• 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!

Official: U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq

Thunder said:
Dislike.

I want us to keep several thousand troops in Iraq or next door in Kuwait, incase we are needed to take on Al Qaeda or other trouble-makers.
Click to expand...

Need help in learning how to sign up and ship over?
 
jamesrage said:
I think its a bad idea announcing a pull out date. The insurgents in Iraq are not stupid,except for maybe the suicide bombers. Logic would tell them to amass their forces and wait until sometime after the US left.
Click to expand...

You can do better than to come up with such an old and lame argument. We all appreciate original thought and insight.
 
jamesrage said:
I think its a bad idea announcing a pull out date.
Click to expand...

What other option is there? Our agreement with Iraq ends on December 31, 2011 and it will not be renewed. Obama waited until two months before the deadline to announce anything; that's about as long as you can realistically wait from a logistical standpoint.

The insurgents in Iraq are not stupid,except for maybe the suicide bombers. Logic would tell them to amass their forces and wait until sometime after the US left.
Click to expand...

Who are these "insurgents" and what are they surging against? It's a low-grade sectarian conflict, not a government-vs-insurgent situation...and that has mostly been the case for many years now. Iraq will probably remain a low-grade conflict after the US withdraws the last troops...most of which haven't been actively participating in combat for a couple years anyway.
 
Last edited:
Of the 39,000 troops in Iraq, about 150, a negligible force, will remain to assist in arms sales, a U.S. official told CNN. The rest will be out of Iraq by December 31.
Click to expand...

Nope - we're still over there. Even if we have just ONE soldier overseas - we're still over there. If we have a small foothold it makes future re-occupations easier. . . so we'll never be *out*

And if this didn't happen:
The announcement also came after talks that might have allowed a continued major military presence broke down amid disputes about whether U.S. troops would be immune to prosecution by Iraqi authorities.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't be even doing that much

But - you know - just in time to plunk them down in Africa. Obama's most certainly not an anti-war president. . . he's just anti a war that he claims is all someone else's fault.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Nope - we're still over there. Even if we have just ONE soldier overseas - we're still over there. If we have a small foothold it makes future re-occupations easier. . . so we'll never be *out*
Click to expand...

I sadly think this is true.
 
digsbe said:
It's all for his campaign in my opinion. I think it's a poor decision for Obama to announce a troop withdrawal or to withdraw if the situation is still hostile or not resolved.
Click to expand...
Baloney, President Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement which expires Dec 31, 2011. Iraq doesn't want us there anymore as evidence their refusal to sign a new agreement.
 
pbrauer said:
Baloney, President Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement which expires Dec 31, 2011. Iraq doesn't want us there anymore as evidence their refusal to sign a new agreement.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it is Bush's deadline, not Obama's. Imagine if Obama ran on Bush's deadline in 2008? The left would have went ape-**** and Obama would have never been elected. I bet Obama will use this decision in an advantageous manner to garner political support, as I bet that many "anti-war" leftist will overlook the fact the Obama is leaving behind 5,500 mercenaries.
American Troops Leaving Iraq, But 5,500 Mercenaries Are Staying Behind
 
Thunder said:
none of his foreign policy failures or successes will matter in the 2012 election.

the only issues that will decide the winner is the state of the economy and how crazy the GOP nominee is.
Click to expand...

O.K. This is kinda scary as I said these exact same words to my friend tonight. lol.
 
Antiderivative said:
Exactly, it is Bush's deadline, not Obama's. Imagine if Obama ran on Bush's deadline in 2008? The left would have went ape-**** and Obama would have never been elected. I bet Obama will use this decision in an advantageous manner to garner political support, as I bet that many "anti-war" leftist will overlook the fact the Obama is leaving behind 5,500 mercenaries.
American Troops Leaving Iraq, But 5,500 Mercenaries Are Staying Behind
Click to expand...

Obama basically followed Bushes Iraq plan that he trashed when running for president, very true.
 
The only factor being ignored is that the war with Iraq ended in 2003. Our troop presence there has been no different than the troop presence in Germany and Japan post WW2. We have not been fighting Iraq...we have in fact been fighting beside and training with Iraqis for 7 years now. And IF we are just now ending our 'war'...then who has been the opponent and on what standard do we declare victory?

It is 8 years too late in coming for a time certain withdrawal. The Iraqi people should have been given 5 years to stand up a government, police force, and military and been given the call to support and defend their country against terrorists. If the terrorists are just laying back in wait til we leave, that will be great. It will give the Iraqis the time they need to stage their peacekeeping operations. This should have been done years ago. Kudos at least to Obama for following through on the withdrawal plan.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Dislike.

I want us to keep several thousand troops in Iraq or next door in Kuwait, incase we are needed to take on Al Qaeda or other trouble-makers.
Click to expand...

Al Qaeda doesn't fight conventionally. Keeping a regular forces in the area serves little purpose. You'd make a bit more sense if you said several hundred special ops guys. The current risk facing Iraq as a state has less to do with AQ than it has to do with sectarian division and an ineffective national legislature.
 
jamesrage said:
I think its a bad idea announcing a pull out date. The insurgents in Iraq are not stupid,except for maybe the suicide bombers. Logic would tell them to amass their forces and wait until sometime after the US left.
Click to expand...

Whether there is a date or not, the insurgents will do that anyway.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Al Qaeda doesn't fight conventionally. Keeping a regular forces in the area serves little purpose. You'd make a bit more sense if you said several hundred special ops guys. The current risk facing Iraq as a state has less to do with AQ than it has to do with sectarian division and an ineffective national legislature.
Click to expand...

you are correct. we need to keep a small group of special-ops guys.

wanna bet we will? ;)
 
digsbe said:
It's all for his campaign in my opinion. I think it's a poor decision for Obama to announce a troop withdrawal or to withdraw if the situation is still hostile or not resolved.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you aware of the fact that President Bush COMMITTED to remove all American troops from Iraq by Dec 31st, 2011.

right?
 
Tashah said:
A moot point. Both governments acknowledge the pullout. The US and Iraq could not agree on legal immunity for US military personnel in-theater. Remaining in Iraq would have exposed American soldiers to possible arrest, prosecution, and penalties under Iraqi civil/criminal laws. Such a situation is untenable.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The primary impetus on them being pulled out by the end of the year was the Iraqi government. The Iraqi's were demanding unreasonable terms for US troops to stay beyond that point, and I agree that we should not have accepted those terms. Made the decision pretty easy IMMHO.
 
VanceMack said:
The only factor being ignored is that the war with Iraq ended in 2003. Our troop presence there has been no different than the troop presence in Germany and Japan post WW2. We have not been fighting Iraq...we have in fact been fighting beside and training with Iraqis for 7 years now. And IF we are just now ending our 'war'...then who has been the opponent and on what standard do we declare victory?

It is 8 years too late in coming for a time certain withdrawal. The Iraqi people should have been given 5 years to stand up a government, police force, and military and been given the call to support and defend their country against terrorists. If the terrorists are just laying back in wait til we leave, that will be great. It will give the Iraqis the time they need to stage their peacekeeping operations. This should have been done years ago. Kudos at least to Obama for following through on the withdrawal plan.
Click to expand...

Out-freakin'-standing. Obama pulls our forces out just like he promised, but figures out a way to leave a force to cover the withdrawal. Nice. Who said Obama was stupid? Looks to me like he knows how to listen to his experts. There won't be any mad scramble to get in the planes while artillery rounds are falling like in Vietnam.

We'll need some kind of presence there - can't avoid that - so leaving mercenaries behind to hold the fort is very good. You can be certain a lot of those mercs are ex special forces so you can be certain those guys are very very good. In some ways they'll be better than the regular army. They'll be lighter and faster with a much shorter chain of command which permits quick responses. They'll do a good job.
 
Antiderivative said:
Exactly, it is Bush's deadline, not Obama's. Imagine if Obama ran on Bush's deadline in 2008? The left would have went ape-**** and Obama would have never been elected. I bet Obama will use this decision in an advantageous manner to garner political support, as I bet that many "anti-war" leftist will overlook the fact the Obama is leaving behind 5,500 mercenaries.
American Troops Leaving Iraq, But 5,500 Mercenaries Are Staying Behind
Click to expand...
Yes, it was Bush's decision, but Obama tried to extend the agreement and the Iraqis didn't want any part of it. They want us gone.

Most, if not all, of those running for POTUS are saying Obama is doing the wrong thing by leaving They're idiots and on the wrong side of the issue.



Romney Opposes Troop Withdrawal From Iraq (UPDATED) | ThinkProgress


“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women. The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government. The American people deserve to hear the recommendations that were made by our military commanders in Iraq.”​


See my sig for the WH's response.
 
#1. President Bush signed an agreemant with Iraq, promising to remove all forces by 12/31/2011.

#2. President Obama tried to negotiate keeping a few thousand troops in Iraq after this date, just incase of a flare-up in violence.

#3. The Iraqi Parliament and President REFUSED to grant any continud American presence, immunity from prosecution...as we have now.

#4. President Obama, looking out for the best interest of our troops, decided that making us vulnerable to Iraqi prosecution while trying to protect Iraq, was unacceptable. Therefore, the withdrawal would be completed by 12/31/2011 as agreed.

I'm sorry...but what exactly did Obama do wrong here? Do you WANT troops to be tried in barbaric Iraqi courts for the slightest infraction of their laws???



...oh and btw, several thousand private American security forces will stay in Iraq, along with a contingent of American military to protect the very large American embassy....along with probably some special-ops folks to take out any terrorists we locate.

:)

all-in-all...I think Obama has come up with a great plan.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
Do you WANT troops to be tried in barbaric Iraqi courts for the slightest infraction of their laws???
Click to expand...

But, but, but I thought we liberated Iraq from tyrannical rule by spreading liberty and democracy. Are you saying that this is not the case?

all-in-all...I think Obama has come up with a great plan.
Click to expand...

Obama's plan looks eerily similar to the previous administration's plan. Shouldn't these accolades be raining down on Bush rather than Obama?
 
Antiderivative said:
..Obama's plan looks eerily similar to the previous administration's plan. Shouldn't these accolades be raining down on Bush rather than Obama?
Click to expand...

Bush didn't set up a plan that would allow hundreds if not 1,000 American troops to stay behind to protect our embassy. He also didn't set up a plan to keep thousand of private defense contractors to stick around. And he didn't create the plan to keep a few special-ops around.

That was Obama's doing. Bush simply signed a document and left the next POTUS to do the hard work.
 
Thunder said:
Bush didn't set up a plan that would allow hundreds if not 1,000 American troops to stay behind to protect our embassy. He also didn't set up a plan to keep thousand of private defense contractors to stick around. And he didn't create the plan to keep a few special-ops around.

That was Obama's doing. Bush simply signed a document and left the next POTUS to do the hard work.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly call this "hard work"...
 
Thunder said:
negotiating with the Iraqi PM to keep a contingent of US forces in a foreign country with immunity isn't work?

what do you call it then?
Click to expand...

Not when you have people in the State Department to do it for you...in any case they were unable to reach an agreement, so the "hard work" went absolutely nowhere. Which is not exactly a bad thing.
 
Thunder said:
Bush didn't set up a plan that would allow hundreds if not 1,000 American troops to stay behind to protect our embassy. He also didn't set up a plan to keep thousand of private defense contractors to stick around. And he didn't create the plan to keep a few special-ops around.

That was Obama's doing. Bush simply signed a document and left the next POTUS to do the hard work.
Click to expand...

I think when you say embassy, you mean a compound which is a more accurate description of that building over in Baghdad. Do you really think that using hired mercenaries was something that Bush wouldn't resort to? Bush set up this plan and Obama followed through.

Thank goodness for the vision of Bush because then Obama wouldn't have a blueprint to follow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom