Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announces-total-iraq-troop-withdrawal-165635034.html

Apparently a total withdrawal by the end of the year, not even the small peacekeeping force that was being talked about. I'm sure there are going to be military people there a little bit for various reasons but otherwise an end.


I think Obama is gearing up for the election cycle. Ending wars (or setting hard dates on ends) is good press.

Is this something he would have to pass through congress?

also, the article either didn't do its homework or was giving a fairly large benefit-of-doubt to Obama on his "opposition" to the war (Re: he wasn't a senator when the vote to authorize military force occurred)

see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/05/obama_slams_cli/

Thought with war to the victor goes the spoils; you know rape, murder and pillage, and bring home the booty back to the people.

So where is our buck fifty gallon of gas? Seem the speculators have kept the price high, so maybe them and the oil companies are getting the booty, while the everyday person is getting the boot up the backside.

For that, I would join in occupy Wallstreet, along with bailing out the "too big to fail". Failure is your best friend if you learn from the situation and become better for the next situation that maybe just around the corner if you have your eyes and ears open.

If you noticed in his press statements, he doesn't use any words to convey victory, or any kind of "Mission Accomplished" bravado that Bush used. I think he realizes that the Iraq War in general is going to be placed in history as controversial.

My nephew and son spent 2 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, so this is a bit personal for me, too. The thing is it might later be compared to Vietnam, with Americans pulling troops out of a nation where anything could happen afterward.

The question is, with Americans leaving, could Iraq thwart off the opposing forces? There is little doubt that even the most seasoned experts believe that Iraq's chances at maintaining their current government is pessimistic to say the least.

Originally posted by darkriddle
The question is, with Americans leaving, could Iraq thwart off the opposing forces? There is little doubt that even the most seasoned experts believe that Iraq's chances at maintaining their current government is pessimistic to say the least.

It will likely fall under Iran's sphere of influence at this point, who would act to prevent extremists from taking control of the nation

Originally posted by inimalist
Is this something he would have to pass through congress?

I think they only have to approve declaration of war, they can't force the president to sustain a war.

Originally posted by inimalist
also, the article either didn't do its homework or was giving a fairly large benefit-of-doubt to Obama on his "opposition" to the war (Re: he wasn't a senator when the vote to authorize military force occurred)

see: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/05/obama_slams_cli/

Yahoo!News probably doesn't have great fact checkers.

Originally posted by inimalist
Is this something he would have to pass through congress?
Did we pass it through congress in the first place?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Did we pass it through congress in the first place?

I mean more "is this political theater that Obama has no ability to pass through the houses of government?"

but it appears, as sym says, that it is not the case

interesting, I'm glad they decided to go this route in the end

He says "withdraw from Iraq", but didn't follow it up with " then advance in to Iran". I'm sure that was just an oversight on the teleprompter.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
He says "withdraw from Iraq", but didn't follow it up with " then advance in to Iran". I'm sure that was just an oversight on the teleprompter.

Don't be silly, Iran can fight back.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't be silly, Iran can fight back.

a-against who?

surely not a NATO member

Originally posted by inimalist
a-against who?

surely not a NATO member

It would do much, much better than Iraq or Afganistan or Lybia.

Iran would be horrible to invade due to its size and population relative to those other nations mentioned...but almost any NATO member could easily steamroll it in a limited war where the only aim is to slap its military around.

It has no navy save a few patrol boats and some obsolete destroyers, its air force is aging and small relative to the country's size, and its army is mostly comprised of poorly trained conscripts.

Yah, pretty much. Iran would get mauled in a conventional war just like every other country in the middle east.

I saw a hilarious video on Youtube showing a CG animation of what a war between American and Iran would look like from the warped perspective of an Iranian patriot.

Among other silliness it had a SCUD missile being used to shoot down an American AWACs plane... facepalm

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It would do much, much better than Iraq or Afganistan or Lybia.

probably better than Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya at the same time

Originally posted by inimalist
Is this something he would have to pass through congress?

It's declaring war that must pass through congress. That's in Article 1 of the Constitution (it's one of the explicit/enumerated powers of congress).

Moving troops during a war or battle situations is the privilege of the "Commander in Chief" of the US military forces. The President of the US is such a person.

It was the "War Powers Resolution" during Nixon's time that pulled back the President's ability to wage ware without congressional approval.


****...I sound like a Political Science professor, now.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't be silly, Iran can fight back. Duh. But that won't stop America.