Looks like the US is going home.

[William Ashley]

I dread posting in this portion of the forum as there may be americans in here...

but I read this interesting article from ABC news.. it seems the 50,000 US troops left behind after the "US withdrawl from Iraq" are being asked to leave.

Well it seems the US finally has finished this mission.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/iraq-prime-minister-us-2011/story?id=12493176

Guess 2011 is the end of the road for the US in Iraq.

Who would have thunk.

****************************************

********Mission Accomplished************

****************************************

GOOD 4u!!!

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

I dread posting in this portion of the forum as there may be americans in here...

Well WTF...did you think you could hide from 308 million people?

but I read this interesting article from ABC news.. it seems the 50,000 US troops left behind after the "US withdrawl from Iraq" are being asked to leave.

That's OK...you should see our big ass embassy in Baghdad.

[William Ashley]

Well WTF...did you think you could hide from 308 million people?

That's OK...you should see our big ass embassy in Baghdad.

They said ALL AMERICANS.

maybe they'll lease it to me.

Edited December 31, 2010 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

They said ALL AMERICANS.

maybe they'll lease it to me.

No way...Iraq will be the 51st state....before Canada!

[Moonlight Graham]

Well i'll be darned. Will be interesting to see how things play out if/when the US troops all leave.

Troops may leave, but yes American "diplomats" will very likely stay re: the embassy. I'd imagine some kind of forces, American or Iraqi, would be needed to secure that embassy.

Good luck Iraqis!!

[Bonam]

Hmm seems like a bad decision to agree to withdraw all its troops on the part of the US. Even in Japan and Germany, US troops remain 65 years later. The hard-fought gains established in Iraq by the US in recent years are quite likely to be lost without the presence of American soldiers there. Oh well, can always invade again.

[Guest American Woman]

They said ALL AMERICANS.

maybe they'll lease it to me.

Actually, they said all American troops.

Hmm seems like a bad decision to agree to withdraw all its troops on the part of the US. Even in Japan and Germany, US troops remain 65 years later. The hard-fought gains established in Iraq by the US in recent years are quite likely to be lost without the presence of American soldiers there. Oh well, can always invade again.

It sounds as if it's been the plan to keep troops there only if Iraq agreed; however, I'm sure with or without troops there, Iraq will be kept under strict observation. Perhaps Iraq does need to be left alone. The world, along with Iraq, will see how well it does dealing with its inner turmoil, which has pretty much been blamed on the U.S. by many. Furthermore, no one can blame the U.S. for pulling out before more stability was achieved since we're pulling out at the request of the Iraqi government.

Edited December 31, 2010 by American Woman

[dre]

Hmm seems like a bad decision to agree to withdraw all its troops on the part of the US. Even in Japan and Germany, US troops remain 65 years later. The hard-fought gains established in Iraq by the US in recent years are quite likely to be lost without the presence of American soldiers there. Oh well, can always invade again.

Yeah but Japan and Germany attacked the US or its allies. That retard Saddam was just a dick to his own people and build fancy palaces while people starved.

Seems like the US had little choice. If they keep refusing the demands on the part of Iraqis that they get the fuck out and mind their own business, then they undermine the whole Iraqi government, and destroy their own narrative, and their own objectives.

"Were trying to build a stable, strong, and sovereign government in Iraq!!! (that doesnt even have the authority to ask an unwelcomed foreign power to leave)

[Bonam]

Yeah but Japan and Germany attacked the US or its allies. That retard Saddam was just a dick to his own people and build fancy palaces while people starved.

Except of course that Saddam DID attack US allies.

Seems like the US had little choice. If they keep refusing the demands on the part of Iraqis that they get the fuck out and mind their own business, then they undermine the whole Iraqi government, and destroy their own narrative, and their own objectives.

Better than abandoning the place and letting it revert back to the anti-Americanism that is characteristic of other middle-eastern states. Just keep it as a protectorate. Rome knew how this was done, come in, overthrow the local leaders, then set up new leaders and have them pay tribute and obey the Roman garrison. Lasted 1000 years so they were doing something right.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Except of course that Saddam DID attack US allies.

Better than abandoning the place and letting it revert back to the anti-Americanism that is characteristic of other middle-eastern states. Just keep it as a protectorate. Rome knew how this was done, come in, overthrow the local leaders, then set up new leaders and have them pay tribute and obey the Roman garrison. Lasted 1000 years so they were doing something right.

Lasted on and off you mean, and the ones that lasted longest where the ones that allowed the conquered place to remain closest to what is was before being conquered.

Edited December 31, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Bitsy]

That’s good news to this American, I will be glad when all our troops are outta there!

[Guest American Woman]

Lasted on and off you mean, and the ones that lasted longest where the ones that allowed the conquered place to remain closest to what is was before being conquered.

If Iraq wanted us to stay, I think it would be wrong to pull out leaving things the way they are now. But since Iraq wants us gone, I have to question the wisdom of staying. The purpose was not to conquer, but to change the regime.

Edited December 31, 2010 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

Except of course that Saddam DID attack US allies.

in the early 90's maybe....

[bush_cheney2004]

in the early 90's maybe....

There is no maybe about it....hell....Saddam attacked the USS Stark in 1986.

[bloodyminded]

The world, along with Iraq, will see how well it does dealing with its inner turmoil, which has pretty much been blamed on the U.S. by many.

The US and the coalition share resposbility for the turmoil, even after they leave. Such things don't occur in a vacuum.

[pinko]

The US and the coalition share resposbility for the turmoil, even after they leave. Such things don't occur in a vacuum.

Good point. I am wondering when the Americans will leave the narcostate of Afghanistan.

[Moonlight Graham]

Hmm seems like a bad decision to agree to withdraw all its troops on the part of the US. Even in Japan and Germany, US troops remain 65 years later. The hard-fought gains established in Iraq by the US in recent years are quite likely to be lost without the presence of American soldiers there. Oh well, can always invade again.

In virtually all countries where the US has a long-term presence (minus places which are current hot war-zones), including Japan and Germany, the US remains in these countries because the host country governments want them to stay. Same with South Korea, Taiwan, Kuwait, and others.

Germany and Japan spend extremely little on military defense, and neither posses nukes. They depend on the US for security. Germany is non-militaristic because of the legacy of WWI and WWII. Japan doesn't want nukes because of the legacy of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and if the US & their nukes left the region Japan would either need to arms itself with nukes or face possible confrontation with China. US also provides military protection for Taiwan to check China power, and Taiwan wants this help. We all know that South Korea wants the US military protection it enjoys.

Hot wars aside, if a country asks US military bases/troops to leave, they generally do. In 1991, the Philippines told the US to remove its military base forces, and they did:

Until November 1992, pursuant to the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, the United States maintained and operated major facilities at Clark Air Base, Subic Bay Naval Complex, and several small subsidiary installations in the Philippines. In August 1991, negotiators from the two countries reached agreement on a draft treaty providing for use of Subic Bay Naval Base by U.S. forces for 10 years. The draft treaty did not include use of Clark Air Base, which had been so heavily damaged by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo that the U.S. decided to abandon it.

In September 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the bases treaty, and despite further efforts to salvage the situation, the two sides could not reach an agreement. As a result, the Philippine Government informed the U.S. on December 6, 1991, that it would have one year to complete withdrawal. That withdrawal went smoothly and was completed ahead of schedule, with the last U.S. forces departing on November 24, 1992.

While the US certainly enjoys strategic benefits from its foreign military bases, and some are initially installed by force (ie: Iraq/Afghanistan), the idea that the US somehow forces most countries to host its long-term military facilities against their will is certainly one of the biggest popular misconceptions of US foreign policy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Good point. I am wondering when the Americans will leave the narcostate of Afghanistan.

...as soon as Canada does!

[pinko]

The Canadian Prime Minister can't seem to make up his mind. It really is too bad that those choosing to occupy Afghanistan didn't bother to study the history of that region. Had they done so they would have known what was in store for them.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If Iraq wanted us to stay, I think it would be wrong to pull out leaving things the way they are now. But since Iraq wants us gone, I have to question the wisdom of staying. The purpose was not to conquer, but to change the regime.

I'm inclined to agree, can't help someone if they don't want it. (Though it is debatable if what's going on in Iraq was helping)

Edited January 1, 2011 by TrueMetis

[Guest American Woman]

I'm inclined to agree, can't help someone if they don't want it. (Though it is debatable if what's going on in Iraq was helping)

I think it is ultimately impossible to help someone who doesn't want it, so in that regard, I support pulling our troops out of Iraq. I had hoped it would be under better conditions, that conditions in Iraq would be better than they are when they left, but there comes a time when fighting against their wishes doesn't accomplish what one would like to accomplish.

I think it's apparent that everything that was going on in Iraq wasn't helping. Hopefully removing Saddam was a help. I can't see how getting rid of such a regime wouldn't have been for the ultimate good. That doesn't mean things are going to change over night. Things never do, even when it's for the good. As an example, things weren't suddenly wonderful in the U.S. after slavery was abolished. There was continuing violence and death and destruction even after the war ended, but I don't think anyone would argue that ending slavery wasn't good, and by the same token, I don't see how removing Saddam couldn't be perceived as good.

Iraq had a lot of problems before the war, and the war didn't solve those problems. I honestly question if we know how, or if we even should, or more to the point, if we even could. The problems I speak of are internal, and most likely have to be solved internally; and they are problems that existed long before the war.

[pinko]

"I think it is ultimately impossible to help someone who doesn't want it, so in that regard, I support pulling our troops out of Iraq. I had hoped it would be under better conditions, that conditions in Iraq would be better than they are when they left, but there comes a time when fighting against their wishes doesn't accomplish what one would like to accomplish."

I take it you feel that the USA is allowed to interfere with the sovereign affairs of another nation.

If you are familiar with the history of Iraq you will realize the USA has been playing many of the regional players against each other for quite some time. Further to this by disbanding Saddam's forces, as was done under Paul Bremner, the conditions created lead to the destruction of Iraq. I take it you must be aware of the various connections to Iran in the case of the Shiites and other regional states as it relates to the Sunni. Then in the northern part of Iraq you have the Kurds and the impact there in relation to Turkey.It isn't so much that the Iraqis don't want American help as it is real politik that prevails today.

Those problems you refer to were created, in part, by the actions of the Americans and British and the so called coalition of he willing.

Edited January 1, 2011 by pinko

[Guest American Woman]

I take it you feel that the USA is allowed to interfere with the sovereign affairs of another nation.

Since I said that I think our troops should leave since they aren't wanted, and since I said that internal problems most likely have to be dealt with internally, I'm having a difficult time understanding how you would conclude that I feel the U.S. is allowed to interfere with the sovereign affairs of another nation.

If you are familiar with the history of Iraq you will realize the USA has been playing many of the regional players against each other for quite some time. Further to this by disbanding Saddam's forces, as was done under Paul Bremner, the conditions created lead to the destruction of Iraq.

So you support keeping a brutal dictator in power? For the sake of ... what? A sense of stability? In spite of what too many are being subjected to? Because I'm reading it as if you're supporting or defending Saddam being left in power.

I take it you must be aware of the various connections to Iran in the case of the Shiites and other regional states as it relates to the Sunni. Then in the northern part of Iraq you have the Kurds and the impact there in relation to Turkey.It isn't so much that the Iraqis don't want American help as it is real politik that prevails today.

I think I made it clear that I understand the problems that exist, and have existed, in Iraq.

Those problems you refer to were created, in part, by the actions of the Americans and British and the so called coalition of he willing.

I've never claimed otherwise. What I said is Iraq suffered, and continues to suffer, from internal problems outside of U.S. et al involvement, and that's a fact.

For the record, I didn't support waging war on Iraq, but since I can't undo what was done, I naturally hope for the best possible outcome (and along those lines, I can't say it would have been better if Saddam had stayed in power). In that regard, if "the best possible outcome" involved our troops staying and helping to restore stability, helping to rebuild, I would be pleased, as I feel as if it's our obligation to the people of Iraq to help in those areas. Since that's apparently not what the government wants, I support getting the troops out, since the U.S./coalition did accomplish removing Saddam from power. I don't think we should stay if its not desirable to Iraq that we stay.

I honestly don't know within myself if leaving will result in better or worse, but I don't support staying where we're not wanted under the circumstances -- for the reasons I've stated.

[pinko]

"I'm having a difficult time understanding how you would conclude that I feel the U.S. is allowed to interfere with the sovereign affairs of another nation."

I don't want to speculate on your feelings. What I do know is that the USA has a history of gun boat diplomacy to protect strategic interests. I am sure you will agree that the oil resources in the Middle East is what attracted the Americans to the region in the first place.

Edited January 1, 2011 by pinko

[pinko]

"So you support keeping a brutal dictator in power? For the sake of ... what? A sense of stability? In spite of what too many are being subjected to? Because I'm reading it as if you're supporting or defending Saddam being left in power.'"

With all due respect you are misreading what I am saying. History shows your nation has supported many despotic regimes. Do you not recognize the damage that has been inflicted upon Iraq by the duplicitous conduct of your government?