PDA

View Full Version : Obama: All U.S. troops leaving Iraq


Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 01:14 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15410154

All US troops will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of the year, President Barack Obama has announced.

He ordered a complete withdrawal from the country, nearly nine years after the invasion under President George W Bush.

About 39,000 US troops remain in Iraq, down from a peak of 165,000 in 2008.

The US and Iraq were in "full agreement" on how to move forward, Mr Obama said, adding: "The US leaves Iraq with our heads held high."

"That is how America's military efforts in Iraq will end."

According to the Department of Defense, there have been 4,408 American military deaths in Iraq since March 2003.


The war in Iraq

War began on 19 March 2003 with 173,000 troops, 150,000 of whom were Americans
670,000 Iraqi security forces were on duty as of March 2011
4,408 American troops have been killed
179 British troops have been killed
115,405 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed
32,195 American troops have been wounded

Source: Brookings Iraq Index, US Department of Defense
He pledged assistance and "a strong and enduring partnership" with Iraqi government.


The US declared the end of its combat mission in Iraq in 2010. The deadline for complete troop withdrawal by end of 2011 was set during former President George W Bush's term in office.


However, the issue of a full pullout had been the subject of an ongoing debate.


Iraqi leaders had wanted 5,000 US troops to remain in a training capacity. But those trainers would not have received immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.


The Pentagon refused to accept that condition, with Defence Secretary Leon Panetta insisting that "we protect and provide the appropriate immunity for our soldiers".


The decision to pull out all US troops suggests no deal could be reached, despite Iraq's desire for continued access to US military expertise, correspondents say.


Earlier this month, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said: "If we do not have agreement on the immunity, there will be no agreement on the number."


Many Iraqis are sensitive about the issue, given the number of civilian shootings involving US troops since the US-led invasion. Private contractors have already lost their immunity.
Mr Obama said the withdrawal comes amid changes in American military priorities, including a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, and new political realities in the Middle East and Africa.
"The tide of war is receding," he said.


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48794000/gif/_48794122_us_troops_iraq_624.gif

Good. 9 Years too late.

Harley Quinn
October 21st, 2011, 01:27 PM
Thank god for this. Now America can just leave this senseless war behind them and give the families who have lost someone (American and Iraqi) an attempt at closure.

Zet
October 21st, 2011, 02:15 PM
It's about time they got the hell out. I wonder if they didn't list how many Australians died because our ancestors are convicts.



in before freaky makes a post about Obama being a warmonger and how he started the war.(it's a joke, so don't go reporting it!)

Dixie Kong
October 21st, 2011, 02:58 PM
-reports Zet for being too funny-

Bout time. That's really all I can say, like everyone else.

Sora
October 21st, 2011, 03:30 PM
I heard this not too long ago on the news (as a doctor's office while waiting for someone, mind you). Just glad that this is officially happening and like mentioned before: about damn time.

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 03:33 PM
Will he simply move them to Afghanistan like he did with the other troops?

2Cool4Mewtwo
October 21st, 2011, 03:57 PM
Really sounds like Vietnam War #2 at first, but there really wasn't anything that we were really fighting for. So good for both parties in the end. (unless I'm missing something)

Otter Mii-kun
October 21st, 2011, 04:27 PM
I'm finding this so hard to believe-this war has been extended and extended for who knows how long, with no real end in sight. Looks more like a PR stunt to get re-elected, and an excuse to divert more troops to Afghanistan (see below).
Will he simply move them to Afghanistan like he did with the other troops?That's very much a possibility, considering we are still in clear danger of further terrorist attacks on our soil, as well as our foreign policy being centered on nation-building.

littlebrother
October 21st, 2011, 07:45 PM
I'm glad I won't get to see IZ001 as often now. :) Seeing as how Osama and Gadhaffi are both dead, I sure hope this means the end of AF001 in the not too distant future too, but there will most likely be troop cutbacks after the 40k leave Iraq, because if the goal is to reduce spending, that's what's more likely going to happen than 40k of troops getting a reassignment to Afghanistan..

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 07:47 PM
I'm finding this so hard to believe-this war has been extended and extended for who knows how long, with no real end in sight. Looks more like a PR stunt to get re-elected, and an excuse to divert more troops to Afghanistan (see below).
That's very much a possibility, considering we are still in clear danger of further terrorist attacks on our soil, as well as our foreign policy being centered on nation-building.

Yes. Even with the war in Iraq ending, Obama still has us in four other wars. He's also beating war drums against Iran.

Mario The World Champion
October 21st, 2011, 08:04 PM
I'm very happy that our men and women are finally coming home from that hell on earth that is Iraq. At least they'll be welcomed home with open arms instead of hostility like what happened in Vietnam. Nobody deserved that treatment. They were following orders, even if it was wrong.

Livewire
October 21st, 2011, 09:19 PM
I'm finding this so hard to believe-this war has been extended and extended for who knows how long, with no real end in sight. Looks more like a PR stunt to get re-elected, and an excuse to divert more troops to Afghanistan (see below).
That's very much a possibility, considering we are still in clear danger of further terrorist attacks on our soil, as well as our foreign policy being centered on nation-building.

I expected this from you. Because the president would really joke and make a stunt out of something like this. Try to twist and vilify what he's doing some more.

Yes. Even with the war in Iraq ending, Obama still has us in four other wars. He's also beating war drums against Iran.

Four others? 100 special OPs in an African country isn't a war. Try again.

Netto Azure
October 21st, 2011, 10:36 PM
About time. Now time to focus on the Grave of Empires lol. xD

Yes. Even with the war in Iraq ending, Obama still has us in four other wars. He's also beating war drums against Iran.

I believe the Iran issue is quite Bi-partisan. Can't really help when a lot of people in high places like to rattle that issue.

If you count Ghana to be another war, why not include all the other military missions around the world:

South Korea
Philippines
Japan
Kosovo...

You know the ones on this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas

FreakyLocz14
October 21st, 2011, 10:42 PM
About time. Now time to focus on the Grave of Empires lol. xD



I believe the Iran issue is quite Bi-partisan. Can't really help when a lot of people in high places like to rattle that issue.

If you count Ghana to be another war, why not include all the other military missions around the world:

South Korea
Philippines
Japan
Kosovo...

You know the ones on this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas

I agree completely. We should withdraw our troops from all of those bases as quick as the ships could get there.

Eliminator Jr.
October 22nd, 2011, 02:01 AM
As some people have suggested, this move could mainly be a way to garner support for a re-election (as in, he saved it until now as opposed to doing it say, a year ago, so people would remember it), though I'm not that good on US politics so I'm not sure how far away the next election is (or how much they've achieved in Iraq in the past twelve months that would justify them staying an extra year).

I'd also like to point out that taking the military out of Iraq would also help reduce the costs of the military, and as we all know America's in a lot of financial trouble at the moment. Again, I'm not too crash-hot on what goes on in the US, so maybe somebody else could take this idea and further it (or disprove it entirely hahaha), but it seems that reducing the number of US military operations overseas to save money is not so far fetched.

Anyway, I'm glad this is happening. I mean, I know without a foreign military presence, terrorist groups could start cropping up and restricting the people of Iraq again, but in some ways that's better than the countless civilian deaths caused by the war on terror (upwards of 100,000).

Lalapizzame
October 22nd, 2011, 08:55 PM
Such a complete withdrawal.

In the end, Iraq is still going to be the mud-fest it has been, just without Hussein as its leader. I am hoping a favorable agreement can be made to ensure we did not spend all that time only to return to status quo ante bellum in practical terms, except for a government willing to pay lip service.

Went
October 23rd, 2011, 12:30 AM
About time. Now time to focus on the Grave of Empires lol. xD



I believe the Iran issue is quite Bi-partisan. Can't really help when a lot of people in high places like to rattle that issue.

If you count Ghana to be another war, why not include all the other military missions around the world:

South Korea
Philippines
Japan
Kosovo...

You know the ones on this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas

I didn't know the US was in war against half of the NATO countries. That's certainly interesting XD

@Freaky: I don't think removing troops that can be used in case of emergency would be positive. If there is an attack against the US somewhere in the Middle East, moving troops from European countries would be much faster and cheaper than moving some from texas.

Isolationism has never been a wise way to act in a global world.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 12:54 AM
I didn't know the US was in war against half of the NATO countries. That's certainly interesting XD

@Freaky: I don't think removing troops that can be used in case of emergency would be positive. If there is an attack against the US somewhere in the Middle East, moving troops from European countries would be much faster and cheaper than moving some from texas.

Isolationism has never been a wise way to act in a global world.

How can you attack the U.S. from the Middle East? The U.S. isn't located there. A strong national defense =/= occupying overseas nations.

Went
October 23rd, 2011, 02:12 AM
Article 4 of the NATO Treaty forces the US to help any member State that gets attacked. In the Lybian case, it was the UN that gave them the order, for instance. I'm sorry, but the US have signed way too many treaties to consider that their only job is defending their American soil.

And I don't see how having a base in an ally country can be considered occupying it.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 02:40 AM
Article 4 of the NATO Treaty forces the US to help any member State that gets attacked. In the Lybian case, it was the UN that gave them the order, for instance. I'm sorry, but the US have signed way too many treaties to consider that their only job is defending their American soil.

And I don't see how having a base in an ally country can be considered occupying it.

And exactly who enforces that treaty or the UN order? Nobody. The only law that the United State is bound by is United States law, which states that the United States cannot go to war without a declaration of war by the United States Congress.

Even if the reason for going to war is aide an ally nation, Congress should still declare war. Without a declaration, the wars never end. A declaration of war clearly lays out who we are fighting against, a clear objective, and a tentative end date that can be extended by Congress if necessary.

Livewire
October 23rd, 2011, 09:03 AM
And exactly who enforces that treaty or the UN order? Nobody. The only law that the United State is bound by is United States law, which states that the United States cannot go to war without a declaration of war by the United States Congress.

Even if the reason for going to war is aide an ally nation, Congress should still declare war. Without a declaration, the wars never end. A declaration of war clearly lays out who we are fighting against, a clear objective, and a tentative end date that can be extended by Congress if necessary.

The UN mandate is above any single country or individual law, obviously. And you are woefully mistaken, The United States is bound to every treaty and mandate other countries are, there is no exception.

Because Bush's declaration of war really made the wars go that much smoother. Come off it.

FreakyLocz14
October 23rd, 2011, 03:11 PM
The UN mandate is above any single country or individual law, obviously. And you are woefully mistaken, The United States is bound to every treaty and mandate other countries are, there is no exception.

Because Bush's declaration of war really made the wars go that much smoother. Come off it.

Bush cannot declare war. His and Obama's wars are unconstitutional. Who is going to enforce the treaty if we decide not to obey it? I'd like to see someone try. The United States government is only obliged to the Constitution, and nothing else.

There is no real international government. The international system is anarchic in nature and only has a loose association of treaties and alliances because every nation claims to be independent of any other nation.

Mr. X
October 23rd, 2011, 04:12 PM
And as has been proven numerous times, the Constitution is not always correct. (By this, I'm referring to the various constitutional amendments.)

Anyway, I take it that you are sugesting that we break numerous agreements we have made with other countries? Sorry, but doing that will make the rest of the world hate us more then they already do.

As for who will attempt to enforce it, don't forget... Despite what you apparently think, we are NOT the only Superpower.

Anyway, the only real way to peace is to move forward... together. Not by ourselves. Right now, a international government is impractical but one day it might be needed.

That said, don't consider our government to be superior to all others. As the events of the past decade have proven, governments can fall. But then again, the US has shown that it will crack down violently from anyone trying to break away from it.

I'll leave you with these words though. The US was founded by slave owners... Who wanted to be free. Ironic isn't it?

Livewire
November 13th, 2011, 08:20 PM
Bush cannot declare war. His and Obama's wars are unconstitutional. Who is going to enforce the treaty if we decide not to obey it? I'd like to see someone try. The United States government is only obliged to the Constitution, and nothing else.

There is no real international government. The international system is anarchic in nature and only has a loose association of treaties and alliances because every nation claims to be independent of any other nation.

The sheer ignorance of world politics here is disturbing. America is bound to international law, same as everybody else. Now granted, we can use our Empire status to strong-arm the rest of the West into agreeing with us, but try blackmailing or strong-arming North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, etc. Take a few World Politics classes so you know what you're talking about.

Ephemeral Euphoria
November 13th, 2011, 08:51 PM
About f'ing time this war's ended already, now to wait for our troops to pull out of places like Afghanistan as well.

FreakyLocz14
November 13th, 2011, 09:21 PM
The sheer ignorance of world politics here is disturbing. America is bound to international law, same as everybody else. Now granted, we can use our Empire status to strong-arm the rest of the West into agreeing with us, but try blackmailing or strong-arming North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, etc. Take a few World Politics classes so you know what you're talking about.

"International law" is a facade. If we don't comply, what governmental body will hold us accountable?

There is no such thing as international law. It's all a sham. It's smoke and mirrors. The international stage is anarchic in nature. What you consider international law is nothing more than a series of agreement between nations that no concrete government body can enforce. The only way to enforce them is for someone to attack the United States, to which I say "Come at us, bro."

jpp8
November 13th, 2011, 09:29 PM
Your stance is anti-war... Unless the other party starts it? God, way to make the US look like a dick. I mean, we're pretty dicky now, but at least we're helping a lot of others. To not honor treaties or allies on the basis of "who is going to make me lol" is going to get us a lot of enemies.

Mario The World Champion
November 13th, 2011, 10:08 PM
I'm a bit surprised that this thread somehow got revived. While having our fighting men and women getting out of that place is good, there is the worry that Iran might come in and influence Iraq into siding with them and making the everything Middle East more of a mess.

I know this is a bit off-topic but there is another problem that might crop up in the near future. I have read somewhere that Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly tried to persuade his cabinet ministers to authorize an attack on Iran.

With all the problems between those two, I bet you the United States will be dragged into that because Israel is our "friend". And this friend will most likely start World War III. Just wait.

FreakyLocz14
November 13th, 2011, 10:09 PM
Your stance is anti-war... Unless the other party starts it? God, way to make the US look like a dick. I mean, we're pretty dicky now, but at least we're helping a lot of others. To not honor treaties or allies on the basis of "who is going to make me lol" is going to get us a lot of enemies.

The U.S. has it's own problems to deal with. What other countries do is their business.

Mr. X
November 13th, 2011, 10:17 PM
The U.S. has it's own problems to deal with. What other countries do is their business.

Unless they attack us. The its our problem and our business.

That said, you know what 'international government' is backed by? The collective strength of the members.

You know what our government is backed by? A almost 2 and a half century peice of paper. And the strength of our nation.

So, go ahead. Use the old paper as a excuse for breaking away from our commitments. And use that power to scare the other countries into letting us. But you know something? Despite what you think we will not be able to take on the world.

Now if we are going to separate ourselves from international affairs, a perfect way to start would be to stop all imports and exports from and to the middle east. And then after that, the Asian countries. And then the European countries. Then the rest of the world. Basicly, lets use our resources for our own benefit, instead of letting other countries leech off of them, and lets stop leeching off of the resources from other countries.

FreakyLocz14
November 13th, 2011, 10:22 PM
Unless they attack us. The its our problem and our business.

That said, you know what 'international government' is backed by? The collective strength of the members.

You know what our government is backed by? A almost 2 and a half century peice of paper. And the strength of our nation.

So, go ahead. Use the old paper as a excuse for breaking away from our commitments. And use that power to scare the other countries into letting us. But you know something? Despite what you think we will not be able to take on the world.

Now if we are going to separate ourselves from international affairs, a perfect way to start would be to stop all imports and exports from and to the middle east. And then after that, the Asian countries. And then the European countries. Then the rest of the world. Basicly, lets use our resources for our own benefit, instead of letting other countries leech off of them, and lets stop leeching off of the resources from other countries.

What is causing others to attack us is the extravagant foreign policy that we're financing trying to police the world and maintain an empire.

We're meddling in the affairs of others, overthrowing democratically elected governments in order to install dictators that are friendly to our interests. Now that these dictators are no longer serving our interests, we're overthrowing them and allowing Sharia law to take their place.

Given all of that, I'd say non-intervention sounds like a better alternative.

Mr. X
November 13th, 2011, 10:37 PM
Point being? You didn't say anything about my main point.

I'll restate it for you since you most likely missed it due to your fangirlishness for Ron Paul. (Yes Live, I know this might be considered a personal attack. But I think that you'll agree with me on this, she is acting like a fangirl.)

Do you think that we can break away from our commitments and not suffer any form of retaliation from other countries who share the same commitments that you want us to disregard? The retaliation I speak of can either be military or economic.

And also, thanks for giving me a history lesson on what I know we have been doing since the cold war. You want me to care? Start flaming the presidents who started it, not the current one for following a established precedent.

FreakyLocz14
November 13th, 2011, 11:03 PM
Point being? You didn't say anything about my main point.

I'll restate it for you since you most likely missed it due to your fangirlishness for Ron Paul. (Yes Live, I know this might be considered a personal attack. But I think that you'll agree with me on this, she is acting like a fangirl.)

Do you think that we can break away from our commitments and not suffer any form of retaliation from other countries who share the same commitments that you want us to disregard? The retaliation I speak of can either be military or economic.

And also, thanks for giving me a history lesson on what I know we have been doing since the cold war. You want me to care? Start flaming the presidents who started it, not the current one for following a established precedent.

I'm saying we take our marching orders from our Constitution; not from foreign countries.

We should not be sending our military into combat unless it is direct response to an attack on the United States, and war has been declared by Congress on the enemy.

Entrenched alliances are what cause world wars. World War I grew to the magnitude it did due to alliances. One side had allies that were obligated to intervene, and so did the other side. The result is that almost every major power in the world is at war. That's dangerous and should be avoided.

Mr. X
November 13th, 2011, 11:06 PM
You did it AGAIN!

I told myself I'd never use this saying. But i'll make a exception, just for you. Your like a broken record.

Third time, and I hope that you will answer my question instead of giving me the ****ing runaround.

Do you think that we can break away from our commitments and not suffer any form of retaliation from other countries who share the same commitments that you want us to disregard? The retaliation I speak of can either be military or economic.

FreakyLocz14
November 13th, 2011, 11:24 PM
You did it AGAIN!

I told myself I'd never use this saying. But i'll make a exception, just for you. Your like a broken record.

Third time, and I hope that you will answer my question instead of giving me the ****ing runaround.

Do you think that we can break away from our commitments and not suffer any form of retaliation from other countries who share the same commitments that you want us to disregard? The retaliation I speak of can either be military or economic.

Any retaliation that we might experience would justify backlash of equal strength. If they attack us, they better hope they can take on the full might of the United States. The only nation who would even stand a chance would be China.

Any nation that would cut off trade with the United States is foolish. Even though most stuff is manufactured in China, the manufacturing is done mostly by American businesses who have outsourced their labor to China.

While I advocate a peaceful, non-interventionalist foreign policy, that changes when we are directly targeted. We have the military might to fend off an attack by any other nation. Like I said, tell them "Come at us, bro."

Mr. X
November 13th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Keyword, nation. Singular, one.

Odds are, its not going to just be one due to alliances.

Odd isn't it? Alliances drag us into war, but in this case our lack of alliances would lead to our defeat. Sure, we are powerful... But do you really think we can take on the entire world at once?

FreakyLocz14
November 13th, 2011, 11:38 PM
Keyword, nation. Singular, one.

Odds are, its not going to just be one due to alliances.

Odd isn't it? Alliances drag us into war, but in this case our lack of alliances would lead to our defeat. Sure, we are powerful... But do you really think we can take on the entire world at once?

We would be up against mostly Europe since the main alliance we would break from is NATO. We could also get NATO's enemies on our side, but only temporarily. I wouldn't back a long-term alliance agreement with them, though it might lead to new trade friendships.

Mr. X
November 13th, 2011, 11:44 PM
So now you are saying that we would need alliances? Short term alliances are still alliances.

FreakyLocz14
November 13th, 2011, 11:52 PM
So now you are saying that we would need alliances? Short term alliances are still alliances.

Not alliances, but assistance that is voluntary and nonbinding. It's not truly an alliance in the sense that we've been discussing unless there is a treaty involved.

NATO's enemies are weak on their own, but if they heard that they could join forces with the United States against NATO, they'd so so in a heart beat.

Livewire
November 14th, 2011, 10:24 AM
Guys, let's try to get back to the OP. International politics would be a nice thread by itself.