›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Iraq War is over.

DaikunDaikun
edited October 2011 in Politics
By declaring that the last American troops will leave Iraq by the end of the year, President Obama signaled the official close to one of the longest, most politically contentious wars in U.S. history
Took long enough. Sheesh!

Comments

  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    I thought it wasn't a war.. Isn't it just an action?
  • DaikunDaikun
    I thought it wasn't a war.. Isn't it just an action?
    Whatever it is, we're done with it.
  • AlanAlan
    Still in Afghanistan though and with the problems there they will prob just get reassigned.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    It was more of a "get the fuck out of our country," than a "we're leaving" sort of situation.
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    President Obama signaled the official close to one of the longest, most politically contentious wars in U.S. history
    Has America repressed Vietnam already?
    (American intervention in Vietnam lasted 12 years, and I'm sure I don't need to point out how "politically contentious" it was)
    Post edited by a1s on
  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    President Obama signaled the official close to one of the longest, most politically contentious wars in U.S. history
    Has America repressed Vietnam already?
    (American intervention in Vietnam lasted 12 years, and I'm sure I don't need to point out how "politically contentious" it was)
    What is this "Vietnam" you old-timer?
  • JasonJason
    image
  • GregGreg
    image
    That being said, I have faith that for every soldier that Obama takes out from Iraq, he will send another into Afghanistan, as he has been doing.
  • CremlianCremlian
    That being said, I have faith that for every soldier that Obama takes out from Iraq, he will send another into Afghanistan, as he has been doing.
    Ummm.... No.
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    Ummm.... No.
    Well argued. I especially liked how your thesis statement was no-nonsense and to the point.

    Anyway, why do you think Obama will or won't send more troops to Afghanistan? I though there was no oil there?
    Post edited by a1s on
  • CremlianCremlian
    Well argued. I especially liked how your thesis statement was no-nonsense and to the point.
    image
  • a1sa1s
    edited October 2011
    uh... it says right there on your picture "Refocus on Afghanistan and Pakistan". In fact that's one of the few things I can read there.

    Actually I'm having problems with the whole chart. It says that "today" (whenever that was) there are 500'000 (I think) troops in "Iraq and Afghanistan", however according to Wikipedia, there should be 50k in Iraq and 30k in Afghanistan since 2010. I would guess from where "today" is located between "January 2009" and "end of 2011" that it's somewhere this year. So, WTH?
    Post edited by a1s on
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited October 2011
    image
    Notice the troop levels have been dropping so it's kinda hard to have all the troops pulled out of Iraq going to Afghanistan if the total number of troops is going down on top of that there is a commitment to lower troop levels significantly in Afghanistan.

    The graphic also doesn't take in account the latest news about Iraq I'm pretty sure. since it was made in June 23, 2011.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • GregGreg
    I'll admit hyperbole in my statement, but Obama has been increasing Afghan presence overall. That chart only starts when he takes office. I'm looking for my source right now (I have one, I'm just having trouble finding it again) but if you look further back into the Bush years, you'll see that he more than doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan as soon as he became president. He's lowering the troop numbers now, but they're still much more than they have been.
  • CremlianCremlian
    but Obama has been increasing Afghan presence overall.
    Yea, you mean what he campaigned on?
  • JasonJason
    but Obama has been increasing Afghan presence overall.
    Yea, you mean what he campaigned on?
    The bigger question is why should we celebrate a 17 percent overall reduction in troop presence? He promised much larger drawdowns in 2008... and now he's promising them again as the 2012 election is brewing. Promises, promises... but only a 17 percent real delivery.
  • KapitänTimKapitänTim
    edited October 2011
    How about Bush's Mission Accomplished? That was kind of a promise.

    Obama may not be the President we deserve. But he is the President we need.
    Post edited by KapitänTim on
  • GregGreg
    Obama isn't the President we need, he's the President we can get.
  • JasonJason
    Obama isn't the President we need, he's the President we can get.
  • CremlianCremlian
    The bigger question is why should we celebrate a 17 percent overall reduction in troop presence? He promised much larger drawdowns in 2008... and now he's promising them again as the 2012 election is brewing. Promises, promises... but only a 17 percent real delivery.
    If he doesn't get any pictures of this coming out of Iraq or Afghanistan most people will consider it a success.
    image
  • AprecheApreche
    The Iraq War Ain’t Over, No Matter What Obama Says
  • a1sa1s
    That being said, I have faith that for every soldier that Obama takes out from Iraq, he will send another into Afghanistan, as he has been doing.
    Ummm.... No.
    but Obama has been increasing Afghan presence overall.
    Yea, you mean what he campaigned on?
    I'm pretty sure you're contradicting yourslef there. Unless you're saying the ration won't litteraly be 1:1, which, ok duh, it won't be.
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited October 2011
    I'm pretty sure you're contradicting yourslef there. Unless you're saying the ration won't litteraly be 1:1, which, ok duh, it won't be.
    No, you can't read.

    shadowocr01 said "I have faith that for every soldier that Obama takes out from Iraq, he will send another into Afghanistan." That's is a one to one ratio. That's what I objected to.

    I'm also confused about how you can be annoyed that a politician has done what he campaigned on. (it's one of those rare moments) He said he would get us out of Iraq and he said he would focus on Afghanistan.... check it out!
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • GregGreg
    I'm also confused about how you can be annoyed that a politician has done what he campaigned on. (it's one of those rare moments) He said he would get us out of Iraq and he said he would focus on Afghanistan.... check it out!
    I didn't perceive him as campaigning on it. I trust you that he did because I didn't pay too much attention to the campaign, but it seemed to me that he said he would get us out of the mid-east, not just Iraq.
  • CremlianCremlian
    I didn't perceive him as campaigning on it. I trust you that he did because I didn't pay too much attention to the campaign, but it seemed to me that he said he would get us out of the mid-east, not just Iraq.
    Afghanistan, Not Iraq should be the focus
    The argument was we super fucked up by going into Iraq in the first place, when we did that we let Afghanistan fall to the way side and fall apart more just when we were close to actually getting somewhere.
  • a1sa1s
    Unless you're saying the ration won't litteraly be 1:1, which, ok duh, it won't be.
    No, you can't read.
    shadowocr01 said "I have faith that for every soldier that Obama takes out from Iraq, he will send another into Afghanistan." That's is a one to one ratio. That's what I objected to.
    I can read and have the prsence of mind to recognize a figure of speech when I see one. Though perhaps I have a tendency to see metaphors (so I read it as: "we're going into Afghanistan now, like Obama promised") where there isn't one (so it should be read as: "soldiers will not pass Go, or collect $200, but be sent straight to Afghanistan. No discharges are coming. At all.")
  • CremlianCremlian
    edited October 2011
    I can read and have the prsence of mind to recognize a figure of speech when I see one. Though perhaps I have a tendency to see metaphors (so I read it as: "we're going into Afghanistan now, like Obama promised") where there isn't one (so it should be read as: "soldiers will not pass Go, or collect $200, but be sent straight to Afghanistan. No discharges are coming. At all.")
    But we already surged into Afghanistan, and we are now pulling back... So we did what we were trying to do... and now we are starting to pull away. The draw down might not be as fast as we want, but I'm sure it's going as fast as they can do it without causing a fall of Saigon moment.

    As for the link Scott provided, I care a lot less about mercenaries doing the jobs, While I don't like the whole privatizing war thing that's been going on and a lot of the big problems around it. I'm a lot happier seeing well paid people being there by choice, then people volunteering for the military and being ordered there.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • a1sa1s
    I imagine if I was American (I'm not), I'd still be quite pissed they're throwing away my tax dollars like that (as for who is doing it, I can't imagine people volunteering for the army at this time and not expecting a high chance of being sent to the middle east.)
  • AndrewAndrew
    I can't imagine people volunteering for the army at this time and not expecting a high chance of being sent to the middle east.
    FWIW, most of my friends who are Marines actively want to go into the middle east. In fact, it's extremely difficult to get an infantry MOS. If you enlist, it's actually fairly easy to get a non-combat related MOS.
Sign In or Register to comment.