PDA

View Full Version : Obama: U.S. combat role in Iraq is ending



Roger Perry
08-02-2010, 12:03 PM
Iraq war will end 'as promised and on schedule,' president says

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told Americans on Monday that he is on track to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq as he marked a milestone in winding down major combat operations there this month.
Despite a deadlock in Baghdad on efforts to form a new government, Obama highlighted achievements in Iraq and discussed the formal shift taking place in the disposition of U.S. troops as they transition to a more advisory role.
"As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end," Obama said in his speech to the Disabled American Veterans convention in Atlanta.
"Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010 America's combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing — as promised, on schedule."

Sounds good to me. Maybe it can help cut down on the defecit. :BIG:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38518416/ns/politics/

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 12:10 PM
What does it mean to say that our combat mission will end? Is there some specific goal that we have accomplished, or will accomplish by the end of the month? Are they going to take our troops guns away so they can't be combative? Bottom line--what is going to change on September 1st? Less money? Less casualties? Less troops in the country? Or just a different headline on the morning paper?

Roger Perry
08-02-2010, 12:36 PM
What does it mean to say that our combat mission will end? Is there some specific goal that we have accomplished, or will accomplish by the end of the month? Are they going to take our troops guns away so they can't be combative? Bottom line--what is going to change on September 1st? Less money? Less casualties? Less troops in the country? Or just a different headline on the morning paper?

Why don't you read the rest of the article?

The president also said, "the hard truth is we have not seen the end of American sacrifice in Iraq. But make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."
A transitional force of 50,000 troops will remain to train Iraqi security forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide security for ongoing U.S. civilian efforts. Under an agreement negotiated in 2008 with the Iraqis, all American troops are to be gone from Iraq by the end of next year. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38428898/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa)

Hew
08-02-2010, 12:38 PM
And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010 America's combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing — as promised, on schedule."
Which of his promises and which of his schedules is he referring to? :rolleyes:

I give the guy credit. He stayed the course in Iraq, ignored his moonbat base and successfully managed to not bung up the victory that Bush handed over to him. Congrats, Mr. President.

Roger Perry
08-02-2010, 12:54 PM
Which of his promises and which of his schedules is he referring to? :rolleyes:

I give the guy credit. He stayed the course in Iraq, ignored his moonbat base and successfully managed to not bung up the victory that Bush handed over to him. Congrats, Mr. President.

Gots to read the article. First sentence says:

President Barack Obama said Monday that he is on track to fulfill his campaign promise of ending the war in Iraq as he marked a milestone in winding down major combat operations there this month.

code3retrievers
08-02-2010, 01:11 PM
Obama is just playing the word game. We will still have 50,000 "transition" troops in Iraq. Performing counter terrorism and civilian protection. Isn't that what we are doing now.

Afghanistan just had a surge and we are up to 68,000 there. Seems like we will be in both places for a very long time.

Roger Perry
08-02-2010, 01:27 PM
Obama is just playing the word game. We will still have 50,000 "transition" troops in Iraq. Performing counter terrorism and civilian protection. Isn't that what we are doing now.

Afghanistan just had a surge and we are up to 68,000 there. Seems like we will be in both places for a very long time.

Hey, Obama did not start the wars, just trying to end them.

badbullgator
08-02-2010, 01:31 PM
Hey, Obama did not start the wars, just trying to end them.


I bet NOBODY her could see this line coming in a roger thread.

Usually he can't let a thread of his get two post long before he blames _________ (fill in the blank)

paul young
08-02-2010, 01:47 PM
Corey,

i know that you and Hew are having fun with this, but i have a couple yes or no questions for you;

-was Obama the president when these two wars started?

-do you think we should maintain a military presence in both countries forever, similar to what we are doing in Korea?

Roger Perry
08-02-2010, 01:47 PM
I bet NOBODY her could see this line coming in a roger thread.

Usually he can't let a thread of his get two post long before he blames _________ (fill in the blank)

Ahh, I get it now, Obama started both wars and now has to end them. Got it.

Franco
08-02-2010, 02:05 PM
You would think the Commander In Cheif would at least know how to salute!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 02:14 PM
You would think the Commander In Cheif would at least know how to salute!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
Who is reported to be the first President ever to return a soldier's salute?

Franco
08-02-2010, 02:18 PM
Who is reported to be the first President ever to return a soldier's salute?

Good question, I'll guess Ike.

Hew
08-02-2010, 02:21 PM
Who is reported to be the first President ever to return a soldier's salute?
But he didn't look like Benny Hill doing it. :p

Franco
08-02-2010, 02:23 PM
But he didn't look like Benny Hill doing it. :p

Reagan gave a snappy return salute.

road kill
08-02-2010, 02:23 PM
Just curious...is GITMO closed yet??



RK

Hew
08-02-2010, 02:27 PM
Corey,

i know that you and Hew are having fun with this, but i have a couple yes or no questions for you;
I was sincere. I sincerely think he made different promises about Iraq to different people during different times and that pretending he kept his promise is weak, and I am sincerely grateful that he has to-date successfully and responsibly managed the Iraq war. The former was a given, the later is a pleasant surprise.

code3retrievers
08-02-2010, 02:33 PM
Hey, Obama did not start the wars, just trying to end them.

To answer your question. No, he did not start the wars, but how are the wars going under his watch. Iraq just had its highest death toll last month of the last 2 years. Afghanistan is in turmoil and by all accounts not headed in the right direction.

There's a difference between ending them and doing a good job. By the way Bush didn't do so well in either, but at least he got Iraq headed in the right direction.

road kill
08-02-2010, 02:38 PM
To answer your question. No, he did not start the wars, but how are the wars going under his watch. Iraq just had its highest death toll last month of the last 2 years. Afghanistan is in turmoil and by all accounts not headed in the right direction.

There's a difference between ending them and doing a good job. By the way Bush didn't do so well in either, but at least he got Iraq headed in the right direction.

Here is the issue, RP started a thread GLOATING over Obama's upheld campaign promise.
That would qualify as a false premise if ever there was one.


That BTW is why I ask about GITMO.


Also Afgahnistan has just had it's highest combat deaths ever.

If that is something your independent middle of the roaders (progressives) are proud of, I don't know.
Very sad.


RK

Roger Perry
08-02-2010, 02:46 PM
Here is the issue, RP started a thread GLOATING over Obama's upheld campaign promise.
That would qualify as a false premise if ever there was one.


That BTW is why I ask about GITMO.


Also Afgahnistan has just had it's highest combat deaths ever.

If that is something your independent middle of the roaders (progressives) are proud of, I don't know.
Very sad.


RK

Again, the Afghanistan war was started in a reprisal to 9/11 and the objective was to kill or capture Bin Laden and al Queda high ranking officials. We did not accomplish that goal so why did we not get out of there way back in 2002? Instead we took up a fight with the Taliban, why? they had nothing to do with 9/11 any more than Iraq did.

badbullgator
08-02-2010, 02:59 PM
Corey,

i know that you and Hew are having fun with this, but i have a couple yes or no questions for you;

-was Obama the president when these two wars started?

-do you think we should maintain a military presence in both countries forever, similar to what we are doing in Korea?

No

No and maybe. Yes I am for some military presence in Iraq, I think it is in our best interest. Get out of shitcanistan now

subroc
08-02-2010, 03:00 PM
Who is reported to be the first President ever to return a soldier's salute?

I believe it was President Ronald Reagan.

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 03:35 PM
Why don't you read the rest of the article?


I would if you posted a link, smartass.

ducknwork
08-02-2010, 03:38 PM
Gots to read the article. First sentence says:



"Gots" to post a link before you can chastise us for not reading it...Twice.

Roger Perry
08-02-2010, 04:04 PM
I would if you posted a link, smartass.

Sorry thought I had done that, but I did answer your question

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38518416/ns/politics/

dback
08-02-2010, 04:09 PM
I think he is closer to Bush's timetable than his own. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001586.html

March of 2008???

YardleyLabs
08-02-2010, 04:23 PM
Reagan gave a snappy return salute.
Reagan at least reportedly was the first. The general rule was that the President never returned a salute since he was not in uniform. Regan asked for clarification and was told that since he was President, he could do whatever he wished. In terms of the photo you posted, it would b interesting to see the full sequence of motion. A salute obviously has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It only looks "proper" in the middle.

The nice thing about still photos is that you are excerpting a single moment out of a continuum. When I photograph dogs, I try to make every dog look like a winner. A dog may walk back to the line, losing a race with a litter of baby turtles on the way. I will still try tp photograph the moment when their ears are in the air and a foot is raised as they "fly" through the cover. It seems only fair given the amount of work I know went into getting the dog to the point when it could even show up. I could just as easily make any dog look like a loser. It's the photographer's choice.

Franco
08-02-2010, 05:02 PM
Reagan at least reportedly was the first. The general rule was that the President never returned a salute since he was not in uniform. Regan asked for clarification and was told that since he was President, he could do whatever he wished. In terms of the photo you posted, it would b interesting to see the full sequence of motion. A salute obviously has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It only looks "proper" in the middle.



There is protocol for the correct salute from the raising if the hand, how the hand rest on the eyebrow and the release. I would suggest that he learn how to perform a proper salute in case he ever encounters a Medal Of Honor recipient.

road kill
08-02-2010, 05:06 PM
There is protocol for the correct salute from the raising if the hand, how the hand rest on the eyebrow and the release. I would suggest that he learn how to perform a proper salute in case he ever encounters a Medal Of Honor recipient.

I beleive Obama reserves such types of greeting for dictaters of certain 3rd world countries.
I am doubtful he has a grasp of what & who men who wear the ribbon are.




RK

Hew
08-02-2010, 05:29 PM
I am doubtful he has a grasp of what & who men who wear the ribbon are.
"I want to be perfectly clear on this <<finger wag>>, I, ummmm, believe that, ummmmm, I do in fact know what, a ummm, medallion of honor is. It is, of course, ummm, the honor we as, ummmm, a nation give in posthumus to Navy Corpse Men."

JDogger
08-02-2010, 07:58 PM
"I want to be perfectly clear on this <<finger wag>>, I, ummmm, believe that, ummmmm, I do in fact know what, a ummm, medallion of honor is. It is, of course, ummm, the honor we as, ummmm, a nation give in posthumus to Navy Corpse Men."


I love it!
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll176/JDoggger/batboy.jpgBat-Boy strikes another blow for truth, humor, and the American way.:)

Roger Perry
08-03-2010, 10:45 AM
Here is the issue, RP started a thread GLOATING over Obama's upheld campaign promise.
That would qualify as a false premise if ever there was one.


That BTW is why I ask about GITMO.


Also Afgahnistan has just had it's highest combat deaths ever.

If that is something your independent middle of the roaders (progressives) are proud of, I don't know.
Very sad.


RK

Actually I was not "gloating" over anything. I catch hell if I even mention Bush and when I post something about the current President I catch hell also. I guess if you do not have anything bad to say about the President a person should not post here.

road kill
08-03-2010, 03:09 PM
Actually I was not "gloating" over anything. I catch hell if I even mention Bush and when I post something about the current President I catch hell also. I guess if you do not have anything bad to say about the President a person should not post here.

C'mon Rog, your were gloating a little bit, maybe just a little........



RK

david gibson
08-03-2010, 03:14 PM
C'mon Rog, your were gloating a little bit, maybe just a little........



RK

posting like a 6th grader and gloating for no reason IMHO. so, we all know our presence will still be 50,000 strong in a "backup" role. WTF? so if insurgents attack our guys, what exactly will be the difference? wont they defend and fight back as always? or will the ROE be watered down even more?

sounds as stupid and useless thing to say as when the dems chided bush over his very similar statement.

road kill
08-03-2010, 03:19 PM
posting like a 6th grader and gloating for no reason IMHO. so, we all know our presence will still be 50,000 strong in a "backup" role. WTF? so if insurgents attack our guys, what exactly will be the difference? wont they defend and fight back as always? or will the ROE be watered down even more?

sounds as stupid and useless thing to say as when the dems chided bush over his very similar statement.


What's funny is that as we start this so called pullout, we will still have more troops there than we did when he took office!!

Funny stuff, spin!!:cool:



RK