• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sources: Obama Administration to Drop Troop Levels in Iraq to 3,000

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
The generals on the ground had requested that the number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year reach about 27,000. But, there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of that decision that the number was then reduced to 10,000.


Read more: Sources: Obama Administration To Drop Troop Levels In Iraq To 3,000 | FoxNews.com

I think Obama's in full on panic mode now. He's completely out of control.
 
Get them all out. It appears that there is no political backing for the continuation of the wars. In my opinion, that means putting any soldier in harm's way is irresponsible.
 
I think Obama's in full on panic mode now. He's completely out of control.

The military had 46,000 troops in Iraq as of June 30, 2011. If the super committee cannot reach agreement over budget cuts, which it probably will not, we may not be bring back 43,000, but all 46,000 and maybe instead of redeploying 30,000 from Afghanistan, he will be forced to bring them all home. Ron Paul would be pleased.
 
Get them all out. It appears that there is no political backing for the continuation of the wars. In my opinion, that means putting any soldier in harm's way is irresponsible.

And if then the budding democracy, which replaced a genocidal dictator, and liberalisation of Iraq begins to crumble, do you intend to support them?
 
Get them all out. It appears that there is no political backing for the continuation of the wars. In my opinion, that means putting any soldier in harm's way is irresponsible.

Obama is desperate....sinking like a lead pipe into the East river

It sure would be hard for Obama to use 'recall the troops!' as a campaign stance if the troops happen to come home before the election. How inconvenient for him.
 
And if then the budding democracy, which replaced a genocidal dictator, and liberalisation of Iraq begins to crumble, do you intend to support them?

No.

Before we go further, how extensive is your study of the history of the success of foreign occupations of nations in the region?
 
I think Obama's in full on panic mode now. He's completely out of control.
There he goes, breaking another promise. The left will have him out of there by Nov 2012.
 
No.

Before we go further, how extensive is your study of the history of the success of foreign occupations of nations in the region?

I'm not going further, as your study of modern context is obviously lacking.
 
Good, get them the hell out. Why the hell are we wasting money on Iraq when Congress and the White House just got done blaming each other for the budget deficit less than five weeks ago? Do people have absolutely NO memory about anything?

Jesus Christ...
 
And if then the budding democracy, which replaced a genocidal dictator, and liberalisation of Iraq begins to crumble, do you intend to support them?

I thought the liberalisation of Iraq crumbled when the country was embroiled in sectarian war and hell for a few years... you studay uf modurn contixt is laking.
 
Sorry my war happy brethren. If Republicans want us to cut spending elsewhere in the budget just in order to help citizens hit by natural disasters then I'd say were at the point where wars in far off away lands that simply don't pose a threat to us aren't worth the money or lives and should be ended asap. Unless of course spending money on another country must simply be more important to some conservatives then actually spending money on our own country?

****, why is it that when we're talking about food stamps and welfare some conservatives argue that's just hurting the poor people by making them dependent on the government and not self reliable, but when we're talking about another country apparently no expense , money or blood, is too costly to make sure that they are successful. Maybe government interference is simply hurting Iraq. According to what I understand to be the conservative doctrine, us scaling back the Iraqi dependance on our government would be the best possible thing for Iraqi's.
 
Last edited:
Wait a minute. Conservatives think this is evidence that Obama is "in panic mode?"

I don't get it. Explain this to me. Seriously this makes no sense.
 
"Sources"??

The only one reporting this is Fox news. I wonder what their sources are?

From the OP article:

Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.

"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.

So, Leon Panetta isn't one of the sources, obviously.
 
"Sources"??

The only one reporting this is Fox news. I wonder what their sources are?

From the OP article:



So, Leon Panetta isn't one of the sources, obviously.

No, it is being reported. Pentagon narrowing options for Iraq troops - Yahoo! News

U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the discussions, said they are finalizing several options. But they said key leaders, including President Barack Obama, have not yet made a decision because it still hinges on what Baghdad ultimately requests. Officials said they want to have the options ready by mid-month.

So basically much ado about nothing.
 
No, it is being reported. Pentagon narrowing options for Iraq troops - Yahoo! News



So basically much ado about nothing.

Yes, basically.

From your link:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is reviewing a number of options that could leave several thousand U.S. troops in Iraq after the end of the year, but only if Iraqi officials make a decision about what they want American forces to do.

From the link in the OP:

The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength,

Fair and balanced.
 
Obama is desperate....sinking like a lead pipe into the East river

It sure would be hard for Obama to use 'recall the troops!' as a campaign stance if the troops happen to come home before the election. How inconvenient for him.

What Obama better pray for, is that Iran doesn't invade Iraq and slaughter those troops, because he was so politically ambitious that his stupid ass thought that Iraq could be held down with a single brigade.

Putting politics before troop protection. Whatta ****ing asshole.
 
What Obama better pray for, is that Iran doesn't invade Iraq and slaughter those troops, because he was so politically ambitious that his stupid ass thought that Iraq could be held down with a single brigade.

Putting politics before troop protection. Whatta ****ing asshole.

Well.....more bad news.

I am betting Iran invades and takes over Iraq once Obama pulls out most of the US forces there. Iran is twice the threat that Iraq was. It is only a matter of time before it gets nasty, and they'll have (or already have) the bomb!
 
Well I hate to be the one that brings this up.

But two times zero is zero :coffeepap

Iraq's shiites have a choice to make: be an ally of the US or be an ally with Iran and when the country breaks up (as it will, at some point), that choice will mean quite alot.

An Iraqi shiite unification with Iranian shiites is not far off
 
And if then the budding democracy, which replaced a genocidal dictator, and liberalisation of Iraq begins to crumble, do you intend to support them?

That dictator bad that dictator good right?
Our foreign policy could care less about dictators.
 
What Obama better pray for, is that Iran doesn't invade Iraq and slaughter those troops, because he was so politically ambitious that his stupid ass thought that Iraq could be held down with a single brigade.

Putting politics before troop protection. Whatta ****ing asshole.

Wait Iran is about and is threatening to invade Iraq?:shock:
Please make up some more fantasies in your head please.
 
Wait Iran is about and is threatening to invade Iraq?:shock:
Please make up some more fantasies in your head please.

I hope you're right and it's just a fantasie, because those 3,000 soldiers are going to be ****ed, if Iran invades.
 
Iraq's shiites have a choice to make: be an ally of the US or be an ally with Iran and when the country breaks up (as it will, at some point), that choice will mean quite alot.

An Iraqi shiite unification with Iranian shiites is not far off

Missing the point chum.

Iraq was never a threat to you at all.

Iran won't invade Iraq.
 
I hope you're right and it's just a fantasie, because those 3,000 soldiers are going to be ****ed, if Iran invades.

It seems a lot like something that just popped in your head...... With no knowledge behind it...
 
Back
Top Bottom