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

[CC1]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Who said we were going "over there to get the oil?" That was the conspiracy nuts as CC1 points out.

Wrong again guys.

According to the way the media counts the length of this war, it has lasted "7 years and 5 months" - almost to the day. "That's longer than WW2!" they bewail.

But by using the same standard - the presence of American troops in the country we were at war with, WW2 never ended!

American troops are still stationed in Japan and Germany - even at this very moment. WW2 has never ended - by this standard.

Welcome to the 25,093rd day of World War Two.

Good points. I do have to give our Socialist President props when it comes to Afghanistan. He at least has had enough sense to know we can't cut and run there. You know that has to drive his lib base nuts. They saw a future of perfect pacifism with The Annointed One. They will just have to settle for the socialization of America.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Seems like you may have been studying some faulty research or disinformation.

Well yes, since I read a lot of the same stuff that you read I do have to admit that a lot of it is sort of kooky. However, I do try and cover a variety of sources. And then I do something you should try for yourself - I think independently. I critically evaluate the material I read. Try it. Look up those little footnotes that even Alex Jones likes to throw in there from time to time.

Ask questions. Hold these people's feet to the fire. Demand that they make sense. They either giggle like school girls or throw you out when you do. But you'll eventually get to the truth.

Originally Posted by BroGary

We are on the verge of the Antichrist one world government, and the elite who worship Lucifer are behind it and they indeed have puppets in positions of power worldwide.

No we're not. And, no Lucifer does not. That's not to say that there aren't some very bad players out there, there are. But quit playing the same "blame game" Adam tried to pull on God back in the garden. The human race should be able to accept the responsibility for its own failings by now, shouldn't we?

Originally Posted by BroGary

Study the info on this link for now -

http://kenraggio.com/KRPN-DevilinNWO.htm

There is a LOT more info I can share as I have time.

Got to run for now !

I'm sure you do. See what happens when you start to hold people's feet to the fire and ask questions?

Ken Raggio is a pretty typical post trib type Dispensationalist. He has some original twists and often seems like a nice guy. I worked my way through Dispensationalism almost 15 years ago after spending a quarter of a century intensively investigating it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along...

[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,

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Well yes, since I read a lot of the same stuff that you read I do have to admit that a lot of it is sort of kooky. However, I do try and cover a variety of sources. And then I do something you should try for yourself - I think independently. I critically evaluate the material I read. Try it. Look up those little footnotes that even Alex Jones likes to throw in there from time to time.

Ask questions. Hold these people's feet to the fire. Demand that they make sense. They either giggle like school girls or throw you out when you do. But you'll eventually get to the truth.


No we're not. And, no Lucifer does not. That's not to say that there aren't some very bad players out there, there are. But quit playing the same "blame game" Adam tried to pull on God back in the garden. The human race should be able to accept the responsibility for its own failings by now, shouldn't we?



I'm sure you do. See what happens when you start to hold people's feet to the fire and ask questions?

Ken Raggio is a pretty typical post trib type Dispensationalist. He has some original twists and often seems like a nice guy. I worked my way through Dispensationalism almost 15 years ago after spending a quarter of a century intensively investigating it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along...

Nothing personal, but you sure make a lot of wrong assumptions, for one, I really did have to run as I had to get ready to change shifts and leave work, now I am getting ready for bed, but I will be sharing a lot of solid documented info for the benefit those who have not been deceived by the globalist puppets into thinking it is all far out stuff.

Do YOU believe the Bible prophecy that there will be a one world government ruled by the Antichrist ?

Folks, don't take anyone else's word for anything STUDY the info out at the link below for YOURSELF -

http://kenraggio.com/KRPN-DevilinNWO.htm

I will be sharing more very good research on the New World Order as I have time, it is expected that there will be scoffers, but there are also those who might not post but will still read and learn what Satan's human puppets have been up to :-)

[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.

[missourimary]

There are Brigades still being sent into Iraq. There are troops still receiving orders to go. To announce broadly that Obama is keeping his promise and the last of the combat troops are leaving Iraq is a huge smoke screen.

When we send troops to Japan or Germany, their families go with them. When we send troops to Iraq, they are deployed and away from their families for approximately 12 months. They are still being deployed. They just aren't considered "combat troops" when they do. They will receive different training and perhaps do different things, but they will still go, they will still be injured by Iraqi explosives, and some will still die.

And the 55,000 troops doesn't even include the number of civilians we have over there.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by missourimary

There are Brigades still being sent into Iraq. There are troops still receiving orders to go. To announce broadly that Obama is keeping his promise and the last of the combat troops are leaving Iraq is a huge smoke screen.

When we send troops to Japan or Germany, their families go with them. When we send troops to Iraq, they are deployed and away from their families for approximately 12 months. They are still being deployed. They just aren't considered "combat troops" when they do. They will receive different training and perhaps do different things, but they will still go, they will still be injured by Iraqi explosives, and some will still die.

And the 55,000 troops doesn't even include the number of civilians we have over there.

Exactly!!! It is a political ploy, and a dishonest one at that. The US is deeply ingrained in Iraq, two 100 million dollar embassy sites, plus four other branches. Billions per year will continue to be spent, IT IS NOT OVER.

It will be sad, if shortly it all falls apart and the billions of investment are for naught, except for taking out Saddam. Bush was not able to disable all of the axis of terrorism that he intended to do, therefore the many of the virus were killed, but the disease will rebound as soon as the weak antibiotics are removed.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by crakjak

Exactly!!! It is a political ploy, and a dishonest one at that. The US is deeply ingrained in Iraq, two 100 million dollar embassy sites, plus four other branches. Billions per year will continue to be spent, IT IS NOT OVER.

It will be sad, if shortly it all falls apart and the billions of investment are for naught, except for taking out Saddam. Bush was not able to disable all of the axis of terrorism that he intended to do, therefore the many of the virus were killed, but the disease will rebound as soon as the weak antibiotics are removed.

No dishonesty here.

He has always stated that he intends to pull "combat troops" out.

It's not a smokescreen.


Besides, if he was to pull all troops out (like some would like) he'd be roundly criticized as pulling a "cut and run" tactic and accused of nullifying the the work and sacrifices of the troops who have bled and died in Iraq.


Another situation where in politics, no matter what a person does, he will be criticized.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

No dishonesty here.

He has always stated that he intends to pull "combat troops" out.

It's not a smokescreen.


Besides, if he was to pull all troops out (like some would like) he'd be roundly criticized as pulling a "cut and run" tactic and accused of nullifying the the work and sacrifices of the troops who have bled and died in Iraq.


Another situation where in politics, no matter what a person does, he will be criticized.

Most people in the US don't realize "combat troops" does not denote "entire military," though. The things people object to most will not stop just because "combat troops" leave.