Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Pentagon stands ready to respond to Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.
“We obviously have plans to withdraw from Iraq, and that’s all I can say,” said a senior defense official familiar with the transition. Even before Obama’s election, officials in the Defense Department were building briefing books to cover a range of potential scenarios and timeframes for withdraw.
Hey Al-Queda!!!!!! Just 16 more months to wait! Get ready, stockpile your weapons and bombs As soon as the US leaves, you can take back over!
That is interesting though. Here is the thing though that would make Obama look very bad. If he pulls out quick against the recommendations of the generals and Iraq collapses due to it that could mean trouble. What would absolutely destroy Obama is if he did this, Iraq collapsed and after a period we had another attack on US soil. That would look VERY VERY bad. Lets hope that Obama's actions do not result to that. I certainly would not like to see another incident here.
Hey Al-Queda!!!!!! Just 16 more months to wait! Get ready, stockpile your weapons and bombs As soon as the US leaves, you can take back over!
Certainly a possibility, but the fact is no matter HOW LONG we stay there, there is a risk Al-Qaeda will come back - even if we stayed 100 years. The truth is, Iraq only became a central focus for Al-Qaeda BECAUSE we were there - and there is no real advantage for them to be there if we are not. The Iraqis don't want them there and will likely keep them out just fine without us.
Afghanistan is a far more important place for our forces to be. Iraq is just plain costing us too much money - money we've had to burrow from the Chinese and other foreign nations to keep the war effort going. That FACT alone is possibly more of a long-term security threat than the relatively small number of Al-Qaeda fighters left in Iraq.
Certainly a possibility, but the fact is no matter HOW LONG we stay there, there is a risk Al-Qaeda will come back - even if we stayed 100 years. The truth is, Iraq was place that only became a central focus for Al-Qaeda BECAUSE we were there - and there is no real advantage for them to be there if we are not. The Iraqis don't want them there and will likely keep them out just fine without us.
Afghanistan is a far more important place for our forces to be. Iraq is just plain costing us too much money - money we've had to burrow from the Chinese and other foreign nations to keep the war effort going. That FACT alone is possibly more of a long-term security threat than the relatively small number of Al-Qaeda fighters left in Iraq.
Ken
Well, did Saddam not support Terrorist activity, encourage it, and condone it? We did find a training camp on Iraq soil. Regardless of if it was "known" by Saddam, he was pretty adamant about the support for the actions against the US concerning terrorism. While we may have not found large stockpiles of WMD's there, we did have verified meetings of Saddam and terrorist leaders responsible for 9/11. That is not to say Saddam directly supported those endeavors, but it would be irresponsible to think that Iraq under his control was not a danger to the support for those regimes.
The benefit of having Iraq free and democratic as an ally was that we would have a centeralized operation to combat terroist activity within the middle east. There were many benefits to use helping the Iraq people not only for them, but for us, and for the world in general.
Certainly a possibility, but the fact is no matter HOW LONG we stay there, there is a risk Al-Qaeda will come back - even if we stayed 100 years. The truth is, Iraq was place that only became a central focus for Al-Qaeda BECAUSE we were there - and there is no real advantage for them to be there if we are not. The Iraqis don't want them there and will likely keep them out just fine without us.
Afghanistan is a far more important place for our forces to be. Iraq is just plain costing us too much money - money we've had to burrow from the Chinese and other foreign nations to keep the war effort going. That FACT alone is possibly more of a long-term security threat than the relatively small number of Al-Qaeda fighters left in Iraq.
Ken
The Iraqi troops are a joke. My brother in law is involved with the training of there troops. He said the Iraqis are gutless and have no clue about anything. No matter how many times you show them something, or explain it to them, they still can't get it right. He said it's just a complete joke. There military will fall fast against a full fledged Al-Qaeda attack.
The benefit of having Iraq free and democratic as an ally was that we would have a centeralized operation to combat terroist activity within the middle east. There were many benefits to use helping the Iraq people not only for them, but for us, and for the world in general.
And that is why the bases being built over there will still be manned for many many years to come.
Certainly a possibility, but the fact is no matter HOW LONG we stay there, there is a risk Al-Qaeda will come back -
STOP the presses, didnt the Democrats just spend the last couple of years claiming Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
