The Iraq War Ends,

SharpshooterTom · 22-10-2011 02:11PM

4leto wrote: »

Its definably a victory for Obama, it will give him some browning points for the up coming election. He will be seen as a president who has a successful record on foreign policy.
First he got Bin Laden, then Gaddafi, I am sure he will give himself some credit for the Arab spring, now hw has pulled out of Iraq as he promised during his election campaign.

He did not get Gaddafi. The rebels with the assisstance of Nato got Gaddafi, it was predominately their (locals) fight. Obama doesn't take anywhere near the credit for this one as he and the navy seals did for Bin Laden.

The Iraq war has ended three years into his tenure, very late for some, although the war was winding down with the surge they had (I'm not a Bush/Iraq supporter btw). So his drawdown was expected.

Meanwhile he's unecessarily expanded the war in Afghanistan from a height of 30,000 troops at most (under Bush) to 100,000 till this day. The death toll in 7 years under Bush was around 650, its now nearly 2000 in 3 years since Obama took office. Bin Laden was killed in another country.

Obama has lost nearly 1500 troops since he took office (almost all in Afghanistan) so no I don't think he's had a "great foreign policy". It's almost as bad as Bush's.

histories · 22-10-2011 02:23PM

Apple pie, baseball and war, America's great pastimes!

Obama may want to check a dictionary for the definition of victory.

RichieC · 22-10-2011 02:46PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

So they can sell their all their oil, make more cash, and not waste it on domestic use.

This is just as unacceptable to the Americans as making a bomb is. Iran do not have the right to self determination according to the yanks and Israel.

Mike 1972 · 22-10-2011 03:02PM

karma_ wrote: »

Why does the third largest producer?

Fair point.

One should still be opposed to Iran developing nuclear power though if only for the same reasons that one should be opposed to Ireland developing nuclear power.

Biggins · 22-10-2011 03:02PM

policarp wrote: »

Where were the weapons of mass destruction?

In George Bush's and in Dick Cheney's head - along with the thought of the massive millions they made from Haliburton.

Celly Smunt · 22-10-2011 03:24PM

withdraw from Iraq,Deploy in Libya

rossie1977 · 22-10-2011 03:28PM

Gnobe wrote: »

The Iraq war has ended three years into his tenure, very late for some, although the war was winding down with the surge they had (I'm not a Bush/Iraq supporter btw). So his drawdown was expected.

military operations in iraq ended in august 2010 and he claimed all us military would be out of iraq by year end 2011, there were ~150,000 troops in iraq the day obama took office, there are now about 40,000

he promised in his campaign speeches he would get all military out of iraq, if they all leave by years end he will have fulfilled that promise albeit about 18 months later than he originally planned

Meanwhile he's unecessarily expanded the war in Afghanistan from a height of 30,000 troops at most (under Bush) to 100,000 till this day. The death toll in 7 years under Bush was around 650, its now nearly 2000 in 3 years since Obama took office

increasing the amount of troops in afghanistan was again one of the things obama focused on during his campaign so not sure why this comes as a shock to you, increased military action normally leads to increased casualties, this isn't rocket science, thats like comparing the number of military deaths in iraq since august 2010 to during bush's tenure.........

SharpshooterTom · 22-10-2011 03:38PM

rossie1977 wrote: »

increasing the amount of troops in afghanistan was again one of the things obama focused on during his campaign so not sure why this comes as a shock to you, increased military action normally leads to increased casualties, this isn't rocket science, thats like comparing the number of military deaths in iraq since august 2010 to during bush's tenure.........

Um so this accounts for a successful foreign policy, which the poster originally claimed? Just because took advice from over enthusiastic military generals and kept his promise over that? And that's makes him successful?

Because Bush invaded Iraq and promising a retaliation to 9/11, that makes him successful too does it? Pfft just admit it, Obama's Afghanistan war has been a complete farce and has not warranted nearly 1500 dead soldiers. Hes sucked up to the pentagon like all the rest of them.

His approval ratings are hanging around 40 percent, Reagan and Clinton were around 52 at this time in their presidencies.

R P McMurphy · 22-10-2011 03:46PM

RichieC · 22-10-2011 04:02PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two points here. Firstly, the primary weapons effect of WP is as an incendiary, not a toxin (technically, WP's chemical effects are classified as an irritant anyway), and though the results are often gruesome (like wars aren't?) there are no general prohibitions on burning the enemy into crispy critters. Secondly, neither are there any general prohibitions on the use of incendiaries in urban areas as long as they are not delivered by aircraft, which, as far as I know, they were not.

NTM

Funny, because it was called a chemical weapon when Saddam allegedly used it against kurds in Erbil and Dohuk...

It's the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Ben Hadad · 22-10-2011 04:20PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

technically, WP's chemical effects are classified as an irritant anyway

Quote for lol

Freddie59 · 22-10-2011 04:28PM

Well, au contraire. God bless America. Were it not for her the world would be a far darker place. Something to ponder whilst carrying out all the PC USA-bashing folks.

Freddie59 · 22-10-2011 04:30PM

4leto wrote: »

I think it ironic that this war was started under the pretence of getting the weapons of mass destruction out of a tyrants hands, there were no weapons of mass destruction, the war was started on a lie. A lie first propagated by the Iraqi opposition, who are now in power.

But as a direct consequence of the war, it emboldened Iran, who ARE making weapons of mass destruction and their Ashoura missile with a range of 2000KMs which are well capable of carrying a nuclear payload. I believe Iran is a true menace but as another consequence of this iraqi war dealing with that threat would be impossible.

Don't worry. They MIGHT get to shoot ONE off. And then they'll be no more.

Ben Hadad · 22-10-2011 05:29PM

What makes you think they would ever wish to shoot one off?

Maybe your paranoia is due to the long standing lack of sleep you have been able to get due to North Korea having nuclear weapons as well.

Surely a country with nuclear weapons is a far greater clear and present danger that a country that is attempting to get nuclear weapons. And if these crazed countries are as suicidal as you think they are surely NK would have let fly Halloween style with it as soon as they got it.

We are not living in a western.

Batsy · 22-10-2011 06:14PM

A great achievement.

I feel immensely proud at the part my country has played in helping rid Iraq of its vile dictator and helping to put it onto a path of freedom and democracy.

However, there are several countries which should be ashamed at their actions in the run-up to the Iraq War, most notable Germany and France.

mossyc123 · 22-10-2011 06:29PM

Regime changed, Democratic structures in place, Security structures in place...

Whatever about the questionable motives for it and the disastrous lack of post-invasion planning, the War has been Won.

To claim anything else is letting an anti-American attitude cloud your thought process...

Manic Moran · 22-10-2011 06:44PM

RichieC wrote: »

Funny, because it was called a chemical weapon when Saddam allegedly used it against kurds in Erbil and Dohuk...

It's the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Beholders have little to do with it. It either is legal or is not. Either someone at State was honestly wrong, which would not be the only time, or they were deceitfully trying for emotional effect in the hope nobody would call them on it. Neither are possibilities I personally approve of.

NTM

Freddie59 · 22-10-2011 06:54PM

Ben Hadad wrote: »

What makes you think they would ever wish to shoot one off?

Maybe your paranoia is due to the long standing lack of sleep you have been able to get due to North Korea having nuclear weapons as well.

Surely a country with nuclear weapons is a far greater clear and present danger that a country that is attempting to get nuclear weapons. And if these crazed countries are as suicidal as you think they are surely NK would have let fly Halloween style with it as soon as they got it.

We are not living in a western.

History my friend. Try browsing it sometime.:rolleyes: Same old tired rhetoric from another despot (Ahmedinejad). Pencil in Hitler, etc as required.
I've highlighted the sheer silliness of the above post.

They are a deterrent. This is what the West has always seen them as(and even Russia). A last resort. We are now dealing with a threat which thinks nothing of flying planeloads of civilians into buildings. Modern-day bully-boys. If they get a nuke they will use it - aided and abetted by scum like Ahmedinejad.

They would view a nuclear device like they do suicide bombers, civilian planes, etc. Something to be used under the cloak of "Allah". Simply because they haven't the balls to fight a conventional war. Ah yeah - great lads at cracking rocks on their heads and burning effigies. A different thing when Bubba is rolling towards you in a tank.

We are certainly NOT living in a Western. Equally, we are not living in cloud cuckoo land.:rolleyes:

Freddie59 · 22-10-2011 06:57PM

Batsy wrote: »

Germany and France.

1st one ended up running Europe anyway. Second one no balls - at all.

Adamisconfused · 22-10-2011 07:12PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

History my friend. Try browsing it sometime.:rolleyes: Same old tired rhetoric from another despot (Ahmedinejad). Pencil in Hitler, etc as required.
I've highlighted the sheer silliness of the above post.

They are a deterrent. This is what the West has always seen them as(and even Russia). A last resort. We are now dealing with a threat which thinks nothing of flying planeloads of civilians into buildings. Modern-day bully-boys. If they get a nuke they will use it - aided and abetted by scum like Ahmedinejad.

They would view a nuclear device like they do suicide bombers, civilian planes, etc. Something to be used under the cloak of "Allah". Simply because they haven't the balls to fight a conventional war. Ah yeah - great lads at cracking rocks on their heads and burning effigies. A different thing when Bubba is rolling towards you in a tank.

We are certainly NOT living in a Western. Equally, we are not living in cloud cuckoo land.:rolleyes:

I assume you're talking about Saudi Arabia because Iran hasn't had anything to do with flying civilian planes into buildings.
You have extremely ignorant views on Iran and the Iranians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRFKpoIVCBU

Freddie59 · 22-10-2011 07:17PM

Adamisconfused wrote: »

You have extremely ignorant views on Iran and the Iranians.

Iran - the Holocaust deniers who want to wipe Israel off the map? Who - like others - treat their women like a sub-species? Who are developing ICBMs while proliferating these 'values', along with assisting terrorists?

Hmmm. I'd say you're the one with the rose-tinted glasses my friend.:rolleyes:

SafeSurfer · 22-10-2011 07:40PM

. [EMAIL="?Subject=Breaking News - Information Clearing House&Body=Thought you might find this interesting - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4882.htm"]

[/EMAIL]

A History Of Lies: WMD, Who Said What and When

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]CLICK PLAY TO LISTEN TO Ari Fleischer[/FONT]

Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, US President 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George "aWol" Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."

George "aWol" Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George "aWol" Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George "aWol" Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George "aWol" Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George "aWol" Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George "aWol" Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then Eit remains a surprise to me now Ethat we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

--George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on

--George W. Bush
Press Briefing
5/30/2003

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

--George W. Bush
Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on And we'll find more weapons as time goes on

--George W. Bush
Press Briefing
5/30/2003

Adamisconfused · 22-10-2011 07:40PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Iran - the Holocaust deniers who want to wipe Israel off the map? Who - like others - treat their women like a sub-species? Who are developing ICBMs while proliferating these 'values', along with assisting terrorists?

Hmmm. I'd say you're the one with the rose-tinted glasses my friend.:rolleyes:

Wow. Seventy five million holocaust deniers who want to wipe Israel, a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons, off the map. I don't speak Persian and am not even going to get into an argument over whether Ahmadinejad said anything about wiping Israel from the map.

However, you have provided no proof whatsoever that Iran would consider entering into a suicidal war with Israel or the US. They are attempting to flex their muscles in the area, but no more than any other powerful nation has done.

Their support for hezbollah is reprehensible, but again no different than the US supporting the mujahideen or indeed the countless tin pot dictators through the decades. It's all about denying advantage to a perceived enemy and using such allies to damage that enemy if they are attacked.

As for creating weapons, well, why the hell shouldn't they? Iraq got rolled easily and only an imbecile would do nothing to provide some form of protection against an aggressor nation. As far as I can see, Iran, like the US, is neither good nor bad; it is merely protecting its interests.

pbowenroe · 22-10-2011 07:41PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Iran - the Holocaust deniers who want to wipe Israel off the map? Who - like others - treat their women like a sub-species? Who are developing ICBMs while proliferating these 'values', along with assisting terrorists?

Hmmm. I'd say you're the one with the rose-tinted glasses my friend.:rolleyes:

Ahmidenijad (sp?) never said that. I'm not defending him, but he was misquoted in that instance.

ReacherCreature · 22-10-2011 07:47PM

Gnobe wrote: »

Obama has lost nearly 1500 troops since he took office (almost all in Afghanistan) so no I don't think he's had a "great foreign policy". It's almost as bad as Bush's.

Not a whole lot compared to Bush.

Your view of their policies are inherently incorrect. Firstly, Bush was a Republican, Obama; a democrat. Bush favoured pre-emption and prevention of terrorism/rogue states. Obama doesn't. Obama tried hard to repair America's standing in the world among her former allies (whom Bush jettisoned) and in the Muslim world (after Bush's antics in Iraq).

Obama believes in burden sharing. Bush didn't - he would nearly go alone if necessary (Iraq). Obama sent US Air Forces into Libya with the assurance that NATO, especially France and Britain would take over the bulk of the sorties. America became quiet in the campaign in stark contrast to previous years where they would have led the mission.

The US under Obama will still strive to protect their values though but on a much lesser determination and in co-ordination with their allies. They won't make the same mistakes (hopefully) as the previous administration. Also, I'm a fan of neither, the jury is still out for me on Obama.

mossyc123 · 22-10-2011 07:50PM

@ Safesurfer

What exactly does that monstrous mess of a Post have to do with whether or not the Iraq War is over/Won?!

Freddie59 · 22-10-2011 08:17PM

pbowenroe wrote: »

Ahmidenijad (sp?) never said that. I'm not defending him, but he was misquoted in that instance.

You say tomato, etc. Hiding behind the 'children of Palestine' and other such bollocks. And Adam - you really ARE confused! So now state-sponsored terrorism is called 'flexing your muscles'??!! WTF!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9zcElqetqk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zcElqetqk

Adamisconfused · 22-10-2011 08:34PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

So now state-sponsored terrorism is called 'flexing your muscles'??!! WTF!

However you choose to define it, it doesn't change the fact that both the US and Iran do it.
I disagree with your viewpoint that Iran engages in terrorism "because they haven't the balls to fight a conventional war", and was asking you why you believe Iranian state sponsored terrorism has different objectives to terrorism supported by the British or Russians.
As I said, I believe Iran supports terrorist organisations in order to hold a sword over nations it sees as potential aggressors.

Steeveep · 22-10-2011 08:37PM

Adamisconfused wrote: »

Wow. Seventy five million holocaust deniers who want to wipe Israel, a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons, off the map. I don't speak Persian and am not even going to get into an argument over whether Ahmadinejad said anything about wiping Israel from the map.

He actually said "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" - itself a quote and not the presidents actual words.

The dodgy translation was picked up by the media and is basically a historical fact now. Tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth.

http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

Liam Byrne · 22-10-2011 08:59PM

Steeveep wrote: »

[

Tell a lie enough and it becomes the truth.

Only if no-one's watching! No-one believes Bush's lies re WMDs (apart from one or two biased posters who'd believe anything to justify what their administration did)

At least this means that Shannon is no longer being abused by the American warmonger brigade.

Have to laugh at the speech in the OP, though - "America united..." or some such tripe - half of America knows well that the invasion was unjustified and based on lies.

The Iraq War Ends,

Comments