world

Obama says he's committed to ending Iraq war

69 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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.

69 Comments
Login to comment

The only way in political language for Obama to make his position 100% clear is :there will be no American soldier in Iraq after 16 months of my(Obama)presidency,period! But then he is no longer a WISE man for saying so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

seems at this point according to daily news reports, he seems committed to "anything" and "everything" and "nothing at all"... he is for "hope" and "change" and "hope for change" and a "change for hope"... and if none of that is possible that is ok because "yes, we can".

according to his past work in his home state, he is far from a wise man....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course, daily news reports are in the business of creating news. The free press and the ever expanding blogosphere has made Americans voracious consumers of news and undisciplined analysts of it. Obama has made some shifts in his direction and I think they have been disappointing ones. However, it is that he has made any shifts at all that has created the opportunity for speculation.

A weekly news report might be just the thing. Other than that, if you need to know the prices of pork bellies you might tune in to your radio for a few minutes each day. The day that Americans elect a wise man for President will be a day that we can all be astonished. A wise man wouldn't run for President.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama: "I'm absolutely committed to ending the war"

But he's not absolutely committed to winning it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would consider setting an arbitrary deadline and pulling out all US troops out of Iraq regardless of the circumstances at the time and extent of potential civil war and the establishment of an Iran backed fundamenalist Iraqi govt to be a "Change For the Worse". But that's just me. Anyone who becomes President would be committed to ending the Iraq war. It's just a matter of how.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge Is it better to win the war at escalating costs in blood and treasure (Iraq's and America's) than to end it and start building for peace?

And when does winning occur?

When Americans can feel good about the war again? And if so how many Americans feeling good about the war would it take to end it? At this point America and Iraq have lost so much that ending the war would be a victory.

Or is winning the war when there is no more terrorism? But that is kind of like saying "never".

Or is winning the war when America is respected and obeyed by all countries? History is full of such attempts.

Please tell us which winning fantasy do you refer to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I am absolutely committed to ending the war,” he said.

Heh, this news must be positively terrifying for all those McCain / War Supporter types like Sarge who think it's really is best for America to keep spending $15-30 billion of his nation's tax dollars every month on Iraq and Iraqis instead of on America and Americans for an unknown period of time while America's infrastructure continues to collapse.

When there is an immediate need for $1 trillion of infrastructure upgrading in America for bridges, highways, roads, etc., those Americans who support this war will line up to say 'No - spend our money in Iraq.'

buddha4brains - "Please tell us which winning fantasy do you refer to."

I think you are out of luck. neither Sarge nor Sen. McCain have any idea what "winning in Iraq" looks like.

But I must say I admire their determination in wanting to fund this war at a rate of $15-30 billion per month until..I don't know, when?

Do you? 1 more year? 5 more years? 20 years? Hey, why not throw caution to the wind and say 100 years?

There, there, that's only..say $1,500 BILLION(based on average of $15 billion /month) of money that America does't have and is increasingly unlikely to receive from abroard considering America's tanking economy and imploding dollar.

But hey, when did Republicans ever live in Reality?

What Americans who don't support Obama on this need to do is refrain from bashing Obama for a few minutes and tell all of us where the money is going to come from to fund their war-filled fantasy, based on these facts:

US debt has ballooned from $4-9 TRILLION. US debt servicing costs are skyrocketing. Bush's tax cuts and failure to ask Americans to fund his wars have been direct causes of the above. America has NO money to its name.

buddha4brains - "At this point America and Iraq have lost so much that ending the war would be a victory."

I tend to agree with you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "But he's not absolutely committed to winning it."

Hmm.....just like you the other Chickenhawk War Supporters on this board are absolutely committed to not fighting in the war you so ardently believe in.

That must be another blow to the troops in th field. So many armchair warriors who offer so little real commitment.

"McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds responded in a statement: “Improving America’s schools will take bipartisan leadership and a commitment to the issue, but Barack Obama has never spearheaded education reforms while in the U.S. Senate and has no record of working across the aisle for change.”

Heh, what is Sen. McCain talking about now?? He wants America to remain in Iraq for an indefintely period of time. Making criticism like this when his own policy will guarantee that $12-30 billion per month WILL NEVER be spent on those education reforms, shows him up to be a hypocrite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Buddha - "start building for peace"

Good idea. Tell the wackos who are still fighting us in Iraq that, OK?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"chickenhawk war supporters"

"armchair warriors"

Derogatory terms used to describe anyone not in the military who supports our military in their fight against our enemies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3

I never was for the invasion of Iraq in the first place, it distracted the US from what it's primary mission of root out Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But its Lib-Dems like you who ignore the fact that Congress and most of the western worlds intelligence agencies agreed with the whole WMD thing. Your precious Dems in Congress read the same reports, yet still said ok send the troops in. So why aren't people like you spreading the blame from NOT only Bush but those in Congress on both sides of the aisle that approved the billions you keep ranting about. Or did you think that Bush can pull this off on his own and non in the Dem party are to blame. Yea, bring on Obama and every other idealistic, blowhard to the Oval Office. Once their in office, you'll see they always change from their BS beliefs to reality. Why? because the big book ole secrets gets open (so to speak) and each new president learns why we do what we do.....
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

"wackos": nice derogatory term.

Did you forget America invaded Iraq on flimsy (at best) evidence and abandoned al Qaida in Afghanistan? The Iraq War was a war of choice when the enemies of America who attacked America on American soil were elsewhere. Lest you forgot.

It is preciously cynical to point your finger at the "wackos" in Iraq when it is the US that put them there in the first place.

And before you use the "bad intel" argument, remember that many allies who went into Afghanistan with America after 9-11 did not support the invasion of Iraq. Why? Perhaps because they understood how much Bush & Co. struggled with reality vs. political fantasy. Even I saw that way back then, it was not particularly difficult.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let's be fair... The highest ranking Democrats who tried to stop us from...goin' after Saddam and Iraq on tape:

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-Iraq.wmv

As b4b, et al, point out, America'd never be in the mess she's in if we hadn't listened to the Republicans.

The American Democratic Party had been correct all along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We already heard what Obama and the Dems think.

"I think the American people would rather hear from those who served than those who... call our generals traitors."

Pete Hegseth Vets for Freedom Chairman and Founder

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As a Vet myself, I say get our boys out of there. This was a war started on a lie and needs to end. As one of the people I think we have heard enough of the bs of why we need to stay. More and more lives are lost and the only folks doing good are the contractors.

Time to end this fiasco

Served 1986-90

USS Daniel Boone SSBN 629 New Trails to Blaze One of the 41 for Freedom Boomers

USN

So who heard it from someone who served.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JayBee, it ya think the war was started on a "lie", then check out that link I posted and see how much earlier it goes back and by whom.

My vet vote makes your vet vote moot.

Carry on, private.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama said it couldn't be done.

"From The Sunday Times July 6, 2008 Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda Marie Colvin in Mosul American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility.

Sounds reasonable to me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd personally be far more likely to listen to someone who has actually fought, like JoeBigs above - "As a Vet myself, I say get our boys out of there. This was a war started on a lie and needs to end."

But no, the War Supporters, sitting all comfortable in their armchairs, still feel the urge to bash away when they do nothing for the cause they so ardently beleive in.

And an observation - I think someone needs to tell Sen. McCain that he is running for the wrong job. He should really be running for a seat in the Iraqi government, mainly considering he seems to care far more for the health and welfare of Iraqis than he does for Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, buddha4brains commented to you above - "It is preciously cynical to point your finger at the "wackos" in Iraq when it is the US that put them there in the first place."

How are you going to answer that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This war has cost north of $1 trillion, possibly already $2 trillion.

Money that could have been spent on America.

But thanks to War Supporters like Sarge and RedMeatKoolAid, super delegate, etc. who have been ardent and enthusiastic proponents of the spending of that huge sum of money on Iraq and Iraqis instead, Americans in need have missed out.

Whatever happened to patriotism and putting your country first?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RMKA, I think I like the way you think.

USAR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured,” Obama said.

But, but, but ... wasn't this the same guy who claimed a few months ago that words matter?

"Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' — just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' — just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' — just words? Just speeches?"

Why yes, yes it was...in his speech he, heh, "borrowed" from Deval Patrick.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wasn’t saying anything that I hadn’t said before.”

BS. On April 16th during the Philadelphia debate, he gave a "rock hard promise" to disregard what the generals on the ground had to say and proceed with his promise to withdraw all combat troops within 16 months at any cost.

GIBSON: And, Senator Obama, your campaign manager, David Plouffe, said, "When he is" -- this is talking about you -- "When he is elected president, we will be out of Iraq in 16 months at the most. There should be no confusion about that."

So you'd give the same rock-hard pledge, that no matter what the military commanders said, you would give the order to bring them home?

OBAMA: Because the commander-in-chief sets the mission, Charlie. That's not the role of the generals.

Heh, barack obama has been caught out ..again.. taking multiple sides on an issue.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RMKA It's great that Al Queda are being driven out of Iraq. But that is not progress or winning since it was America's invasion of Iraq that brought those terrorists into Iraq in the first place.

Iraq is busted into last century over lies by the Bush Admin.

Perhaps you are one of those who believes America won the Vietnam won by parsing reality into favorable bits. To claim any kind of victory in Iraq you will have to do the same there too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Iraq is busted into last century over lies by the Bush Admin."

Their parliament has passed more laws in the last year than has our Democrat-controlled Congress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RR I hate to burst your bubble (well actually ...) Obama is correct. The C-I-C leads the military and has final say in starting and ending wars. Obama did not say that his din't listen to the generals, he said that it was not their role in deciding these larger issues. That does not mean he won't listen to them, only that it is the C-I-C role to decide. That is basic - surprised a red-blooded, full-throated American such as yourself did not even know that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Their parliament has passed more laws in the last year than has our Democrat-controlled Congress."

And your point is? America already has a full complement of laws. Do you want even more? More laws written by democrats?

Iraq has to rewrite and re-enact all laws since the demise of Saddam.

What about the physical and organisational infrastructure of Iraq? Comment on that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi today:

spending $15-30 billion of his nation's tax dollars every month on Iraq and Iraqis

Sushi in the last 3 weeks:

"spending $10 to $12 billion a month in Iraq"

"stay longer and burn up $15-20 billion"

"spending of $12-20 billion a month on Iraq and Iraqis"

"the $12-20 billion his government is waste-pumping into Iraq"

"spending of $12-20 billion a month on Iraq and Iraqis"

"your government lies to you - yet again - when it comes up with this cooked up "$12 billion per month" war expenditure. The actual figure is estimated to be up to $27 billion per month."

"spend $15-20 billion a month on Iraq"

"the U.S. pouring $12-15 billion a month into Iraq"

The high estimate has gone from $12 billion to $15 billion to $20 billion to $27 billion and now $30 billion today. That's a pretty dramatic increase for a 3-week period. People should understand this when reading his comments and making decisions about his credibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Shame on you Sushi. I am aghast! Because of your wildly vague estimates I am not going to vote for you!

SuperLib FOR PRESIDENT!!!

(psst SuperLib, how much is America spending a month in Iraq?)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama committed to ending the war? Thats a joke right? What he's really in favor of, is running away, and letting Iraq implode. Yeah, lets end the war at any cost! We shouldn't worry about stabilizing the country. Just because pulling out would ultimately create thousands of more terrorists shouldn't stop us from running away right?

Why worry about the hundreds of thousands that would die in the resulting civil war that America is responsible for. No, we should worry about the 3k troops that have been killed in the years that the US has been in Iraq. And the 2k or more that could possibly be killed in the next few years as well.

Whats even more idiotic about this, is that the surge is working. Iraq is actually starting to stabilize, despite everything Iran and Syria have done to prevent it. With a stable Iraq, drawing down troop levels is very achievable. But ihttp://www.gravatar.com/f this loser gets elected, he'll of course take credit for everything. Well, that is unless he pulls all the troops out immediately. In which case he'll claim that the resulting disaster is all Bush's fault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny people still call this a war on terror.

Dont both side want a conflict to make it a war. If I remember right it was an invasion so a Pulling back is not loosing correct?

Just know this, we have been there for what 6 years and nothing is any better than before we went except for dubya and dead eye dicks portfolios.

You know the money doesnt really matter, one life lost on either side cost more than the money spent. I can think of a few places the money could have been better spent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RealMeat -"Why aren't you in Iraq, beside your comrades in the beleaguered 'insurgency'?"

This type of comment is unfortunately typical of the black and white, 'for us or against us' metality of the War Supporters.

There's simply no room for any gray area in their minds.

Unlike RedMeat, I happen to side with the majority if his countrymen - who don't think like RedMeat - people who do not agree with the direction Bush istaking America AND who also don't side with the so-called "terrorists."

But I think this concept would blow the wignuts of most War Supporters' brains.

It's truly sad that some people can be so incredibly narrow-minded.

It makes me think I'm debating with 7-year-olds sometimes, no offence intended, just stating my mind.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "The high estimate has gone from $12 billion to $15 billion to $20 billion to $27 billion and now $30 billion today. That's a pretty dramatic increase for a 3-week period."

Why do you state what you obviously believe is false?

I just hope you don't believe in your governments's stated figures that the Iraq war is burnng through 'only' $12 billion/month.

It is common knowledge that figure fails to include:

1/ Debt servicing costs 2/ Current and forecast long-term VA costs 3/ Equipment replacement and repair, and a whole lot more.

I stand by my figures.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just love the warmongers out here. You want the war, enlist and stay there. These troops are serving 3 and 4 tours and you sit there pounding your keys and blaming the lefties because we want this war ended. You like it, you enlist.

Let's stay with $12Billiona month. It's still too damn much. Can't put out money for child heath care, but we can waste this money fighting this war of choice and just keeping it going for, hell another 100 years. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir - "Just because pulling out would ultimately create thousands of more terrorists"

Staying in there has already done that.

What exactly is your point, presuming you have one? :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir - "No, we should worry about the 3k troops that have been killed in the years that the US has been in Iraq."

Where do you pull your figures out of?

Hopefully not a White house press release!

3k troops? Are you kidding???

What about all the US troops who have died outside Iraq that are not included in the "official" US death tally?

Do you not know about those, or are you just purposely stating low estimates to make a non-existant point?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

aaydream - "I just love the warmongers out here. You want the war, enlist and stay there. These troops are serving 3 and 4 tours and you sit there pounding your keys and blaming the lefties because we want this war ended. You like it, you enlist."

I hear you, man!

But the Chickenhawk War Suporters you are talking to ...nah, they're just too gutless.

For them, it's always best to cheer from the sidelines while someone else's kid goes into the firing line.

Get the troops out and spend that $12+ billion/month on America.

That's what I say.

But the War Supporters, no, they'd rather that money be spent on Iraqis while deluding themselves by saying they are 'patriotic Americans.' LOL!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Vets for Freedom is spending $1.5 million on television ads that will begin running in July, praising the troop buildup, Pete Hegseth, the 25,000-member group’s chairman, said in a telephone interview Saturday."

Obama refused to meet thirteen Illinois veterans from this bipartisan group after they had traveled all the way to DC to meet their senator.

"If Barrack Obama won't listen to us, who will he listen to?"

See for yourself -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRvhI8w_-jU

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why aren't you in Iraq, beside your comrades in the beleaguered 'insurgency'?

This may be the dumbest thing ever in the history of JT.

Why would anyone, who does not support the war fight for either side? Your argument is utterly devoid of any sense whatsoever.

On the other hand...an argument that certainly does have merit is: Why aren't you in Iraq, as I type, since you support the war?

Now then...this is the point when you whine and cry that anyone who disagrees with you wants you on the front lines, which ironically enough, you seem to think is a really bad thing, even though you support the war and think things are going just peachy there (which says a lot about how you TRULY feel about how things are going).

Then I counter with, "no. I don't want you in uniform in Iraq as you would likely cause a lot of good troops to get killed and disgrace the uniform."

Then you go away to pout for a couple of hours to a day. Rinse. Repeat.

Your argument is not only non-sensical. It's well past its expiration date.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And as far as the howling at the moon that Obama won't listen to his generals when he is president, let me ask this: Ever heard of Eric Shinseki? How about Tony Zinni? George Casey ring any bells? This president has thrown more than enough stars under the bus. his worshipers have no leg to stand on when yelping about Sen. Obama, and how he won't listen to the military.

That argument is so hypocritical that it should be openly laughed at...while pointing.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Great article.

' He said Saturday he did not misspeak in his comments earlier in the week and suggested the media and critics read unintended significance into the remarks.

“I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured,” Obama said. “I wasn’t saying anything that I hadn’t said before.” '

For some perspective just Google "Obama clarifies".

It's even better than "Annan deeply concerned".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, DNC and SDs must be having some reservations about this guy. He is not the same obama that he claimed to be during the primaries.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

suggested the media and critics read unintended significance into the remarks.

What a whiner. But this is what he does, and his dog walkers in the press will now back off so they won't be labeled "racists" by his campaign.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you support the war,why you are not in Iraq?Because in a country, not everyone is a soldier,and not every soldier is in one place.It is so obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Ever heard of Eric Shinseki?"

Yeah, he's the one who recommended deploying up to half a million U.S. troops in Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would anyone, who does not support the war fight for either side? Your argument is utterly devoid of any sense whatsoever.

Taka, this war is already costing America $12-$34 billion a month. In total it's probably over $2.2 trillion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think with that 500,000 soldiers,after the fall of Bagdad ,America can afford to disarm all Iraqi army,collect all arms ,ammunitions,bombs... and put it under US control ..or ship them out of the country.Then American force will run some kind of "concentration camps" to educate,control Iraq's unemployed soldiers before release them out to society.Very much like what VC did to South VN army after the fall of Saigon but without murders,totures,starvations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib,I NEVER hate the nature ,natural environment...why you think like that? When Sarge mention 1/2 mil US soldiers, I just carry on with my theory...me too, love to have a prius.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

More dispiriting news for the 'progressive' 'anti-war' crowd -

"From The Sunday Times July 6, 2008 Al-Qaeda is driven from Mosul bastion after bloody last stand The murder toll is dropping, the insurgents are on the run. "

[...]

' As for Mosul, the battle has been crucial to both sides and the Americans believe that it could have repercussions for Al-Qaeda beyond Iraq. “Al-Qaeda has its propaganda value from fighting the infidels and this is the central operating theatre for that battle,” said Brown. “If they are pushed out of Iraq that is a huge defeat for them.” '

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama put himself in bad place when he courted the anti-war wing of the party full throttle. Though, I give him credit for giving himself enough wiggle room to back out of it, much to the chagrin of your regular Salon.com reader (boy, they ain't happy on their letter comments at that site. Here's the deal. Obama has got the nomination and now has to convince the sensible center that he's not going to force big down your throat activist Government on us but will fix the mess that Bush has left behind in his wake. That includes Iraq. I don't think the center is going to be to keen after finally seeing that the surge was in fact the correct and right path in Iraq to follow and is producing tangible results and success, to all sudden say 'were outta here in 16 months'. I'm pretty sure after he visits Iraq and see's the real progress and facts on the ground he will have to proclaim the same thing every other leading Democrat has over the past 6 months, it's working. After he does that it will be hard almost impossible to continue on with an abritary 16 month timeframe. It may be 16 months it may be 6 months or it may be 24 months. If he doesn't continue on building on the success of the surge he will be ripped to shreds by the Republicans and he will also become suspect to the sensible center if this guy is really up for the job when it comes to making the tough calls agaisn't the more radical left of his base. He's smart, he allowed himself enough flexibility to move on his promise to leave Iraq and what he say's after he visits Iraq as the next potential CIC is going to be a major deciding factor for me if he is going to get my vote. He hasn't shown me the money yet and Iraq is where he can start leaving when this thing is finally showing real progress and hope on all fronts would be incredibly stupid, I think Obama knows that also and is just waiting for the right moment to say it so as not to anger his base even more then he has now just by hinting that his policy may not be locked in stone as the 16 months timetable as it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I dont think we can just pull out of Iraq and damn it too hell I served 10 years in the Military and was in the original Iraq war..

As a side note if the weak useless UN would of allowed the Americans (under the original Bush)to continue to Sadamn the first time this wouldnt of been an issue to talk of now, and maybe all those 100-200k people he killed months after we left would be alive now...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders.

A blatant lie. In the April 16 debate he clearly agreed to ignore the generals on the ground and make a ROCK HARD PLEDGE to bring all combat troops home within 16 months regardless of what the generals said.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's going to Iraq is a joke, just like everything else about him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, to recap:

barack obama is quickly proving to people that he doesn't keep his word. That's an important thing if you are running for President of the U.S.

Heh, democrat Lemming Day fast approaches.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama didn't create the joke that is he Iraq war. That was done by the loser currently occupying the White House.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've never really understood how anyone can classify what's going on in Iraq as a war. It is basically a sectarian conflict between various groups, including Sunnis, Kurds and a group which the software on this message board bans me from spelling. If the coilition forces pulled out tomorrow, then one would see the real conflict. Not a war on terror. Not a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. A full blown, internal, sectarian conflict unleashed by western powers. One thing is for certain, as long as the western powers have an oil interest and a military presence in that region (propping up some very dodgy undemocratic regimes) then they will a target of interest. I think Obama will be no different from many other presidents. He will toe the line. He will follow Judeo, Christian belief which is in direct conflict with the middle east region and supported by Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir - "Just because pulling out would ultimately create thousands of >more terrorists"

Staying in there has already done that.

More then would result in a civil war, whose blame would ultimately laid, correctly at the feet of the US? I don't think so. Try selling something else.

SushiSake3 - The "Dreaded reality" that we're blocking out, what is that exactly? That pulling out now would cause Iraq to implode? That hundreds of thousands would die in the resulting bloodbath? Which reality are you talking about? It doesn't matter that we are finally making headway in Iraq, in helping stabilize the country. What's more important is for the US to get out, right?

I really wonder about people like you, who seem to wear a blindfold to hide from reality. Its got to fit your preconceived ideas, or its bad! Despite what you want, the world is grey. People support the war for a lot more reasons than you can conceive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

$650 billion since the war started. War-torn Iraq is emerging as a key conduit in the global drugs trade as criminal gangs exploit its porous border with Iran to channel their illicit goods to the Middle East, Africa and Europe. Fadhil Chalabi, one of the primary Iraqi advisers to the Bush administration in the lead-up to the invasion, recently described the war as "a strategic move on the part of the United States of America and the UK to have a military presence in the Gulf in order to secure [oil] supplies in the future". Chalabi, who served as Iraq's oil undersecretary of state and met with the oil majors before the invasion, described this as "a primary objective".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

$650 billion since the war started.

More like $2.5 trillion, probably. That's $12 to $40 billion a month.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Psssst.

We have United States citizens we need to be caring for.

Bring the troops home and take care of our own. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like the man, but I think its important to remember, based on history, that the Americans never leave. Not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying that's the way it is. "America" is way bigger than the President, which is why he is called the President and not Your Highness. So rest easy Neocon-types, you will not pull out even if Obama comes in (and too bad Dems and Co. who think you will be). There might might be a timetable for a partial withdrawal, but I doubt it will never be complete. Except for last man standing on a Saigon rooftop, it has never been that way, and its unlikely that it ever will be again. Even the liberals don't talk about it. You will never leave.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That article title is a little redundant, I think. All the candidates are committed to ending the war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I like the man, but I think its important to remember, based on history, >that the Americans never leave. Not saying that's good or bad, I'm just >saying that's the way it is.

What history are you talking about? The Philippines maybe? Yeah the US is never going to leave there right. How about Panama. Not a chance that the US is ever going to return the Canal to Panama right. And of course you have the ongoing never ending Vietnam war to consider right... </sarcasm>

Seriously though, that statement is so naive its hard to know where to begin. I don't think that anyone, apart from a few Neocon nuts want to keep the US in Iraq. We might maintain a small force there, to help out if needed, that might happen, but a large number of troops being based there permanently, simply isn't going to happen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Despite the ongoing opposition of the Democrat party, the US is winning in Iraq. I can only imagine how much sooner we might have gotten to this point had paleo-socialists like Obama, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, and John Murtha actually supported their own country during a time of war. America's success is undeniable to all but the most rabid America-haters. Bush has kept our commitment to democracy in Iraq despite a ton of opposition from those that didn't care if the Iraqi people were left to live under Taliban-like rule. I am so glad Bush stood up to the surrender monkeys on the Left and kept it's commitment to the government of Iraq. For America and for the Iraqi people, winning is much better than losing. Obama is committed to ending the war; but is not committed to winning the war. Not much of a leader.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Obama is mistaken if he thinks he break with fundamental US foreign policy, which is to set up forward bases in other people's backyards. Maybe they're right about him being naive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“I was surprised by how finely calibrated every single word was measured,” Obama said. “I wasn’t saying anything that I hadn’t said before.”

Actually, in this speech, he changed his policy, which had included "immediate withdrawal of troops" as soon as he came into office.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is untrustworthy. Unilaterally pulling out would totally reverse all the gains that the US Military has achieved in Iraq since the surge was first put into effect a year ago. Obama would be a class 1, Grade A fool to do such a wretchedly stupid thing.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3 - The "Dreaded reality" that we're blocking out, what is that exactly? That pulling out now would cause Iraq to implode? That hundreds of thousands would die in the resulting bloodbath?

Sushi understands that if the US leaves too early then Iraq could slip into Civil War. And his position is that the US should leave now. His motivation is financial. He wants Americans to save money. Nice, huh?

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