Obama announces full withdrawal from Iraq

President Obama confirmed plans to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by Jan. 1, formally ending the war that began more than eight-and-a-half years ago and has taken more than 4,400 American lives.

"After nearly nine years, America's war in Iraq will be over," Obama said at the White House, adding that most of them will be "home for the holidays."


Thanks President Obama for keep promise!!
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-to-speak-on-iraq-at-1245-pm/1

The "contractors," mercenaries, advisers, etc will still be there. As will the multitude of permanent military bases we built, along with the world's largest embassy.

Shell game

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/iraq-withdrawal-us-bases-equipment_n_975463.html

I guess now you can complain about our decades-long "shell game" in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. :sarcasm:

...American troops legal immunity in Iraqi courts.

The Pentagon wanted, and likely still wants, 5-6,000 troops left behind.

For what, by the way? We had no right to be there in the first place. We have no present right to decide what kind of government is there.

Amazing how quickly people take a tone as though Iraq was the site of some heroic U.S. victory over something. We knocked it over like liquor store because Bush & Cheney wanted to. They don't owe us anything, and our only job is to get the hell out.

Should have been out after getting the Leader.

That's perfectly fine with me ... but combat operations is over!

Are you suggesting that we sever our diplomatic relations with them? What possible reason could we have for doing so after all the trouble and expense we've gone through in that place?

Our "trouble and expense." Really? Iraq OWES us for doing it the favor of killing a million or so of its inhabitants based on the systemic bad-faith and outright lies of the Bush administration?

are now generally built on the outskirts of the capital city where they can have a large amount of land surrounding the building and a thick wall surrounding the land. This prevents trucks laden with explosives from being rammed into the building.

The new US Embassy in Kenya is like this, the new US Embassy in Panama is like this. There are probably other examples.

and all his evil fiend friends.
President Obama would not have started that atrocious fiasco.

your question. Don't we have embassies in all countries where we have diplomatic relations? That's kind of common practice, I believe.

This is not the like the embassies we have in other countries. This is not common practice. This is the largest so-called embassy in the world. Neither you nor anyone else reasonably believes European-esqe diplomacy is the reason for it.

we engaged in Iraq at all. Now we're leaving. That's a good thing. That embassy, along with all the other installations we built are sunk costs. We can't get the money back, no matter how misspent it was.

What will become of the embassy? I'm sure it will be used as the American Embassy there, and there it is.

We never should have gone into Iraq in the first place. I'm glad we're finally pulling our military out of there.

a presence will be in place? A link or something?

I think it's fairly obvious what the Bush administration had in mind when it planned things, but here's a story describing it if it helps



(snip)





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/16/us-embassy-iraq-state-department-plan_n_965945.html

Lots of stupid things in Iraq.

Which doesn't mean the *United States* isn't doing the WRONG THING by stating an intention to leave Iraq, while not really leaving Iraq.

The only thing I heard about was that all the troops will be out of there. I don't believe the other thing was addressed at all, so I have no idea what those plans might be. The embassy complex exists. It was built. How it will be used in the future, I do not know. When you find some information that explains that, using actual sources who have something to do with it, I'll be all years. The Huffpo article wasn't that informative, really.

Is it nice most of the active troops are leaving? Yes it is.

Is that happening in part because we lost a negotiation with the Iraqi government in an effort to keep more troops there? It would appear so.

Is it a mystery in need of further documentation that we are in fact leaving a gigantic, ludicrously expensive, armed, Middle-East entangled fortification in place, exactly as the Bush administration always intended?

No.

All else is spinning and whistling and this weirdo partisan thing where nothing can be discussed outside of the "Helpful or unhelpful to President Obama's P.R. efforts" framework, which is unfortunate, but ultimately meaningless.

No one is fooled. The U.S. has reduced its active military presence in Iraq, and will be replacing it, exactly as the Bush administration envisioned, with a gargantuan, taxpayer-funded expresion of permanent, aggressive American influence, all based on an illegal war pushed through on a lie.

...break it down, load it onto thousands of cargo ships, and bring it back with us.

Please tell me you forgot the :sarcasm: tag.

OMFG! :rofl:

Call it shopping mall sized, if you want. It's still the largest "embassy" in the world, will be garrisoned by thousands of private "guards," and has the obvious effect of installing a huge, permanent U.S. presence in Iraq.

Which would be justified by what?

What embassies have you seen?

A country we invaded on false pretenses? One would almost think a smaller, not larger U.S. presence would be appropriate.

It's just a building. Like a Starbucks, with machine-gun nests. It's sheer coincidence we needed the world's largest "embassy" in a country we invaded for the express purpose of extending American power in the Middle East.

Go on, pull the other one.

And got my replacement at the US consulate in Munich.

It is situated in a lovely spot between the old palace and the English Garden.

Why? Because we got to pick.

It employs quite a few Germans.

and I wonder how many Iraqi's they would trust to work in that embassy or to take care of grounds and clean and cook food for them?

It's not your local country US Embassy that one goes to if one has passport problem. This is a thriving hub that will control the country in other ways and do some "outreach" to keep an eye on the surrounding countries. Also probably will entertain many Oil Ogarchs..

Everyone's all with the misty, WWII analogies, like we saved Iraq from the German menace and just set up camp to help out. We didn't invade and destroy the place based on well-documented lies at the behest of monied interests. We're not staying to continue to exert influence for those same interests. Heavens, Iraq ought to be grateful to us for saving them from their savage religions and uncouth mannerisms.

Jesus.

There is even a US radio station south of Frankfurt.

Have the Iraqis made some kind of objection to the embassy? If not, I don't see the problem.

There is no parallel here. None.

They absolutely have a choice.

What is it you are upset about?

He wants to continue to be mad at Obama about Iraq and doesnt want to let a little thing like facts get in the way.

:D

Why do you? On second thought, I don't give a shit.

more than likely.

it wouldn't surprise me to be honest.

But in all seriousness I too am skeptical about this "super embassy" and the insidious intentions behind its construction.

I just don't see the point of minimizing the end of the Iraq war by asking if a building that we built is gonna remain in the country. I didn't like it when it was proposed but it's a done deal now. Spilt milk and all that...

I'm rather certain we wanted one in pink velour.

With cupholders.

Cupholders.


:spray:

The Nobel Peace Prize Committee knew his actions were and would be deserving, as all Obama supporters did, too.

Nobel Peace Prize -- pffft

Your false narrative = "pffft"



Were you ever this down on Bill Clinton after he INVENTED extraordinary rendition aka. torture during his presidency?

And as far as the assassinations, we're at war with Al Qaeda. Its not illegal to kill the leaders of those who are waging war against you.

:bounce:

sums it all up.

Does that answer your question?

just answerin'.

Sid

The answer to your question appears to be "none". Unless you have solid WH information otherwise.

But...but...but...what about.... <blah, blah, and blah>? :popcorn: Moving goalposts, never, ever enough and all that.

Some of my DU friends obviously feel destined to be depressed...or pretend that they are.

:rofl:

Please tell me we're not at the point in this forum where we cannot discuss the rather obvious problems with a gigantic U.S. fortified city built by the Bush administration for the purpose of maintaining a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq because to do so might in some small way detract from a headline that might be marginally helpful to President Obama.

Why is Bush's plan for a permanent, large-scale U.S. presence in Iraq suddenly a good idea?

I already explained to you that the new model of US Embassy is to have a large compound on the edge of the capital city limits. One of the reasons is to prevent terrorists from crashing bomb laden trucks into the building. I have seen the embassy compounds in Panama and Kenya with my own two eyes. They are extremely large.

The reason for the acreage in Iraq is that it would tend to make it harder to be outside the compound and shoot bullets or mortars into the building. That could very well happen since it is still a fairly unstable country. That would probably account for the reason that our Iraqi embassy is a little larger than your typical new US embassy. That does not constitute an occupation in any sense of the word.

If Iraq was not happy with our embassy, they are within their rights as the host country to tell us to move to a smaller location. We then have the option of accepting or not having an embassy there.

I realize you want to have a reason to be angry about Iraq and probably about President Obama and that is why you wont let go of this bone you think you have, but believe me, to just about everyone else, you look ridiculous.

On what basis is it acceptable for the U.S., whomever its present leader, to invade a Middle Eastern country on false pretenses, destroy the government, and build a permanent 100-acre armed compound?

You don't see a problem? Doesn't look the fruition of the entire, illegal, immoral, destructive lie that put us in Iraq in the first place?

I understand it's important for you that this be a pure moment of victory for Obama from a P.R. standpoint, but not everyone views everything from the perspective that President Obama's political capital is the sole concern for every situation, and not every fact you feel undercuts that is somehow an attack on the President.

Everyone recognized this "embassy" as a naked attempt to install a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq when it was first undertaken. It didn't somehow become innocuous when Obama was elected.

You have never seen one in person, unless you happened to see one in Canada or Mexico.

What possible justification is there for BUSH'S construction of a 100-acre armed compound in a country we invaded illegally?

Pretend for a moment you don't interpret its existence as a threat to President Obama's image. Was it okay when Bush planned it? Would we nod approvingly if the U.K. or France built one just like it? Would we accept such a fortification here as a sign of "diplomacy?"

and view the tedious complaints regarding it as simply another reason for some on the Left who are disaffected with President Obama to complain about his leadership.

I grant the war in Iraq was illegal and a fiasco; I even grant that we have no business there whatsoever. The last of our combat troops are indeed leaving, per this announcement today, by the end of the year. It's over. I don't see maintaining an embassy there as a continuation of war, and I doubt most folks do, either.

And we've still got troops there.

Bring them home, Obama.