Troops Leave Iraq!!!! Obama Ends War!!!

[Jermyn Davidson]

At least he is making the effort to make good on his commitment.

I applaud him for that.

This should free up more troops to go into Afghanistan so that we can properly finish that situation as well.

IMO, Iraq was never properly justified. Afghanistan, however, is a war that we must win and end only until we have conquered the Taliban and leave Afghanistan in a place better than it was before 9/11/01.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

At least he is making the effort to make good on his commitment.

I applaud him for that.

This should free up more troops to go into Afghanistan so that we can properly finish that situation as well.

IMO, Iraq was never properly justified. Afghanistan, however, is a war that we must win and end only until we have conquered the Taliban and leave Afghanistan in a place better than it was before 9/11/01.

You're right there, JD. At least about the Afghanistan part of it. You're right on about that.

The wisdom of invading Iraq, the timing and the manner in which the "occupation" was planned (not planned!) are certainly points of controversy and will be for some time. However, according to the United Nations Security Council, Saddam had to go.

Saddam and his allies still alive in Iraq have no one to blame but themselves. They brought this all upon themselves.

Bush is responsible for the blood that followed. The guilt that he bears is that he brought the Western and world media into Iraq. The huge mass graves found all across Iraq testify to the fact that the bloodshed there was already ongoing and had been ongoing for decades. Saddam had just kept the media out.

Bush's biggest "crime" in Iraq is that he made the world sit up and pay attention to the suffering there. In the long run that may in fact benefit the Iraqi people as a whole.

[canam]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

At least he is making the effort to make good on his commitment.

I applaud him for that.

This should free up more troops to go into Afghanistan so that we can properly finish that situation as well.

IMO, Iraq was never properly justified. Afghanistan, however, is a war that we must win and end only until we have conquered the Taliban and leave Afghanistan in a place better than it was before 9/11/01.

JD come on man,read the next line in the news release ,they ARE immediately sending 50,000 troops to iraq as "civilian helpers "snicker, snicker. they have brand new bases that hold 12,000 troops each in all areas of the country, the largest in the world, some surrounded by moats with all the latest technoogy for protection, with huge landing strips for all kinds of aircraft, not that you can get anywhere near them anyway because they are in the middle of the deserts.WE AINT GOIN ANYWHERE ,were there permanent,what a joke!

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by canam

JD come on man,read the next line in the news release ,they ARE immediately sending 50,000 troops to iraq as "civilian helpers "snicker, snicker. they have brand new bases that hold 12,000 troops each in all areas of the country, the largest in the world, some surrounded by moats with all the latest technoogy for protection, with huge landing strips for all kinds of aircraft, not that you can get anywhere near them anyway because they are in the middle of the deserts.WE AINT GOIN ANYWHERE ,were there permanent,what a joke!

What's the "joke?"

[canam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What's the "joke?"

The joke is obama trying to prove he is pulling us out when they are sending 50,000 supposedly non combat , SUUUURE !

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by canam

The joke is obama trying to prove he is pulling us out when they are sending 50,000 supposedly non combat , SUUUURE !

For whatever reason, neither Bush nor Obama has had me sit in on any Presidential military briefings. It's probably because of the annoying way that I slurp my fruit smoothies through a straw... no matter,

But from what I have been able to glean, it seems that the Geneva Conventions actually provide a definition of what "combat operations" are. Therefore, the troops involved in any action fitting the description of "combat operations" in the Geneva Conventions would be "combat troops."

Those troops whose operations do not fit this description would NOT be "combat troops" - by definition. There are some quotes and explanations from officials of the International Red Cross in this article:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...,2950145.story

"Combat troops" are forces like our combat battalions that specialize in offensive operations. They are the "big guns." For the past few years they have been present in Iraq, but they have been mostly involved in police work and training the Iraqi forces.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but according the GC definitions that I've read, even things like "counter insurgency" operations are not technically a "combat operation."

The force that is initiating the combat is responsible for declaring when "combat operations" are to begin and when they have ceased. President Bush made that declaration in early May 2003; just a little over a month after they had begun. The International Red Cross concurred (hardly a Bush ally) as did the UN (ditto) and a host of international NGO's.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by pelathais

For whatever reason, neither Bush nor Obama has had me sit in on any Presidential military briefings. It's probably because of the annoying way that I slurp my fruit smoothies through a straw... no matter,

[CC1]

Originally Posted by pelathais

For whatever reason, neither Bush nor Obama has had me sit in on any Presidential military briefings. It's probably because of the annoying way that I slurp my fruit smoothies through a straw... no matter,

But from what I have been able to glean, it seems that the Geneva Conventions actually provide a definition of what "combat operations" are. Therefore, the troops involved in any action fitting the description of "combat operations" in the Geneva Conventions would be "combat troops."

Those troops whose operations do not fit this description would NOT be "combat troops" - by definition. There are some quotes and explanations from officials of the International Red Cross in this article:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal...,2950145.story

"Combat troops" are forces like our combat battalions that specialize in offensive operations. They are the "big guns." For the past few years they have been present in Iraq, but they have been mostly involved in police work and training the Iraqi forces.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but according the GC definitions that I've read, even things like "counter insurgency" operations are not technically a "combat operation."

The force that is initiating the combat is responsible for declaring when "combat operations" are to begin and when they have ceased. President Bush made that declaration in early May 2003; just a little over a month after they had begun. The International Red Cross concurred (hardly a Bush ally) as did the UN (ditto) and a host of international NGO's.

Pelathais, Now here you go again trying to confuse people with the facts!! You are absolutely correct that there is most certainly a distinction between combat troops and other troops.

The 50,000 troops left in Iraq are not "going in" as the poster responding to you said. They are already there and are acting in defensive / support capabilities. They guard various strategic locations, people, etc (including the American Embassy) and are working on the infratstructure rebuilding in Iraq.

Combat troops are offensive troops that carry out combat missions proactively, not just in defense of an attack as the troops remaining will.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

At least he is making the effort to make good on his commitment.
I applaud him for that.

This should free up more troops to go into Afghanistan so that we can properly finish that situation as well.

IMO, Iraq was never properly justified. Afghanistan, however, is a war that we must win and end only until we have conquered the Taliban and leave Afghanistan in a place better than it was before 9/11/01.

this is all about the November elections

Obama is single handedly destroying the democratic party.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

this is all about the November elections

Obama is single handedly destroying the democratic party.

Hmmmmm...so I guess there is something I like about Obama after all. LOL!!!