• 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

Obama is clearly playing for votes, and it is confusing because he said okay to bombing Libya but now he's going to leave Iraq to basically fend for itself, which I fear will be and invitation for Iran to once again fire up a war at a time when Iraq can no longer defend itself.

Keep in mind the leading Imams are looking forward to the Islamic Armageddon, and it will only come after a great battle.

They are totally irrational.
 
Wanna post any evidence at all?

You haven't.

They were at bloody chemical war with Iraq during modern times, and have grabbed an oil well along the border in recent years.
 
For the many here apparently unfamiliar with our Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq drawn up under the Bush Administration:

Article 24 -

"1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than
December 31, 2011."
Powered by Google Docs
 
Last edited:
They were at bloody chemical war with Iraq during modern times, and have grabbed an oil well along the border in recent years.

Yeah and the chemical warfare was used AGAINST Iran by Iraq... supported by...

handshake300.jpg


DING DING DING DING DING
 
Yeah and the chemical warfare was used AGAINST Iran by Iraq... supported by...

DING DING DING DING DING

Shouldn't you go back to the gameshow channel, or be a horde thingy.
 
Yeah and the chemical warfare was used AGAINST Iran by Iraq... supported by...

handshake300.jpg


DING DING DING DING DING

Wait I'm confused here ... isn't chemical warfare considered a WMD ?? Surely you can't be saying that a WMD that he didn't have was used ??
 
First everyone seems to think that Iraq is now a stable country, hardly the case, there are still hundreds of casualties every month there.
Here are just a couple of headlines I've come across


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Iranian artillery shelling kills wman in Arbril[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 AP: Iran kills 30 Kurds near Iraqi border[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds three in people central Baghdad[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Gunmen attack Electricity Ministry official in eastern Baghdad[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Gunmen kill off-duty soldier in northern Mosul[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]09/05/11 Reuters: Gunmen kill border guard in western Mosul[/FONT]



As long as Iraq is unstable as it is, it's ripe for a country like Iran (mentioned twice in those headlines) to do whatever they can to keep this fighting alive, or intensive it even more as UN forces are withdrawn. You can agree or disagree with the war there, makes no difference. But to leave Iraq now while it's so close to becoming a success, is a disgrace to every coalition person that died on that battlefield, to every Iraqi that died in their support of the freedom of their country. In my opinion, leaving enough troops in Iraq, to give them the best opportunity of success is the only option that should be considered.


As to Iran invading Iraq anytime in the near future, I don't see that happening, Iran is not seen as a favorable country by many nations including the US. They have spit in the face of the UN and the US and laughed about it to many times already, invading Iraq at this time would mean retaliation on a scale they are not yet prepared for, and they know it. They will continue to do just what they have been doing, that is to train and supply arms to insurgents and continue with their shelling of border towns. But I also believe that if the troop withdrawal is too fast they will intensive their involvement


To Catawba, yes the majority of Democrats voted against the war in the house, but in the senate the majority of Democrats voted for the war. So making this a GOP issue is just a lie. But you are well known for cherry picking your facts.



People should know politics well enough by now that when the results of a vote are well known ahead of time some votes are made for purely political reasons. This is not exclusive of either party. But seeing as how you are a liberal .. let me give you this one as an example.


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."[/FONT]

I know you know who's words those are, so tell me was that a purely political vote and speech or one made out of pure ignorance? Has to be one or the other, because we certainly heard no such words from him on doing the same thing 5 years later have we?
 
To Catawba, yes the majority of Democrats voted against the war in the house, but in the senate the majority of Democrats voted for the war. So making this a GOP issue is just a lie. But you are well known for cherry picking your facts.

What I stated is fact. The majority of all Democrats voted against the war on Iraq vs an almost unanimous majority of Republicans that voted for it.
 
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.
I don't think he's in panic mode, I think he's in stupid mode. His own freaking generals want a lot more troops than that, but this is politics.
 
Yeah and the chemical warfare was used AGAINST Iran by Iraq... supported by...

handshake300.jpg


DING DING DING DING DING
Are you really trotting out that old ****?
 
I do believe leaving only 3000 soldiers in Iraq is irresponsible and endangers all 3000, especially when one considers the unrest and fractal alliances between different Islamic sects and Christian groups. I would also immediately cease all subsidies and foreign aid monies as soon as the last U.S. soldier is in the air on his/her way home !!
 
I don't think he's in panic mode, I think he's in stupid mode. His own freaking generals want a lot more troops than that, but this is politics.

And as has been shown in this thread, there are actually several proposals for troop levels in Iraq, and they are waiting for Baghdad to make their proposal before deciding which proposal to go with. The unnamed sources in the OP don't appear to be terribly reliable.
 
And as has been shown in this thread, there are actually several proposals for troop levels in Iraq, and they are waiting for Baghdad to make their proposal before deciding which proposal to go with. The unnamed sources in the OP don't appear to be terribly reliable.
Well I hope the hell so, cause 3,000 is idiotic even to the casual observer.
 
Well I hope the hell so, cause 3,000 is idiotic even to the casual observer.

The casual observer is an idiot to even have an opinion. If you do not have the facts, such as what Iraq wants over there, what the mission for the next year is to be, among other things, the casual observer has not nearly enough facts to have an educated opinion and can only look stupid trying to offer one.
 
What I stated is fact. The majority of all Democrats voted against the war on Iraq vs an almost unanimous majority of Republicans that voted for it.



Okay and Obama himself voted against raising the deficit, so he "is" against it right ?? Seeing how nearly every Democrat voted against the only bill, during that deficit debate, that had a balanced budget Amendment..... there for it a "fact" to say that the majority of Democrats are against having any thing close to a balanced budget. Thank you for clearing all that up for me
 
As I've said throughout Iraq...

If the cut down is relatively close to what Military Commanders on the ground are saying is needed to successfully maintain stability while we draw down then I have no problem with it. If the military commanders say we need 20k and they go with 18k to try to save some money, I'm fine with that.

If the cut down is significantly different than what the military commanders on the ground are saying is needed then I have a significant issue with it. If they're wanting 20k and you give them half that, or 1/6th of that, then to me that's problematic. This becomes doubly so with regards to if its being done for political purposes and expediency which, going THAT far away from what the genreals on the ground are asking for would make it appear to be.

Regardless of whether or not you agreed with Iraq in the first place, the fact of the matter we ARE there now. It doesn't change the fact we've invested a large amount of money into the country. A democratic Iraq IS a benefit to the United States in terms of strategic ability. Is it a benefit worth the money we've put into it? That's debatable. But it's not debatable that such a situation IS a benefit. I want to see us drawing down and leaving the country, but I want it done in such a way that we don't completely and utterly waste everything we've already invested in it simply to help out an individuals political goals.

I am not going to lambast Obama on this until the final numbers comes out. Going after him for something a source says he may do is ridiculous. If he does end up making the move that looks purely and utterly political however then he'll get the scorn he deserves. If he listens to his generals and takes a measure approach then I'll approve
 
The casual observer is an idiot to even have an opinion. If you do not have the facts, such as what Iraq wants over there, what the mission for the next year is to be, among other things, the casual observer has not nearly enough facts to have an educated opinion and can only look stupid trying to offer one.

Glad to see the rules have changed to where we can call one stupid for his opinion
 
What will happen in the immediate future, i.e. the first year, if we pull out of Iraq?

What will be the situation in Iraq, Iran, etc. in 5 years?

What will our security situation be in 10 years?

If we don't leave Iraq under favorable conditions, our future problems become worse, not better.

The Iranians are sworn ****ing enemies of this country for the last 30+ years. They are currently developing nuclear weapons. They are *daily* supplying weapons and expertise to people in Iraq who are using it directly to kill our brothers in arms. Although no declaration has been made on our part, it was made long ago by them, and we are effectively at war with them.

If, the US cannot secure Iraq on its own it would be even worse in that scenario. I could see this turning into a wider regional conflict between. Which would just be the usual Sunni/Shia thing but with much worse consequences.

I am sure that eventually China will pick a side, then we'll have to pick a side for control of the oil.

Just sayin....China thinks like a chess champion and a champion doesn't win by thinking one or two moves ahead. He plans six, seven, ten moves ahead. He sacrifices pawns to gain position when necessary, but he wins the game.
 
I am not going to lambast Obama on this until the final numbers comes out. Going after him for something a source says he may do is ridiculous. If he does end up making the move that looks purely and utterly political however then he'll get the scorn he deserves. If he listens to his generals and takes a measure approach then I'll approve
I wish more people would think like this. I've found stories using completely anonymous officials to be about as accurate as a magic eight ball.
 
Yep science is fake. Cells are fake, nuclear bombs are fake, hell this computer that uses computer science is fake.

That's right.

I, as God's emissary on Earth, keep those things running. If you don't want your big screen to go kaput, or your computer to become a paperweight, better contribute to the Dittohead Not Church of the Holy Grail now.
 
Okay and Obama himself voted against raising the deficit, so he "is" against it right ?? Seeing how nearly every Democrat voted against the only bill, during that deficit debate, that had a balanced budget Amendment..... there for it a "fact" to say that the majority of Democrats are against having any thing close to a balanced budget. Thank you for clearing all that up for me

Thanks for the unrelated strawman in your attempt to defend the GOP war in Iraq.
 
Commanders on the ground say that 3,000 troops aren't enough to do the job. But, what do they know, right?

Commanders on the ground aren't the ones protecting the green zone. Private contractors are.
 
I'm sure you mean the ones that have been found not to have been falsified by multiple bodies of investigators, but that dimwits still think were falsified?

Oh, really? Tell us all about it. Self investigations, I'm sure. That's impressive.
 
Moderator's Warning:
On topic guys, which ain't global warming
 
Commanders on the ground aren't the ones protecting the green zone. Private contractors are.

I can't believe you just said that crap. :rofl
 
Back
Top Bottom