There as a lot of criticizem when the dems wanted a firm pull out date for the Iraq war.The right wingers said it would signal our intentions to the enemy,thus they would just lay low until said date.Now that the Iraqi and the US have set the end of 2011 as the pull out date , what's the difference? I can't figure it out,not one person bitching.Enlighten me.:popc1:

It seems to me that at this point we have a pretty firm handle on the situation and Iraq is finally bringing around their own security forces.

That wasn't the case in the past.

There as a lot of criticizem when the dems wanted a firm pull out date for the Iraq war.The right wingers said it would signal our intentions to the enemy,thus they would just lay low until said date.Now that the Iraqi and the US have set the end of 2011 as the pull out date , what's the difference? I can't figure it out,not one person bitching.Enlighten me.:popc1:

Funnny thing. I thought to myself today, "Now that we have a time we will probably be able to safely be out of there by, I'm willing to bet a buffalo nickel those little Reds come forward and try to deliver this victory to the lap of Barack Hussein Obama...."

Surely they aren't stupid enough to try and make people think they were in any ****ing way responsible for victory. Surely not.... and now this.

Not a chance in hell.

I will not let history remember the Democrats like this. The cut'n'run, out-of-Iraq-now-at-all-costs Democrats. It was the Democrats who wanted to have all troops out by October 2007 regardless of the stability of the situation. It was the Democrats who were willing to LOSE this war, no strings attached. Now it's the Democrats taking credit for possibly bringing us victory over there? Had Bush not been in office we wouldn't even be there right now, and the place would still be a shit hole with genocide in the streets. That isn't to say it won't happen after we leave in 2011, but credit for this landmark decision will NOT go to Barry Obama or the 109th congress, it will go to one man: George W Bush. The little ghetto ****er ain't even in office yet and they're already trying to give him credit for a war he already voted to lose 18 months ago. With all Bush did wrong, this is something he did right, and I will always give him credit for having the will to win in Iraq. This is exactly what he was fighting for - stay in until the Iraqi government feels they can manage the situation themselves. We've reached that point!

And shame on you for actually trying to say it was those defeatist, coward sons of bitches who were responsible for it. Stop drinking the ****ing kool-aid. :smilie_slap

Well, lets be honest on another front: the populace doesn't want us to leave too soon, either. They know if we leave, their security blanket goes with us. That was a hard lesson learned from past conflicts throughout that region.

I think the Iraqis should be able to govern themselves and keep the peace on their own. HOWEVER: remember that the Iraqi people have almost universally never known freedom or democracy. They've had decades of Saddam, living life in constant fear and oppression, a brutal dictatorship, etc. I can't imagine going from one extreme to another within about five years as they have. It's amazing to me that they've come as far as this. It's probably going to be another 20 years or so as to whether we see if this little democratic experiment will work or not. They could go into a state of perpetual civil war, given the Shiite vs. Sunni mentality many Iraqis have, but not that I'd blame them; there's a LOT of history there between the two.

Funnny thing. I thought to myself today, "Now that we have a time we will probably be able to safely be out of there by, I'm willing to bet a buffalo nickel those little Reds come forward and try to deliver this victory to the lap of Barack Hussein Obama...."

Surely they aren't stupid enough to try and make people think they were in any ****ing way responsible for victory. Surely not.... and now this.

Not a chance in hell.

I will not let history remember the Democrats like this. The cut'n'run, out-of-Iraq-now-at-all-costs Democrats. It was the Democrats who wanted to have all troops out by October 2007 regardless of the stability of the situation. It was the Democrats who were willing to LOSE this war, no strings attached. Now it's the Democrats taking credit for possibly bringing us victory over there? Had Bush not been in office we wouldn't even be there right now, and the place would still be a shit hole with genocide in the streets. That isn't to say it won't happen after we leave in 2011, but credit for this landmark decision will NOT go to Barry Obama or the 109th congress, it will go to one man. George W Bush. The little ghetto ****er ain't even in office yet and they're already trying to give him credit for a war he already voted to lose 18 months ago.

And shame on you for actually trying to say it was those defeatist, coward sons of bitches who were responsible for it. Stop drinking the ****ing kool-aid. :smilie_slap

Easy there.All I am trying to say is we gave them a firm pull out date.Does that not give them the advantage to wait it out? I don't care who's in office when they pull out.What if they do wait it out,and trouble starts?Does the US go back in?

Easy there.All I am trying to say is we gave them a firm pull out date.Does that not give them the advantage to wait it out? I don't care who's in office when they pull out.

Sorry for jumping on you. I just left a forum where someone was doing exactly that - listing victory in Iraq as a presidential achievement of Barack Obama. Talk about rewriting history to the ****ing extreme. It really bothered me deep down inside that they had the nerve to low ball one of the few great achievements of the Bush administration and take all the credit for themselves, when they deserve absolutely none of it.

What if they do wait it out,and trouble starts?Does the US go back in?

Yes. :histerica

There as a lot of criticizem when the dems wanted a firm pull out date for the Iraq war.The right wingers said it would signal our intentions to the enemy,thus they would just lay low until said date.Now that the Iraqi and the US have set the end of 2011 as the pull out date , what's the difference? I can't figure it out,not one person bitching.Enlighten me.:popc1:


In regards to pulling out of Iraq it was based upon conditions on the ground, though this 2011 date is based upon two things. The first being the UN mandate allowing US forces to be in Iraq ends this year and inorder to remain there needed to be a SOFA with Iraq, thefore in the process of writing the SOFA a date needed to be determined which I would guess represents when Iraq is prepared to assume all responsibilies the US military is performing.

I'll still give W the credit for starting this farce filled war of fear. :shrug

And I likely will be giving Obama credit for draggin' ass to get out of that rotten, worthless hell-hole. I could give a good god-damn about all of those US hatin', advantage takin', dirt greedy, war mongering ass wipes.
Stability is something they have NEVER truly had over there and anyone who thinks that we are going to be their saviors and deliver them from themselves is as deluded as the most suicidal bombing, AlQueda asshat.

I'm STILL all about getting the US out of the oil dependence game and telling all those worthless, resource gobbling, 3rd world foreign fukks to go suck on a dirt rock, their most abundant natural resource.

grrr... ok, sorry. I should have known better than to stray into here. :brownbag

Sorry for jumping on you. I just left a forum where someone was doing exactly that - listing victory in Iraq as a presidential achievement of Barack Obama. Talk about rewriting history to the ****ing extreme. It really bothered me deep down inside that they had the nerve to low ball one of the few great achievements of the Bush administration and take all the credit for themselves, when they deserve absolutely none of it.



Yes. :histerica

Now this might set you off.Didn't McCain say somewhere that we would be in Iraq for the next 20 years,or something like it?Doesn't it seem odd that this is kinda wrapping up just as the new president takes office?Just that this peace process (or what ever you choose to call it)seems to have been put on the fast track?Kinda takes the steam out of Obama's pull out ideas.Is the timing just coincidence?Again,let me stress ,not starting shit.Just throwing it out there.

That's all Bush and the "righties" were waiting for - a time the Iraqi government could take everything over themselves. The Iraqis feel they can take it over in 2011. Mission Accomplished. :thumbup

Now this might set you off.Didn't McCain say somewhere that we would be in Iraq for the next 20 years,or something like it?Doesn't it seem odd that this is kinda wrapping up just as the new president takes office?

We will be in Iraq for the next 20 years, just as we still have tens of thousands of troops continuously stationed in South Korea, Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. We will always have a presence there. It may only be with a few thousand troops instead of 100,000, but they'll always be there.

Just that this peace process (or what ever you choose to call it)seems to have been put on the fast track?Kinda takes the steam out of Obama's pull out ideas.Is the timing just coincidence?Again,let me stress ,not starting shit.Just throwing it out there.

Obama's pullout ideas lost steam long before now. They weren't even brought up for most his campaign past the primaries. He had been receiving intelligence briefings from the Bush admin about the goings on of the war on terror, and suddenly the "out of Iraq now" mantra lost steam. I have a hunch we were going to stay in Iraq even with an Obama presidency.

We will be in Iraq for the next 20 years, just as we still have tens of thousands of troops continuously stationed in South Korea, Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. We will always have a presence there. It may only be with a few thousand troops instead of 100,000, but they'll always be there.



Obama's pullout ideas lost steam long before now. They weren't even brought up for most his campaign past the primaries. He had been receiving intelligence briefings from the Bush admin about the goings on of the war on terror, and suddenly the "out of Iraq now" mantra lost steam. I have a hunch we were going to stay in Iraq even with an Obama presidency.

So does that mean no one is going to hold Obama's feet to the fire for not getting the troops out in 18 months?I can hear it now........Obama said 18 months , he broke his promise.And I'm not talking about the far left either.

So does that mean no one is going to hold Obama's feet to the fire for not getting the troops out in 18 months?I can hear it now........Obama said 18 months , he broke his promise.And I'm not talking about the far left either.

I'd even volunteer to give the man a medal if he decided to stay in there. It would be one of the smartest things he ever did. Sure, someone may bring that up if they were trying to show how he waffles on critical issues, and to remind people he has consistently been on the wrong side of history... but I think he would have more to worry about from his ultra-leftist base.

So does that mean no one is going to hold Obama's feet to the fire for not getting the troops out in 18 months?I can hear it now........Obama said 18 months , he broke his promise.And I'm not talking about the far left either.

Only the suckers vote for a canidate based upon a campaign promise.

Obama has already mentioned the timeline could change based upon events on the ground.

So does that mean no one is going to hold Obama's feet to the fire for not getting the troops out in 18 months?I can hear it now........Obama said 18 months , he broke his promise.And I'm not talking about the far left either.

Oh, we may bring it up, but it won't be us that holds his feet to the fire about it; there are plenty of people who firmly believe that he will pull out, and voted for him on that basis alone.

Tax cuts and the war; that's all I heard about in the lead up to the election. People have expectations.

Only the suckers vote for a canidate based upon a campaign promise. Yeah, and they won.

There as a lot of criticizem when the dems wanted a firm pull out date for the Iraq war.The right wingers said it would signal our intentions to the enemy,thus they would just lay low until said date.Now that the Iraqi and the US have set the end of 2011 as the pull out date , what's the difference? I can't figure it out,not one person bitching.Enlighten me.:popc1:
So if we had given a firm pullout date of 2075 you would think it was the same as the dims calling for a firm date three years ago? Get real, you are plenty smart enough to understand the changes that have taken place both militarily and politically.:twak