kurds, the Iranians and the Kuwaitis, all of whom were brutalized by the former dictator of Iraq, have to say about him never being a threat.

Sarge, thanks for proving yet again you are unable to debate rationally and that at the end of the day, you are completely incapable of putting forward a credible, rational reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

And before you start, really, there's just no need to copy, tweak and paste my comment.

Copying my post and throwing it back at me with a few words altered will show us all yet again that you do not have a credible case.

yabits: "Tens of thousands of Iraqis would be alive ( if the liberation hadn't taken place )"

Yeah, and Saddam Hussein, alomg with his winsome sons and Chemical Ali, would have murdered more tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, while continuing to run Iraq into the ground and thumb his nose at the Useless Nations while plotting to resurrect his WMD fron his many luxurious palaces.

"Saddam would still be in charge. So what."

You don't get it, do you? LOL

"than the deaths of thousands of Americans it took to create the current mess."

Yabits, to people like Sarge, the deaths and incapacitation of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the wasting of nearly $3 TRILLION of borrowed dollars and the hamstringing of the new U.S. administration to fix these disastrous Iraq-related mistakes IS a worthwhile price to pay for taking out some dictator somewhere who did some bad stuff sometime in the past.

Saddam Hussein, alomg with his winsome sons and Chemical Ali, would have murdered more tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

Saddam did most of his murdering while he was the good buddy of Reagan and Daddy Bush. Saddam dealt with insurgents to his regime the same way that America deals with insurgents over there. Like two peas in a pod.

thumbing his nose at the U.N.

Now, there's a good reason to require thousands of Americans to sacrifice their lives. Right.

"A credible, rational reason for the U.S. invasion ( liberation ) of Iraq:

How about a freely elected Iraqi government that doesn't threaten its neighbors or seek WMD?

SushiSake3, can you put foward one credible, rational reason for keeping Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq after everything he'd done and was still doing?

Sarge - "while continuing to run Iraq into the ground and thumb his nose at the Useless Nations while plotting to resurrect his WMD fron his many luxurious palaces."

Sarge, after 6 long years, you just don't get it, do you?

"while plotting to resurrect his WMD"

Is THIS your new justification for the invasion???

Are you kidding???

Why are you unable to present a rational explantion for the U.S. invasion of Iraq?

The CIA had no concrete evidence that WMD existed before the invasion.

The UN weapons inspections team found NO evidence of WMD.

bush said there were no WMD.

You still talk about WMD.

See what I mean when I say you cannot present a rational explantion for the U.S. invasion?

"Saddam dealt with insurgents to his regime the same way that America deals with insurgents over there."

That is one ridiculous accusation which cannot be backed up with facts.

Sarge - "How about a freely elected Iraqi government that doesn't threaten its neighbors or seek WMD?"

Then why not invade Russia, China, North Korea and Israel while you're at it?

You talk about a　freely elected government as if you have a right to tell them what type of government they should have?

And while we're on the subject of governments, you no doubt know that the Reagan administration supplied the poison gas via the CIA and Donald Rumsfeld to Saddam Hussein, along with some handy sattelite images of the Kurd positions so that the Iraqi dictator could gas them?

"Saddam dealt with insurgents to his regime the same way that America deals with insurgents over there."

Yabits' Ameri-centric world view is so embarrassing.It is amazing how American and European "Liberals" and progressives believe Saddam Hussein - like all world leaders - apparently had no free will of his own and could only react to or pervert American foreign policy.

Sarge - "SushiSake3, can you put foward one credible, rational reason for keeping Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq after everything he'd done and was still doing?"

Sure.

Knowing Saddam was never a threat to the US, my list would include:

Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, killed for nothing 4.25 million Iraqis displaced. Iraq's infrastructure essentially destroyed. Upwards of 7,000 dead US servicemen $2-3 TRILLION of borrowed money wasted. A totally bankrupted US economy, wrecked in no small part to the trillions wasted on Iraq.

Shall I go on?

Shall I go on?

By all means.

You just look more and more foolish.

teleprompter - welcome back!

Are you going to demand Yabits tell you what country he is from?

According to you, posters' countries are relevant to EVERY discussion.

lol :-)

And please keep writing Liberals inside quotation marks. It makes you look like you know what you are talking about. :-)

Jokes aside, at the end of the day, this US withdrawal is a good move, and will hopefully in future teach US leaders that invading countries based on a web of lies is not going to fly with the rest of the world, especially when you want the rest of the world to contribute troops.

teleprompter - "You just look more and more foolish."

The truth only hurts when you can see it.

Sadly, it went past you like an iceberg in the night.

moonbeams, who did I slander? If you voted for Obama, you knew he was for getting the hell out of Iraq. Also, Obama has consistantly said that we shouldn't be there.

Above you posted:

Not to mention completely disrespectful to the people who are living and dying in this war.

I am staying away from the warriors in my post here because they are there following orders. No more, no less. They wouldn't be there if it weren't for bush. And the Iraqis that have and are dying did nothing to start this war. They were/are innocent bystanders in the george bush Memorial War in Iraq. They wouldn't have died if george bush had not lied and fabricated false evidence to start this war of choice.

Have a good day moonbeams. I'm going flyfishing. < :-)

inkjet: it was the widely accepted consensus that he had illegal WMD. he jerked the world around for years. he was refusing to live up to his treaty obligation to provide the evidence he had destroyed them.

Yep. Saddam did just about everything he could to make people believe he had WMDs. He wanted to save face and make surrounding countries believe he was still a threat. He made a gamble and lost.

The good news is that Saddam is gone. If he were still in power today we'd be seeing a race for nuclear weapons between Iraq and Iran. There's no way Saddam would sit on his hands while watching Iran build nukes. And after watching Saddam get away with murder Iran would be even less likely to cooperate with the UN over inspections. Just imagine that scenario playing out.....not fun.

Saddam did just about everything he could to make people believe he had WMDs.

Just like Kim in NK is doing, except Kim is doing it better. So why is he being kept in power, running the country into the ground while ordinary North Koreans are brainwashed and starved?

Goose. Gander.

SushiSake3: See what I mean when I say you cannot present a rational explantion for the U.S. invasion?

Well I think the issue at hand was Saddam's failure to comply with the conditions that ended the first gulf war, which dealt with the fact he did have confirmed WMDs at the time. One of the conditions placed upon him was that he was to verify their destruction, but he chose the opposite path and refused to show any proof or verification. In the end he actually did destroy them but as I said above he wanted to create doubt in people's minds by refusing to offer proof. Even the head UN inspector suspected he still had WMDs somewhere so that should be enough evidence that he failed to comply. The rest of the world knew he wasn't complying, and they knew they weren't sure if he still had WMDs or not, but they just didn't want to get involved. It had nothing to do with them knowing Saddam had no WMDs.

A second reason would be the humanitarian angle, which was important to me personally. His crimes against humanity are well documented and I think the world has a responsibility to do something about it. I disagree with you when you say that the world should ignore genocide as long as it's not happening to them. Bringing up other countries is mostly a distraction because obviously each country has a unique set of factors which are taken into account.

A third reason would be that we both know eventually the world would have switched focus away from him and he most likely would have continued to go after WMDs, especially nuclear weapons, and especially since we're watching Iran go for them now. I think North Korea is teaching the world a lesson on what it means to fail to act until it's too late.

The invasion brought about more destruction than it should have because of poor planning and execution. That's something that I regret. But when you have a discussion about the war you should at least be fair and acknowledge that it's not all about "Bush's lies" and "oil" and whatever hot point you want to make up. There are valid reasons to support the invasion and even though the reasons aren't compelling enough for you they still exist with or without your permission.

You should also use accurate information when you can, for example no one believes that the number of dead is hundreds of thousands. We've learned that those numbers are gross overestimates that were believed in the beginning for the simple reason that most people were against the war. You should also stop inflating the cost numbers. The cost of the war is nowhere near $3 trillion. If you're adding in the future costs, interest payments, and everything else under the sun, then you should be consistent and do that with every piece of government spending, which we both know you don't do. You should also stop saying that the cost of the war is a significant player in the current recession because it's common knowledge that it's not.

Simply put, you should be able to look at both arguments instead of pretending one doesn't exist, and when you do put forth an argument you shouldn't inflate the numbers. We're not playing a game here.

aerockyulhim good guess but unfortunately guess what else: FAIL!!

I think The US troops should leave Iraq up to it's own fate at present. As long as a legit government can handle the place not going into some undesirable hands, ie: Taliban, Al Quida a-holes. People who continue to kill for the sake of getting control and love to use the method that has never really worked but has scared a lot. If that's what they will have to fight then lets hope they can do it. I support the gov't of Iraq in doing so. As do I with Pakistan too. Unfortunately they will eventually need help and who they gonna call? Not Ghostbusters.

No WMD.

No Nuclear Program.

No Yellowcake from Niger.

No stockpiles of Sarin gas.

Just a loud mouth ruler that ran around the issues and resolutions.

bush, cheney, feith and rumpsfeld conned most of the world and attacked, murdered, destroyed a nation's infrastructure and we will spend over $3Trillion, as also mentioned by SuperLib.

This pullout is only the start of reclaiming our nation's image. We attacked a nation, played schoolyard bully and reduced the country to ruins. This pullout will allow the Iraqi people to try to rebuild their country. This pullout will allow the country to rule itself. To police their own country without the US as occupiers. < :-)

British PM Neville Chamberlain returned from meeting Hitler Adolf Hitler waving a signed letter from Hitler saying Germany would not invade other countries, uttering a mantra "Peace in Our Time". Hitler also signed a non aggression pact with the Soviet Union a week before brutally invading his neighbors and the world found it had to go to war to stop him. 100 million died including 27 million Soviets. The Japanese Ambassador was negotiating a peace agreement in Washington with the Presidential staff, at the very time it made its surprise attack on the US at Pearl Harbor. Stalin starved 9 million Ukrainians in 1932 and the Bolsheviks pulling the strings robbed the Russian people of all their land and wealth and the Soviets gave the world a 68 year cold war. What did it cost Britain, the US, Australia, Canada, NZ etc., to restore freedom to the world and those aggressor countries. The only difference with Saddam was the timing and on this occasion the West got in first. No more "or gee, but" please. The whole world virtually came to the same decision on Saddam in 2003. France didn't want the invasion because it had been supplying his weapons and munitions. Saddam kept his all French built planes on the ground knowing they were no match for the US planes. The Australian SAS captured all their fighter planes at the main tactical airport within the first week. Most of the deaths in Iraq came from an internal religious and race war exploited by Al-queda insurgents. I am happy to have lived for the last 64 years under the protection of the five Anglo Saxon countries. You cannot trust or rely on anyone else.

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

saddam was not safely contained. the world saw the threat. the UN backed sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis. the wringing hands approach was worse than useless. the status quo doing great harm .

why don't we hear about that from the concerned liberals? oh yeah clinton was a democrat. they must keep their priorities straight.

i don't agree with the sentiment: let's just move on. you can move forward while looking back. you have to. this war has to be put in to a proper perspective. the republicans paid a price for their actions. when the political winds shift the dems will have to answer to a lot of things too. it's not just politics. it goes deeper than that.

As long as a legit government can handle the place not going into some undesirable hands, ie: Taliban, Al Quida a-holes.

if you add the Baathists wasn't this the US policy from day one?

susisake asks:

Are you going to demand Yabits tell you what country he is from?

Yabits is American. Of that I am almost certain. Nothing rings false in his posts, unlike those of sezwho or BeaverCleaver. But like I said his Ameri-centric worldview is embarrassing to me, a fellow American. Like many American "Liberals" he doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, but like many "Liberals" he is unaware he promotes a kind of inverse form of it. What I mean is that when people like him say Iran seeks nukes cuz Bush called it part of an axis of evil or that Bush mentioned "crusade" in a speech and this just like, totally - hello! - inflamed the entire Mohammedan world!,man, the melodrama and the exaggeration and hyperbole is proof that people like him believe the world beyond US borders hangs on the every word of our presidents, Fox News analysts, televangelists etc.

They don't.

teleprompter well said but you know some of our Kanadian Amerika haters like SinJ will be here to tell us all how it really is. You can count on that KIA.

cleo: Just like Kim in NK is doing, except Kim is doing it better. So why is he being kept in power, running the country into the ground while ordinary North Koreans are brainwashed and starved? Goose. Gander.

Because the cost of removing him could be tens of millions of people, plus the leakage of nuclear technology to other countries. It's a little more complicated than "Goose. Gander.", I'd say. Why did Europe stop Milosovich but refuse to do anything about Saddam? He had WMDs?

Each situation is different. I don't support the "invade everyone or no one" foreign policy.

Because the cost of removing him could be tens of millions of people, plus the leakage of nuclear technology to other countries. It's a little more complicated than "Goose. Gander.", I'd say.

You're basically saying Saddam's mistake was not having a couple of small devices he could explode underground. You could say the different approaches to Iraq and NK would virtually guarantee Iran would try to go nuclear at the earliest opportunity. As you say, it's a little more complicated than just what's happening in one country.

Why did Europe stop Milosovich but refuse to do anything about Saddam? He had WMDs?

No, he didn't. And it's news to me that 'Europe stopped Milosevich' in the way the Coalition 'stopped Saddam'. If my memory serves me correctly Milosevich resigned in the face of demonstrations following a disputed election, was arrested by the Yugoslav authorities and sent to the Hague to face charges of war crimes. Most of 'The Europeans' who objected to the invasion of Iraq would have had no problem if the same had happened to Saddam - brought down by Iraqis, and sent to the Hague. It's what should have happened.

No one is asking you to support an "invade everyone or no one" foreign policy. But when you give A, B and C as absolute justification for action against Country X, there needs to be some explanation of why the same action is not taken against Country Y, when it has A, B and C in spades.

Superlib. I thought the people behind stopping Milosevich and the Serbian Army committing genocide on the Kosovars were UK PM Tony Blair and US Senator Bob Dole who convinced US President Bill Clinton to use US airpower to defeat the Serb's. And The US Airforce did it essentially on their own from 38,000 feet. I still picture foolish Serb's standing on bridges holding paper targets above them as they taunted the world and continued their mass slaughter of Moslem Kossovars. If you are going to stuff around with any force on earth, make sure it is not the US Airforce because you will be vaporized as well if their Commander in Chief orders it. The wimpish Europeans did little as usual, except one German radar operator tipped off the Serbs of the flight plan of a US fighter/bomber causing it to be shot down. There was no way the Iraqi's could give up Saddam like the Serbs later gave up Molosevich to get acceptance back into the EEU. Correct me if I am wrong in my facts.

The whole world is entitled to my opinions.

You're basically saying Saddam's mistake was not having a couple of small devices he could explode underground.

well that's one of the reasons you want to keep those weapons out of certain hands. and why tyrants just love to get them.

and it was no mistake he didn't have them. israel saw to that.

cleo: No one is asking you to support an "invade everyone or no one" foreign policy. But when you give A, B and C as absolute justification for action against Country X, there needs to be some explanation of why the same action is not taken against Country Y, when it has A, B and C in spades.

And I explained the differences. I could go into more detail if you'd like, but I have a feeling you're just pretending that you don't understand.

Whatever happened to al Sadr? Don't hear much about him these days...

"Whatever happened to al Sadr? Don't hear much about him these days..."

I think he fled as US forces was hell-bent on assasinating him (in the most democratic manner, obviously). Expect him to return along with other wanabees as the US leaves and the power struggle continues young man.

Iraqis celebrate US pullback but bombing kills 27

In an effort to bring a smile and that warm fuzzy feeling in the bottom of all far right wing "Crusaders", I offer this assessment of why the Iraqis are so happy. But before I do I will say that I am doing this in loving memory of Cheney and his Rove spin machine.......

The Iraqis in an overwhelming thank to our troop massed in the streets to just say,"Thank you". They were so glad that the Bush administration brought them out of the harms way of the evil tyrant's grip and into the new air of safety and freedom. That they ran out into the streets and kissed picture of Bush and Cheney. Then of course they threw those flowers that Cheney said they would throw when we first invaded.

Now the Iraqis are living in the peace and happiness of the Neo-Con dream. The Neo-con movement has proven itself to be the true path of joy and happiness for the world.

Just imagine how bad off the Iraqis had it before under the clutches of the terrible evil evil evil bad guy known as Saddam.

Sure the Iraqis did not have;

Bombings

Street battles

Kidnappings

No electricity

No running water

200,000 plus dead civilians

No economy

Sure they did not have all that but now they have freedom to complain about all that.

I say god bless Cheney, Bush, Wolfie, Rummy and the Neo-Con dream. If it were not for that vision where would those Iraqis be right now?

Your right if you said,"Alive and well under that tyrant." Who needs to be alive and well if you are not free?

Again I say, thank you joe the neo-con for a job well done!LOL