PDA

View Full Version : U.S. out of Iraq in 19 months


Fire Haley
02-24-2009, 04:54 PM
Iraq will be safe for the next 100 years. No doubt.

Officials: US troops to leave Iraq by August 2010

WASHINGTON—The United States will withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by August 2010, 19 months after President Barack Obama's inauguration day, according to administration officials who expect Obama to make the announcement this week.

The withdrawal plan would fulfill one of Obama's central campaign pledges, albeit a little more slowly than he promised. He said he would withdraw troops within 16 months, roughly one brigade a month from the time of his inauguration.

The U.S. military would leave behind a residual force, between 30,000 and 50,000 troops, to continue advising and training Iraqi security forces. Also staying beyond the 19 months would be intelligence and surveillance specialists and their equipment, including unmanned aircraft, according to two administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plan has not been made public.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11774783?nclick_check=1

HometownGal
02-24-2009, 05:30 PM
You heard it here first - aint gonna happen.

Fire Haley
02-24-2009, 05:37 PM
Of course it will happen, the warmonger made a campaign promise.

lilyoder6
02-24-2009, 05:38 PM
i love the fact that obama voted for this, then argued against it.., then saying he would withdraw fully, now 2 saying he is still keeping soldiers over there... hahaha..,

and how can u say u are withdrawing the troops when u are still going to keep 30,000-50,000 still over there..

SCSTILLER
02-24-2009, 05:38 PM
Nothing like saying to the insurgents "sit back and wait" so they can come back to play when the Americans aren't around to kick their arses! I am all for leaving when the job is done and Iraq is stable and able to stand on her feet, but not until then!

AllD
02-24-2009, 05:50 PM
i love the fact that obama voted for this, then argued against it.., then saying he would withdraw fully, now 2 saying he is still keeping soldiers over there... hahaha..,

and how can u say u are withdrawing the troops when u are still going to keep 30,000-50,000 still over there..

"I voted for it before I voted against it."

-J. Kerry

lilyoder6
02-24-2009, 05:56 PM
"I voted for it before I voted against it."

-J. Kerry

whats ur point???
that kerry likes 2 flop as well

HometownGal
02-24-2009, 05:56 PM
Nothing like saying to the insurgents "sit back and wait" so they can come back to play when the Americans aren't around to kick their arses! I am all for leaving when the job is done and Iraq is stable and able to stand on her feet, but not until then!

Bingo. Now the curmudgeons have 19 months to strategize thanks to ol' big mouth. :jerkit: Telephone, telegraph, tellObama, telltheinsurgents. :rolleyes:

Still say it isn't going to happen.

NJarhead
02-24-2009, 06:00 PM
I KNEW IT!!!! :banging:

Folks, this was the plan before Obama ever took office and now his administration is trying to take credit for it. I called it in another thread about 3-4 months ago.

I'm sorry, but claiming ANY CREDIT FOR THIS WHAT-SO-EVER is a jerk-off move.

Again, it was the Iraqi's who had been requesting for our withdrawl for over a year and the former administration had already had the plan decided and agreed upon. If Obama ever argued against it, it's because he needed to be in office before it took place/was announced and FOR THIS LOUSY PURPOSE. This really pisses me off!! :mad:

revefsreleets
02-24-2009, 06:43 PM
This is fine. 50k American troops is about the right size to stabilize and support the new Iraqi Army.

But saying that we are "withdrawing" is wrong. That would mean we'd keep a few thousand troops.

This was pretty much what the timetable was going to be regardless. I will PUKE if the Dems and Obama start claiming a victory in Iraq.

NJarhead
02-24-2009, 06:46 PM
This is fine. 50k American troops is about the right size to stabilize and support the new Iraqi Army.

But saying that we are "withdrawing" is wrong. That would mean we'd keep a few thousand troops.

This was pretty much what the timetable was going to be regardless. I will PUKE if the Dems and Obama start claiming a victory in Iraq.

Standby on that. You may may need to keep a paper bag handy.

xfl2001fan
02-24-2009, 07:47 PM
So, when we reach about 13-14 months into the timetable...the insurgents will make another huge push...and thus, force the hand of the United Nations (HAHAHAHAHAHA...could resist that)

We'll have to extend the deadline...because the logistics required to plan on losing "A Brigade a Month" is far too hard...especially when you consider how overtaxed our Soldier's are as things stand now.

The loss of a brigade or two might not be much...but one a month (or even 2 every 3 months) is going to put an even bigger burden/strain on those in place...or the ones doing the replacing.

revefsreleets
02-24-2009, 07:59 PM
There ARE a ton of Iraqi's in their own army.

It can't be THAT bad.

The Patriot
02-24-2009, 08:02 PM
Standby on that. You may may need to keep a paper bag handy.

Ha! I thought Bush already did in 2003. :flap:

revefsreleets
02-24-2009, 08:16 PM
Ha! I thought Bush already did in 2003. :flap:

At least it was his policy that he was claiming...

Dino 6 Rings
02-24-2009, 08:21 PM
So how is this different than what Bush was already doing?

How is 50,000 troops left in theatre any different than what we did in Germany, which is exactly what McCain was elluding to? In fact, down we still have troops on the ground in Germany some 50+ years later?

If it wasn't so freaking hilarious, I'd actually be mad about this.

Godfather
02-24-2009, 08:22 PM
So how is this different than what Bush was already doing?

How is 50,000 troops left in theatre any different than what we did in Germany, which is exactly what McCain was elluding to? In fact, down we still have troops on the ground in Germany some 50+ years later?

If it wasn't so freaking hilarious, I'd actually be mad about this.

I just hope being there another 19 months plus having a permanent presence of 30-50K upsets the Kool-Aid drinkers.

Dino 6 Rings
02-24-2009, 08:25 PM
I just hope being there another 19 months plus having a permanent presence of 30-50K upsets the Kool-Aid drinkers.

It won't see, they'll say "See how smart he is, see how he thinks ahead"

ridiculous...

I was reading a book about these kings and one was called a Usurper and...oh my bad, this isn't a book forum...my mistake.

The Patriot
02-24-2009, 08:34 PM
At least it was his policy that he was claiming...

What? Win the war? Great strategy!

NJarhead
02-24-2009, 08:45 PM
What? Win the war? Great strategy!

Your comment is too vague (and correct as written) so I won't argue it. :flap: :applaudit:

Dino 6 Rings
02-24-2009, 09:38 PM
What? Win the war? Great strategy!

How do you win a war against a people that are willing to commit suicide against you and indoctrinate their youth for supremecy...

oh wait, we did that, against Japan and Germany...and it took a Generation. You win their youth, you win the future.

xfl2001fan
02-25-2009, 08:36 AM
Name one place that the US has occupied during war...that we still don't have an occupying force in.

Anyone? I'd be interested in knowing this.

Japan - Check
Germany - Check
Korea - Check
Italy - Check

SteelCityMom
02-25-2009, 08:46 AM
Name one place that the US has occupied during war...that we still don't have an occupying force in.

Anyone? I'd be interested in knowing this.

Japan - Check
Germany - Check
Korea - Check
Italy - Check

The only possibility that comes to mind is Vietnam, but I'm uncertain about whether or not we still have troops there. I somehow recall that we had to pull everyone, but I could wrong on this.

The Patriot
02-25-2009, 03:17 PM
Name one place that the US has occupied during war...that we still don't have an occupying force in.

Anyone? I'd be interested in knowing this.

Japan - Check
Germany - Check
Korea - Check
Italy - Check

Morocco
Mexico
Cuba
The Philippines
Panama

NJarhead
02-25-2009, 03:58 PM
Morocco
Mexico
Cuba
The Philippines
Panama

We still have bases in Cuba and the Philippines. Not sure about Mexico, but I bet we have at least a detachment in Panama.

JEFF4i
02-25-2009, 04:18 PM
Morocco
Mexico
Cuba
The Philippines
Panama

There are posts in the Philippines, Limay and Manila. Panama refuses to allow us in there, same with Cuba. And c'mon, Mexico? Who even cares?

Back on topic? I don't really care what the time is, sticking to my guns, we need to do work in Iraq yet. As stated, it takes generations, because it takes socialization. I'm not too hot on us getting in there, but frankly, there are a lot of human beings who will suffer if we don't at least make sure they are stable, can protect themselves, and have some interest in the better of the United States.

The Patriot
02-25-2009, 05:09 PM
We still have bases in Cuba and the Philippines. Not sure about Mexico, but I bet we have at least a detachment in Panama.

There are posts in the Philippines, Limay and Manila. Panama refuses to allow us in there, same with Cuba. And c'mon, Mexico? Who even cares?

Back on topic? I don't really care what the time is, sticking to my guns, we need to do work in Iraq yet. As stated, it takes generations, because it takes socialization. I'm not too hot on us getting in there, but frankly, there are a lot of human beings who will suffer if we don't at least make sure they are stable, can protect themselves, and have some interest in the better of the United States.

I meant occupying forces. We have troops in over 150 countries, I believe. I didn't think we were removing all troops from Iraq. I thought we were just recalling the actual physical army and allowing the Iraqi military to take control. We have bases in Germany but if there were to be a terrorist attack then the German military would be the ones to respond, not the U.S. I think that's what we hope to see happen in 19 months.

Muppet13
02-25-2009, 05:12 PM
How would that be possible?

XxKnightxX
02-25-2009, 09:04 PM
Morocco
Mexico
Cuba
The Philippines
Panama

and guatemala

XxKnightxX
02-25-2009, 09:06 PM
Nothing like saying to the insurgents "sit back and wait" so they can come back to play when the Americans aren't around to kick their arses! I am all for leaving when the job is done and Iraq is stable and able to stand on her feet, but not until then!

That aint gonna happen either

NJarhead
02-25-2009, 09:27 PM
That aint gonna happen either

If they were to turn Afganistan, Pakistan and Iran into glass factories like they should, Iraq would be stable. :chuckle:

NJarhead
02-25-2009, 09:35 PM
I meant occupying forces. We have troops in over 150 countries, I believe. I didn't think we were removing all troops from Iraq. I thought we were just recalling the actual physical army and allowing the Iraqi military to take control. We have bases in Germany but if there were to be a terrorist attack then the German military would be the ones to respond, not the U.S. I think that's what we hope to see happen in 19 months.

I'd say our "occupying forces" then are only in Iraq. Our status there changes weekly it seems however. I'm not sure how much of a force we are in Afganistan or if we're necessarily controlling or helping control what goes on there as much as we're "hunting" the Taliban.

Who brought up Mexico btw?? Why would we have troops there? Because of Poncho Via?

Cuba should be thanking thier lucky stars we saved their asses from being a German Isle about 100 years ago.

Japan? If it weren't for North Korea we'd be hearing a lot more about how they want us out of there.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-25-2009, 10:58 PM
Nothing like showing the other team your playbook or anything. Almost as dumb as Geraldo Rivera drawing a map of an upcoming military operation in the sand when he was embedded in Iraq.

devilsdancefloor
02-25-2009, 11:17 PM
If they were to turn Afganistan, Pakistan and Iran into glass factories like they should, Iraq would be stable. :chuckle:

no no why does everyone want to nuke:noidea: :flap: air fuel bombs kills germs but leaves things standing. to make things stable all we ned to do is stop being PC and let the damn military do their jobs for christ sakes. It would be over in a year

SCSTILLER
02-26-2009, 07:24 AM
I'd say our "occupying forces" then are only in Iraq. Our status there changes weekly it seems however. I'm not sure how much of a force we are in Afganistan or if we're necessarily controlling or helping control what goes on there as much as we're "hunting" the Taliban.

Who brought up Mexico btw?? Why would we have troops there? Because of Poncho Via?

Cuba should be thanking thier lucky stars we saved their asses from being a German Isle about 100 years ago.

Japan? If it weren't for North Korea we'd be hearing a lot more about how they want us out of there.

Every country wants our military forces to leave, until they look at their budget and realize how much the US brings to their country. A few years back the Germans were considering kicking the US out of a base over there and after some number counting they let the base expand! Typical, hate the americans but love their money!

SCSTILLER
02-26-2009, 07:27 AM
no no why does everyone want to nuke:noidea: :flap: air fuel bombs kills germs but leaves things standing. to make things stable all we ned to do is stop being PC and let the damn military do their jobs for christ sakes. It would be over in a year


You would have thought that they would have learned that lesson from, oh lets say, Vietnam! I don't know the exact quote, but it goes something like "war is too important to be run by the Generals and Politicians". Politicians I agree with, but not the general part, Petraeus has done a great job!

Dino 6 Rings
02-26-2009, 08:27 AM
There are posts in the Philippines, Limay and Manila. Panama refuses to allow us in there, same with Cuba. And c'mon, Mexico? Who even cares? .

Actually, pretty sure we have guys in Cuba...in a place called Gitmo.

Fire Haley
02-27-2009, 11:54 AM
NO BLOOD for POPPIES!