.......maybe we should take the oil.....fck um.

"Now this is something I really really really support!!"




Really,really.

thanks clyde

Oh forget it.



What did I say?

i support it as well. but this made me laugh and roll my eyes:


"I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year," Obama said. "After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over."



yeah, now he claims credit. guy worked his ass off trying to get them to let us stay. but no agreement reached because iraq wouldn't give our soldiers immunity from prosecution. so, obama touts a promise kept, while actually doing everything possible not to keep it!!

that's something else that always cracked me up, when we'd tell iraq they had to pay for the cost of us invading them. we want repaid for money spent. hello, iraq has to pay for us bombing them, causing billions in damage? did they invite us to do this?? well, no.

Good point! Bottom line however is that it's finally over and for that I'm happy! Two down and one to go!

"Claiming credit" is a pretty unfair accusation, 'Zig - the Troops Agreement - which is the promise he's talking about - made by Bush has been public knowledge for ... years, as has the withdrawal date 12-31-2011, as has the US ongoing negotiations over the past year discussing if a limited number of troops there (Iraq's request, btw).

Geesh, what an unfair attack on Obama. He's just doing what we knew the end would probably be, from the negotiated agreements and ongoing negotiations, months ago.

Just be happy the troops are home.

lol
no, it's not unfair. obama fought tooth and nail to keep us over there. he failed, so he's still trying to spin this as a positive. had iraq agreed to immunity for our troops, they'd be staying. i'm glad they didn't agree!
yes, i am happy the troops are coming home, they should never have been sent to begin with.

:zz: You mean like when combat troops were supposed to all come home now per the Agreement, but Obama got combat troops out a year ago last August?

And it seems unfair to say, "Obama fought tooth and nail to keep us over there", when (after he got combat troops out a year early) the Iraqi's wanted us to keep some troops there to train, but then wouldn't accomodate what the US demands were. Trying to work with Iraqi requests is "fought tooth and nail"?

Geeshus - the guy announced, "The war is over". It is! That is exactly what any President would announce right now. Using it as an excuse to badmouth Obama and call this a failure (?!) is a pretty tacky attack.

yes, obama and company wanted to stay. the sole sticking point was immunity, iraq wouldn't grant it.
you can call it unfair all you want, it doesn't change the truth of the matter.

:zz: Because the Iraqis requested us to, and only with a few thousand training troops ! "Obama and company wanted to stay" - except where he got 40,000 combat troops out a year early?

Well, we can all be happy that's done.

:rolleyes:

yes, we can only consider obama in a good light. sorry, i forgot that. although he and his administration were doing everything possible to stay, absolutely i give him sole credit for not doing so. he should have statues built in his honor for doing what was said would be done, regardless of what he really wanted.

Well, the Republican Party and the GOP Presidential candidates are today uniformly and aggressively attacking Obama for getting the troops out and not staying

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...raq-withdrawal

How DARE Obama end that war!

US politics are completely effed.

he took the troops from iraq and sent them to afganistan..wake up riot..your lame duck prez is done..

Yes, that's what we ELECTED Obama to do, precisely what he SAID he would do: take the troops from Bush's faked and lied about war in Iraq, go into Afghanistan, and kill bin Laden.

And oh, yeah, there were lots of Republicans who wanted the direction to be after the terrorists in Afghanistan, too - until bin Laden was actually killed by this President.

Mission accomplished.

It's hilarious, watching the Obama-hating right twist itself into pretzels to attack a President of the United States for following a Bush Agreement and ending a war.

The Republican party has become a ridiculous parody of its most crazy base members.

well, they're idiots too. but then, if you think they are wrong for saying we should stay, how can you defend obama for trying to do the same?? and yeah, he tried. and tried.


yeah, they're effed, because we're all effed i suppose.

yeah, not sure when that'll end. not looking too good. had we not gone to iraq way back when, we'd probably be out of afganistan by now too. that way, instead of just helping nato in libya, we could have invaded syria by now too.

see, wars are bad. unless a democrat is for them, then they're good.

:zz: My personal opinion is that all the troops should have been gone years ago. I am not "defending" Obama for anything, I am pointing out the facts:

Obama got 40,000 combat troops out a year before scheduled by Bush agreement
the Iraqi's asked us to leave 4,000-5,000 troops as trainers
Obama tried to work with the Iraqi's on that
Iraqi's wouldn't protect Americans
Obama said no those 4,00-5,000 trainers will not be there.

Geesh, how in the hell is the above, "Obama and his administration trying to stay in Iraq" ???? With no combat troops?

So you are of the position that the US should be involved in zero wars?

We should not have pulled out of Iraq and moved into Afghanistan where the terrorists actually were?

We should not have gone and tried to get bin Laden?

When the Libyan resistance asked the US for help, we should not have gone to NATO for them, and gotten British and French troops to help them, instead of us, while we provided missles and drones and kept our troops out of it?

Just trying to figure out your position.

because they would have stayed had iraq agreed. we wanted to stay! why do you not get that? iraq wouldn't agree to our demand for immunity for our troops, so they aren't staying. had iraq said fine to that, we'd have people there still. for who knows how long.
like i said above, i'm glad they're all leaving. however, i think it's disingenuous of obama to put this as a big deal by him and his team, when in fact he was trying NOT to keep that promise.
but hey, obviously obama and co don't see it that way. more power to him and his fans.

Yes, we agreed that we would continue to train their troops with a skeleton force of non-combat troops as they ASKED US TO.

Yeah, screw the President for that! Except, the entire Republican party is today attacking him for saying, "no", and pulling those last 4,000-5,000 out.

Good god.

You're dinking the President who did exactly what you wanted, and not mad at the Republican party taking the opposite view and wanting to keep the troops there?

Oh, seriously? He simply announced the war was over! There was no self-congratulation in the least. You think that's taking credit and spiking the football? C'mon, 'Zig :rolleyes::D

well, glad you've paid attention to all my posts on this subject. i thought i made my positions known on this all long ago.

as i've said before, we should never have gone into iraq. thus, those troops would never have been out of use in afganistan. as for that country, as i've posted before, more than once...there are three things said to be required to fight a proper war. one of those three requirements in the ability to WIN. can we? history would say no, especially considering the pc way in which we try to wage war these days. you can't fight a 'civilized' war. if you're going to do it, for gods sake, do it right. not half assed, namby pamby, don't step on any toes. it's called war for a reason.
as for libya, if it was a 'war' (which i thought it was never supposed to be, so i'm not sure why you included it)...all i've asked about libya is why? yet to see an answer. obama, who always asked for transparency in the past, has been anything but in this regard. hell, even congress asked- he didn't answer them either.


after 9-11, we were sold a bill of goods, by bush, by congress-the dems all were in lock step with the vote as well, as they didn't want to lose re-election by being portrayed as being 'soft'. they said 9-11 wasn't an act of war, which forced insurers to pay off (read your policies folks, you don't get covered if a loss is due to act of war) BUT it then became a war on terror. gotta love how govt gets to have cake and eat it too.
we didn't get osama bin laden because of the war in afganistan, we got him thru cia and other forms of spying and interrogation. the trillions spent and lives lost didn't do crap for getting him. i'm pretty sure we'd have gotten him without all the rest of it.
and now, the big question...

when will we get out of afganistan? who the hell knows. half the military spending in the world, and can't win in a place where the other side uses donkeys for transport.

for having a college degree, you can be dense.

i said i'm glad they're out. what i also said is i find it laughable he's touting this as doing a great deed, when it wasn't what he actually wanted! of course, had he managed to get them to stay, he'd have still tried to portray it as a good thing.

that's my last attempt. if you can't get it, i give up.

:zz: Did you not see the discussion when he announced we were going in?

"Because the rebel resistence asked us to"? So instead of sending 1 American there, Obama refused - and instead asked NATO, and NATO sent in troops? We did not?

I think the thoughts about "why Libya" were pretty thoroughly discussed when it happened 7 months ago.

Yes, I agree there was a question about Congress and their lack of involvement.

Actually, our troops helped push bin Laden out. And we needed a physcial presence there to launch the attack into Pakistan that killed bin Laden. We could not have gotten bin Laden if we didn't have an Afghani border to launch the attack from. It could not have come from the sea or elsewheres.

The rest of it, the 'nation building" stuff, yes, a mess.

I hope we get out of Afghanistan asap.

Yeah, I do give up. For not having a college degree, you can be pretty dense yourself.

If Obama really wanted to "stay in Iraq", he would have found an excuse and left the skeleton training troops there anyway, don't you think?

He didn't. And he is sure being damned for, not only doing it, but not doing it. And wow, he sure spiked the football, and took credit for a final troop withdrawal on the date we've all known has been coming for years.

I give up, too.

yes, he did want them to stay. so did the pentagon. the only stickler was immunity. iraq wouldn't grant it. had they done so, we'd keep trainers there.

at any rate, glad they're all coming out. now, if only we could get out of afganistan. because whether it's one year from now or ten, i don't think the end result will change.

yes, he did want them to stay. so did the pentagon. the only stickler was immunity. iraq wouldn't grant it. had they done so, we'd keep trainers there. i wouldn't have stayed without it either. you can't order people to a post, order them to act, and then take the chance they'd be criminally charged for following an order!

at any rate, glad they're all coming out. now, if only we could get out of afganistan. because whether it's one year from now or ten, i don't think the end result will change.

I completely agree with you on that one.

and it's why we should never have gone there! if the end result can't be what you want, then what is the point? there'd have been other ways to get bin laden and his cohorts.
i'm no dove or quaker. but for christs sake, if you're not going in to win the thing, don't effing go in.
darwin is wrong, there is no evolution, else we'd be smarter by now.

:zz: How do you think that would have happened? We'd catch them on a plane?

Within two years of our troops going into Afghanistan, bin Laden and tens of other Al Quaeda are dead, it's scattered and leaderless, with very few left. Now, we get out. Going in after bin Laden wasn't bad. Hanging around trying to make the Afghani's a mini-USA is what is ridiculous.

within two years? we've been in afganistan for ten. bin laden just got killed, didn't he? not eight years ago, that's for sure.
my point is, if the war in afganistan is either unwinnable, or unendable, than it shouldn't have been started.
bin laden died in pakistan, but you know that.
anyway, not a typical 'war', so it can't be waged in typical fashion. conventional warfare hasn't been the key, nor has it gotten us much in that country.
drones, spying, direct targeting on the other hand, it's worked wonders.

now, we may well have been done with all this bs over there in afganistan by now, had our country and military not been side-tracked into iraq all this time. that mistake, more than any other, is what's caused this to drag on for so long. poor handling from the start. however, afganistan just seems to be that song that never ends, no end in sight. how long til we decide we've done all we can do? have we done all we can? if so, and it won't get better, than we need to leave.

What should Libya offer the U.S. for services rendered?

I'm thinking 10% of net oil profits for the next 10 years.

Freedom is invaluable so maybe it should be more. ;)

Knowing Obama, he'll probably throw $10 billion to them. It will be paid for by our rich so who cares?

You know darn well Bush had skeleton troops in Afghanistan, dinking around, and Obama pushed alot more into there (as he promised as a candidate). That's what I mean. With two years of the troop surge.

Bush was too busy illegally invading Iraq to give his defense contractors money. None of that free loot available in Afghanistan. No wonder Bush targeted Iraq.

Yes. From a mission launched from the Afghan border, that couldn't have been launched from anywhere else.

It's not supposed to be "a war". We were supposed to be targeting Al Quaeda. Bush dinked around. Obama went in and got bin Laden. Time to come home.

I agree. The way to target terrorists.
Yes, indeed.

Go watch Australian racing! Cox Cup. Black Caviar running, Karuta Queen!

Fossil water and oil.

We'll see if things get better in Libya. It's a blast for blacks.:rolleyes:

why are you posting stuff as tho you're telling me something i don't know?? do you have alzheimers or something? i've said those things before, that bush dithered, that afganistan has dragged on because they took the focus off of that country, etc, etc. that it's all been fubar from the get go.

the reason i said 'war' is because altho the govt denied that 9-11 was an act of war (if they declared it as such, the onus would have falled on the govt, not insurers, to cover all the losses) yet they then said it was a 'war on terror'. it's been pushed as a war from the get go by our federal govt. but, as i said, you can't fight an unconventional war in a conventional manner. then, the fact that afganistan is how it is, also impedes any true progress there. if the powers that be wish to stay there until they have achieved everything they wish, we will NEVER get out of there. they need to be happy with what they've done, as it's about as much as they'll ever accomplish there. that country is a pathetic third world tribal mess. wipe the dust off our boots and be done with it.

:tro::tro:

oh, now, that's not fair at all big run! ;)

some are born great
some achieve greatness
some have greatness thrust upon them.
thank goodness for barack obama. four more years!!

As much as Obama disappoints me, the Republicans (thus far at least) have produced no viable replacement. We don't need someone who talks directly to God, wants to reverse equality for those who don't meet their standards, and clings to overly simplistic approaches to complex problems.

:tro:

too true. so, we either get stuck with our current pres, or a bad replacement.