All U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011

rock_show_host · 10-21-2011, 11:57 AM

Obama: All US troops out of Iraq by year's end - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

doulos14 · 10-21-2011, 09:49 PM

I feel like I have heard this one before......

Demon_Hunter · 10-21-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rock_show_host

Obama: All US troops out of Iraq by year's end - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

I really do hope this works out the way the President says it will. Evacuating 40,000 soldiers in less than 3 months is going to be a tough order to fulfill.

normajean777 · 10-22-2011, 01:37 AM

Election gimmick?

***BillSPrestonEsq*** · 10-22-2011, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Election gimmick?

I think so. I'll believe it when I see it at this point. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be totally awesome, but this is one song and dance that has been done too many times.

**bravesfan007** · 10-22-2011, 10:03 AM

I'm not worried about actually seeing it happen. I'm more concerned with what will end up happening after we leave. Yes, I know all of the sides and arguments for and against, but something inside of me doubts the benefit of leaving at this point. I hope I'm wrong though.

Ax · 10-22-2011, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Election gimmick?

Definitely. Though, I think it is a good move, the timing is too obvious. He's worried that his approval ratings are going to continue to dip. Also, it's not even all that big a deal anymore. We hardly do anything over there as is. We've not been needed for a while, or well, the level of our need has grown stagnant and all we'd be doing by staying there is delaying some inevitable event that would happen after we left whether that timing is now or in 10 years. I understood staying up until about mid way through 2009, but not anymore. I'm not sure what we've been hoping to accomplish by staying this long. So part of me thinks that he waited until about a year before election day, delaying it to a point where his approval rating couldn't be any lower, and then announced it as some sort of election strategy. Either way, this is a good move for the economy.

lifesglorydead · 10-22-2011, 11:38 AM

First thing that came to my mind:

Relevant or not, I sure hope he means what he says... it's a bit of a gamble isn't it? If he isn't able to follow through, there probably won't even be a sliver of a chance of re-election.

TheProdigalModern · 10-22-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by normajean777

Election gimmick?

If I remember correctly, Election 2008.

Honestly, I don't care about his flawed reasons for doing it as long as it happens.

jthomas1600 · 10-25-2011, 08:53 AM

The thing is....he didn't do anything to make this happen. We already had an agreement to be out by the end of this year. The military leaders and advisers were urging him to negotiate another agreement to allow 3,000-10,000 troops to remain and he failed in those negotiations. Maybe he tanked them on purpose, who knows. All I know is we are being told to leave--it's not like Obama has "finished" the war and is bringing our troops home. I also think it would be worth while to start a thread on "looming instability in the middle east". If you've been watching the news you've seen there have been some scary statements coming out of the region. It sounds like Iran could end up being the "stabilizing/controlling" force and I think that's cause for concern.

**Dwight Schrute** · 10-25-2011, 09:07 AM

if he pulls it off, kudos. I'm sure he could use the ego and publicity boost right about now.

**Ridley's Own** · 10-25-2011, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

. It sounds like Iran could end up being the "stabilizing/controlling" force and I think that's cause for concern.

Iran was always going to be the stabilizing/controlling force in Iraq. But because of Bush II's go-it-alone-ness, we completely missed an opportunity to engage Iran for the better. Iran's going to have influence in Iraq; the question is whether we leverage that influence into something productive or to our bizarre fascination in keeping them closed off and a pariah state.

Ax · 10-25-2011, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

Iran was always going to be the stabilizing/controlling force in Iraq. But because of Bush II's go-it-alone-ness, we completely missed an opportunity to engage Iran for the better. Iran's going to have influence in Iraq; the question is whether we leverage that influence into something productive or to our bizarre fascination in keeping them closed off and a pariah state.

It's because Iran's leaders are absolutely insane. I really can't for the life of me understand why Iran wasn't part of the Arab Spring stuff... The people obviously hate Ahmadinejad, that was really apparent after their last "election".

**Ridley's Own** · 10-26-2011, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ax

It's because Iran's leaders are absolutely insane. I really can't for the life of me understand why Iran wasn't part of the Arab Spring stuff... The people obviously hate Ahmadinejad, that was really apparent after their last "election".

There's an ongoing internal wrestling between the theocrats (Supreme Leader, Council of Guardians, etc) and the Revolutionary Guard. What we saw two summers ago was the public airing out between a stabilizing force that was focusing primarily on economics (the clergy and the ongoing concern that Iran's beyond in-the-hole economy) and the revolutionary party primarily focusing on maintaining and extending the Revolution. Which shouldn't surprise us, because the US went through a similar debate during its own Revolutionary Party days (up to Madison, I'd argue).

I don't think it's "insane" for a country faced with two US invasions on either side of it, a hostile country to the south of it (Saudi Arabia), and a regional nuclear power that has made clear its refusal to reject a first-use option (Israel) to ratchet up the rhetoric. Nor do I think it's "insane" to pursue nuclear weapons; in fact, I think there's a pretty good argument why a nuclear armed Iran is both foregone and actually positive for the region. You can get mired in the anti-semitic rhetoric and all the propaganda nonsense and miss the really important information.