It's really pretty disgusting how little Iraq came up in this election. But Obama has said he wants to end the war by withdrawing over 16 months. With a Democratic controlled congress to support him, does this really mean we will finally be out of the clusterfuck that is Iraq by April 2010? (Actually the Obama website says "summer of 2010," the sonofabitch, that would be more like 20 months). And he also says a "residual force would remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq." So the way I see it then, we start to pull out and all but then some big event or a shitload of bombings will require a surge in the "residual force" and make things out to be basically like they are now. When the FUCK is this bullshit going to finally just end for real?

American troops will probably end up staying in Iraq for the next couple of decades, I really doubt he'll manage to meet this deadline.

He's right as long as our economic interests stay so shall we. He's gonna reduce the amount of troops there and he'll probably officially declare the war over, but realistically there is still going to be fighting over there and American resources, companies, as well as some of our military will continue to remain there. And of course I wouldn't expect economic or social prosperity. My prediction is that the Iraqi government will fail either because of a military coup by the awakening or by some terrorist organization. But what does it matter whether the country is a democracy or a hell hole run by a dictator? As long as there is a cap on violence and civil unrest and we can get what we came for in the first place its all gravy. Obama is moving in the right direction, but it kind of seems like he's beating around the bush. I'm a huge skeptic but in all honesty I really don't know what his true motives are and I don't think anyone will truly know whether he's going to save this country or not until he starts passing some bills.

Let us not forget, the war was founded on lies in the first place.

Now that we have what, around 4,000 Americans dead, there will always be some nitwit to say "but if we withdraw, their lives will have been lost in vain"--as if they were not lost in vain in the first place.

What is going on there is a civil war, and there is NO good reason for us to be there. The stated goals of improving the infrastructure have been disasters perpetrated by incompetant and/or corrupt American private contractors.

so what good has come from these 4000 amerikan deaths?

American troops will probably end up staying in Iraq for the next couple of decades, I really doubt he'll manage to meet this deadline.

This.


Remember, we are still in Germany.

American troops will probably end up staying in Iraq for the next couple of decades, I really doubt he'll manage to meet this deadline.

If you look on his website he never promises to completely pull out of Iraq. That was my whole point in my post. There will always be a "residual force" there, and it would seem they will always have to deal with the suicide bombings and whatnot. I don't see how his plan is much different than McCain's more honest "we gonna be there 100 years" shit.

so what good has come from these 4000 amerikan deaths?

It sucks man. It really sucks.

---------

The reason why the war wasn't as big of a deal this year was because it has somewhat turned around. Don't get me wrong... It's still REAL bad over there, but in terms of what it WAS as compared to NOW it is a hell of a lot better. The only real thing I'm worried about is that the terrorists are playing a game right now. Wait till we start pulling out... Than start hitting Iraq hard again. Obama is going to have to make big decisions. He's going to be put in a lot of lose-lose situations... Thanks to Bush.

If you look on his website he never promises to completely pull out of Iraq. That was my whole point in my post. There will always be a "residual force" there, and it would seem they will always have to deal with the suicide bombings and whatnot. I don't see how his plan is much different than McCain's more honest "we gonna be there 100 years" shit.

Yeah.

I understood it as this (in terms of Iraq):

-Obama was a politician.

-McCain was being honest.

The decision was all ready made for the both of them.

This.


Remember, we are still in Germany.

And Japan and South Korea.

I don't think the War will end, as far as a majority of combat troops leaving, for at least a year or two. Bush said today that from this point on, he will be working with Obama to formulate an American plan to the possibility that the Iraqi parliament does not approve the Status of Forces Agreement, or that they stick us with a plan demanding immediate withdrawal. Obama will probably not need to work with Bush too much, but I think he'll be fine working with the Iraqi government.


We'll probably be gone there in a meaningful way by 2011-2012. Leaving at least 10-20 thousands troops though for "precise anti-terrorism" efforts or whatever Obama says. Remember, though not as much a hawk as McCain, Obama has hawkish tendencies and plans to deploy thousands more troops to Afghanistan and perhaps even expand the war officially to Pakistan's tribal areas in Waziristan.

Hell no. Both McCain and Obama knew going into this that we would be in Iraq for years to come.

The Shia are basically waiting for the right moment to revolt and take over the state just like Iran did, and the Kurds want a state of their own, but they're not going to give up the oil resources in the south. Nobody likes the Sunnis. Soon as al-Sadr says "ok go, guys!" that country will be a big heap of civil war.

Picture Iraq as a particularly shitty birdhouse, and Saddam as some toxic glue, the only thing holding it together. Unless the borders get redrawn or a lot of people die that country will be a failed state for a long time.

That's what colonialism and nation building gets you, folks. Failed states.

That's what colonialism and nation building gets you, folks. Failed states.
And guess who's mess this is.......ENGLAND. What I want to know is, why won't ENGLAND, FRANCE, SPAIN, PORTUGAL and the other colonial powers, take responsibility for their actions, despite the evils we did in the cold war, it's not like they were doing them for at least decades longer.

Yeah, it's not our mess, but we got stuck with it.

It's because we're the big players in the World now and its obviously to their advantage to make us look less popular in the international community. We did the same thing during the American Revolution. We made England look bad to boost support for the war to get more power for independence.

I agree, fuck England for recklessly drawing up borders in the middle east and creating this "Iraq" country which has really only existed for 80 years or so and thinking it would all just work out, while simultaneously letting foreign Jews settle in Palestine.

I don't think the Kurds will ever get their own country because their ethnic land goes into the nonfailed states of Syria and Turkey. Turkey especially isn't going to give up a huge ass of their country. Plus, if you look on a map that shows the fictional country of Kurdistan, it would be a landlocked country, and in order to export anything, particularly oil, they would have to work out something with their neighbors who will all hate them.

I think Bush's rhetoric of "we gotta stay in Iraq to fight the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them on our own soil" is interesting, given that the biggest motivator for Islamic terrorists in fighting us is our occupation of the middle east, especially Iraq right now, but also Saudi Arabia and Qatar, etc (if we would've left Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, the WTC attack probably never would've happened, eh). I mean, the terrorists even say shit in their propaganda like "you will not be safe until you end your unjust occupation of our land!" So uh, it would seem that leaving the middle east and letting the Sunnis and Shias and whatever fight it out amongst themselves would be the best plan for making Americans safe. You can't kill any Americans in a suicide bombing in Iraq if there are no Americans in Iraq. You can't motivate new terrorist recruits to fight against the evil occupying American Empire if there is no occupation going on. Is this not common sense?

And Japan and South Korea.

I think its great that we pulled out of Vietnam and the country stabilized and is a decent country right now while we stayed in Korea and its still a fucking mess. If only America had better memory.

As far as I know we have military in over 130 countries and we have over 700 foreign bases. I believe we are building 8 permanent bases in Iraq, which Obama supported. We have no intention of ever leaving Iraq.

Exactly. People need to wake up and realize we are no longer a country anymore but a vast empire. And the price we pay for all this power? An international community that hates us. In every instance where a country attempts to control the world they are shot down by an opposing force. Germany got shot down by us and the rest of Europe during the Second thirty years war (WWI and II) Napoleon got shot down by Britian and France along with some other countries I would presume, The Roman Empire collapsed from Barbarians and internal issues. The Yuan Dynasty collapsed by the Chinese, Qin Empire collapsed within itself and the list continues. So as history shows, you can have a vast amount of power and try and take over the World, but sooner or later its going to backfire on you. Two of our main competitors are China and Russia at this point and even though we have this huge growing empire, its still not enough when you put nuclear weapons on the table....that changed the whole equation.

"summer of 2010," the sonofabitch, that would be more like 20 months).

His inauguration into office as the forty-fourth President of the United States is scheduled for January 20, 2009.

MOAR LIEK not 20 months at all.

His inauguration into office as the forty-fourth President of the United States is scheduled for January 20, 2009.

MOAR LIEK not 20 months at all.

August of 2010 would be 19 months. And as always in government, there are bound to be delays, so that's being generous.

Only two candidates in the Primaries called for full withdrawals from Iraq. Kucinich and Paul. Obama, like the others, was vague about pulling out. And even then, he admitted he would leave some behind because he has no intentions of telling those contractors to get out of there. Obama is pretty much like every other politician on this one. He will leave people in there as long as there is money to be made. What we look at today and call the "Iraq War" may end, but the fighting and violence will not. At most, the amount of violence and casualties will just die down in numbers. They will still occur, however.

Added - Oops, make that 3. I forgot Gravel.

Only two candidates in the Primaries called for full withdrawals from Iraq. Kucinich and Paul. Obama, like the others, was vague about pulling out. And even then, he admitted he would leave some behind because he has no intentions of telling those contractors to get out of there. Obama is pretty much like every other politician on this one. He will leave people in there as long as there is money to be made. What we look at today and call the "Iraq War" may end, but the fighting and violence will not. At most, the amount of violence and casualties will just die down in numbers. They will still occur, however.

Added - Oops, make that 3. I forgot Gravel.

I agree. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a battle against ideology. Contractors are making billions of taxpayer dollars repairing a country we don't give a shit about. Here we have a new dependent class, instead of just welfare for blacks, taxpayers can rest assured that the government will keep sustaining these important industries :rolleyes:

I agree. This isn't Vietnam. This isn't a battle against ideology. Contractors are making billions of taxpayer dollars repairing a country we don't give a shit about. Here we have a new dependent class, instead of just welfare for blacks, taxpayers can rest assured that the government will keep sustaining these important industries :rolleyes:

But why? What is Obama's allegiance to Haliburton or whoever else making money off the war? Public opinion is sharply against this war. I really don't see anything we can do at this point to create a normal peaceful environment in Iraq. Why not pull out completely, cut our losses, and let the crazy muslims go at it?

What is so important here? Pride?

I am beginning to believe more and more the conspiracy theories about the Zionists. They hate Muslims, so they would want to make them hate us and attack us so that we will attack them. Obama and McCain are both controlled by them. Kennedy tried to cut down their power, mostly to get it himself but still, and was killed for it..... The list goes on. I used to think it was crazy, but the evidence is there.

But why? What is Obama's allegiance to Haliburton or whoever else making money off the war? Public opinion is sharply against this war. I really don't see anything we can do at this point to create a normal peaceful environment in Iraq. Why not pull out completely, cut our losses, and let the crazy muslims go at it?

What is so important here? Pride?

My theory is if you hand the jobs over to the Iraqis that's profit lost for american business. See, this is my argument for higher taxes the more money you make. It's the price of a stable, civilized society unlike Iraq. A bum on welfare is not profiting from a legal system enforcing copyright, a police force arresting bootleggers, a workforce educated mostly in public schools, a public road system where individual pay the same fuel tax that funds roadwork when big corporate fleets always cause more wear and tear, and of course an army protecting us.

Back to my point: We pull out, big business loses the superior protection that the US army and the private security firms it subsidizes provide, and instead iraqi society could break down with a new "despot" nationalizing the oil industry, raising taxes, whatever. Without another war or a crisis at home, that market shrinks and shareholders lose out.

Our whole political system is full of corporate interests. Obama is no exception, but I hope that he will do something to reduce military spending. I have no doubt in my mind that McCain would have loved to continue the status quo.

Only two candidates in the Primaries called for full withdrawals from Iraq. Kucinich and Paul. Obama, like the others, was vague about pulling out. And even then, he admitted he would leave some behind because he has no intentions of telling those contractors to get out of there. Obama is pretty much like every other politician on this one. He will leave people in there as long as there is money to be made. What we look at today and call the "Iraq War" may end, but the fighting and violence will not. At most, the amount of violence and casualties will just die down in numbers. They will still occur, however.

Added - Oops, make that 3. I forgot Gravel.

You forgot Nader as well, I'm absolutely sure Obama will mean business as usual, I've said it before several times, just look at who donated money to his campaign, Nader ran his entire campaign with a mere 4 million $, now that's a candidate that would support real change and a real break from traditional politics that are embedded with the interests of big businesses.

Obama is a serf to the military-industrial-complex just like Bush is, just wait to see the sort of business there will be for post-war reconstruction in Pakistan if he extends the conflict there.

Liberals usually tend to claim they're anti-war, but only when it's a Republican who's leading it, remember '99 and how the world's idealistic left enthusiastically jumped on the "let's bomb Serbia" bandwagon?

Nader ran his entire campaign with a mere 4 million $, now that's a candidate that would support real change and a real break from traditional politics that are embedded with the interests of big businesses.



But his ambitions only point to one thing... POTUS. I have never seen that man help try to elect independents into House and Senate seats during Elections and Mid-Terms. I've never seen him help candidates become Governors. If anything I would think that guy would be popular in Vermont and would help politicians there. I just don't see it. All I see him do is rail against the two parties, not a bad thing in my opinion, but never actually help the independents and third parties who have a chance against the big two to take the big two down.

I have a feeling by this Summer people are going to begin to wake up and realize all these mainstream candidates are the same. Anyone who even tries to proclaim that Obama won by grassroots is living in a dream world created by them. Sure, sure we ratified the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 but there's a huge flaw in the Act. It makes it hard for legitimate lobbyists to donate money given that they have to fill out a bunch of forms and proclaim their legitimacy and they also have a limit on how much they can actually donate. The same goes with grassroot donators (their limit is 2,300 dollars). But major flaw, though, is that theoretically, Corporations could hire individuals who aren't even affiliated with the industry to donate money to a presidential candidate. To cover their tracks all they have to do is make the donations vary instead of making them all 2,300 dollars. Not only would they have enough to pay these individuals personally, but they could also afford to give them the money to actually donate. So consider this. A multi-billion dollar corporation decides it wants to support Obama because they know he's a sucker for money (via word of mouth and connections to obama and blah blah blah).

So they hire real legit lobbyists to donate so many millions up until they reach their limit. Then they hire several hundred nobodies, give them a few thousand for their own pocket, and then give them 2,300 dollars to donate as a grassroots supporter. Make the donations for each individual vary so that the people in the Senate and House who are in charge of monitoring campaign finances doesn't notice anything. Mix in the several hundred "true fans of Obama" with the actual supporters of Obama along with legit lobbyists money and you have yourself several million in campaign finances. And all it takes is lack of close monitoring from Congress (which there is due to understaffing) and several million to jumpstart the campaign. Get the Word out, play the race game, factor that in with the failed bush legacy and some Change Rhetoric and bam! you got your 44th president. The most fucked up part is no one will even know about the underground financing because there is virtually no way to prove it if its not on the record. I don't know if this is true but don't you think his financial build up of several hundred million is impossible to simply come from true grassroot supporters? I mean he won by a landslide but for him to actually gain that much money from real grassroot supporters, it would either take a lot of rich people (which most voters of him are middle class or poor) or an overwhelming amount of supporters (like 90 to 95 percent of national support).

My theory is if you hand the jobs over to the Iraqis that's profit lost for american business. See, this is my argument for higher taxes the more money you make. It's the price of a stable, civilized society unlike Iraq. A bum on welfare is not profiting from a legal system enforcing copyright, a police force arresting bootleggers, a workforce educated mostly in public schools, a public road system where individual pay the same fuel tax that funds roadwork when big corporate fleets always cause more wear and tear, and of course an army protecting us.

Back to my point: We pull out, big business loses the superior protection that the US army and the private security firms it subsidizes provide, and instead iraqi society could break down with a new "despot" nationalizing the oil industry, raising taxes, whatever. Without another war or a crisis at home, that market shrinks and shareholders lose out.

Our whole political system is full of corporate interests. Obama is no exception, but I hope that he will do something to reduce military spending. I have no doubt in my mind that McCain would have loved to continue the status quo.

I don't know if the big businesses would lose protection of private security mercenaries...but if the law somehow required they do if the US military isn't there anymore, that can always be changed.

It's kind of ironic because WE are the ones who destroyed the Iraqi infrastructure. Nobody ever seems to criticize the initial invasion because it was so quick and Saddam's army just basically gave up, but I am surrrrrre it could've been executed more efficiently. I mean, picture the United States bombing and destroying every power plant in Iraq back in 2003 (I don't know if they really did that, this is just a general abstract of what happened). Was that really necessary to remove Saddam? Ever have a big storm hit your area and your power is out for a day or two? You know how big of an inconvenience that is? Imagine how pissed you would be if that went on for months, or longer. Iraqis have and I imagine still do in some areas, gone without electricity and running water and probably the ability to get gas for their car. And the blame is easily placed on the reckless Americans, driving their Humvees down their street blaring Papa Roach. Bleh.

AMERICAN infrastructure needs repairing. Speaking of power outages, aren't we still vulnerable to massive outages like the one a couple years ago that knocked out power in much of the east and midwest? If you're going to give bullshit contracts to companies like Haliburton, and they are going to do that, why not make the projects in America? In a way it's win-win because you modernize our infrastructure and create a labor demand here. It's like what FDR did during the great depression with the Tennessee Valley shit, the Hoover Dam, etc.

Halliburton are sneaky bastards who always cut corners to save on money. Introducing new contracts in America is a good idea but it should be from a company that not only has the capabilities like Halliburton, but the incentive to actually boost the economy in a sound manner rather than half-ass it to make their own profits. Also you bring up a good point. With the decrease in the level of Troops in Iraq, that will give more incentives for Halliburton to use their own mercenaries to replace Iraqi Troops. Perhaps more recruitment will occur in response. Also because Halliburton is privately owned many of the laws governing our troops won't apply to Halliburton's troops. Sounds like that can lend itself open for abuse in power over in Iraq. This could potentially lead to more civil unrest. Mix that factor in with the potential military coup of the "democratic" government set in place, then you're going to hit a disaster.

If all goes perfectly, the U.S. troops will be pulled out 16 months after Obama takes office, but chances are, he'll take a bit longer, as things don't always go as planned.

It is almost impossible to pick qualified candidates in official cabinet positions, that have zero ties to the number one employer of ex and current politicians:

The defense industry.

Obama will have to be strong willed, and mighty careful if he is willing to heed the advice of the late great Eisenhower, and put a stop to the military industrial, and perhaps enact legislation to make the military industrial complex more difficult and risky to effectively implement here in America.

The war in Iraq will draw to a close I believe, but the greater issue is preventing the next American massacre for profit, under the "patriotic" guise of spreading our ideaology.

the U.S. troops will be pulled out

Please refer to my first post and/or Obama's website and see if you still think that.

God it's right there plain as day. "Keeping a residual force there." Who the FUCK was running McCain's campaign anyway? All the fuckups they had...they could've attacked him on a statement like that easiiillllyyy, pointing out how his plan is really similar to McCain's, but spinning it in some way to be like "but McCain does not support time tables for withdrawal because blah blah bad planning blah blah bad policy for counterterrorism etc etc etc."

It's really pretty disgusting how little Iraq came up in this election. But Obama has said he wants to end the war by withdrawing over 16 months. With a Democratic controlled congress to support him, does this really mean we will finally be out of the clusterfuck that is Iraq by April 2010? (Actually the Obama website says "summer of 2010," the sonofabitch, that would be more like 20 months). And he also says a "residual force would remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq." So the way I see it then, we start to pull out and all but then some big event or a shitload of bombings will require a surge in the "residual force" and make things out to be basically like they are now. When the FUCK is this bullshit going to finally just end for real?

when are your fuckin tards going to understand that 99.99999999% of what came out of obamy's mouth was puppet speak bullshit?

fuck, you people are even more dumbfucked than the Bush crowd!

It's like what FDR did during the great depression with the Tennessee Valley shit, the Hoover Dam, etc.

a chicken in every pot, a stimulus check for $500 each year. same thing. good ole welfare system.