This is know surprise to me.

Iran is going to move right in and Iraq will roll over just like the French...

Now we need to concentrate on The United States of America. They are much more capable than Saddam's motley crew ''............ "I would say that they have the discipline and the tenacity to fight as well as anybody I've ever seen.".....Great job US Armed forces!

and our forces in kuwait and the gulf will just watch iran conquer iraq? really? interesting theory.

"The Obama administration plans to bolster the American military presence in the Persian Gulf after it withdraws the remaining troops from Iraq this year, according to officials and diplomats. That repositioning could include new combat forces in Kuwait able to respond to a collapse of security in Iraq or a military confrontation with Iran."

i-belive,

if Iran moved into Iraq it would be the best thing that every happened for the US. we would be the first to defend and it would give the US enough reason to take out Iran's nuclear facilities

If a country cannot stand up and train its troops to defend their own Homeland, how should that be our problem? They deserve to get what their incompetency permits. Should a pauper on the street go to the rich part of town to assist the puny millionaire in protecting himself? Well, that's what we are - paupers! We spend more than we take in, cant provide medical care for our poorer children, cut education funds, are $4T in debt, yeah, let's spend another $1T on protecting these pussy's from themselves.

Agreed, let all the oil rich countries spend that extra money on defending their own borders. we are not the only country on earth. There is no reason we have to police every single square foot of the planet. Last time I check Saudi Arabia had a military.

Hmmm - didn't we see this same thing happen when we needed to help Vietnam and then left? The people in the mid-East have been fighting among themselves for thousands of years.

They have been getting training for nearly ten years and they are still unable to defend themselves? Why should they defend themselves when they can get somebody else to defend them and not risk their own lives.

As for not having a viable air force for protection, how big of an air force does the taliban or al qaeda have? Seems they just won't have an extra advantage of air cover. With the oil reserves they have they could buy some planes of their own. But once again, why sink capital into buying equipment when you can expend other peoples' (U.S.) resources.

Has anybody looked at the nice accommodations (Green Zone) that the U.S. has built for the insurgents? The Iraqis won't be able to tuck their tails and run fast enough to let the insurgents have it. Kind of like Saigon years ago.

Iraqi forces have their work cut out for them. They will be operating in a country which, although quieter than a few years ago, saw more people killed, wounded and kidnapped last year than in Afghanistan, according to U.S. figures.

Maybe if they spent less time trying to kill us, and resisting our rebuilding attempts , they'd be better off. Look at Germany and Japan. The Axis was just as fanatic as Al-Queda, especially the Japanese, but they knew when to give up.

What will happen now is that Iran will ataack, our embassy will come under fire (what the hell is that doing in the south, anyway? - THERE'S a not so subtle message) , and we will have to defend the whole mess again. When the whole thing falls to the Iranians, that will be out fault too.

I love it- they kick us in the ass for saving theirs from Saddam, fight us all the way to today, and now that we are leaving, are going "Wait! we need you! Don't leave!"

What is really disgusting is our administration (and NOT just Obamas) putting up with all of that crap, getting our kids killed and wounded.

But why? Is it a mental problem, laziness, stupidity, ignorance? We've been in their country for a multitude of years, provided funding, training, support, direction, you name it. We've bought and paid for everything they need with our money and our blood. Why can't they take care of themselves? Sorry, it just doesn't wash. If they are too lazy and/or dumb to look out for themselves, why is it my (our) job to continue looking after them?

If Iraq is so incapable of being a country with a stand-alone government, then the US may as well annex it as the 51st state. We've already invested so much there, we may as well keep it. If a number of my brethren (and we are proudly rednecks) would move there, it would give the Iraqis something to think about. Perhaps they might elect Rick Perry as their governor. (Wouldn't that be a hoot?)

Nevertheless, all kidding aside, the Iraqis are either being deliberately dumb or they are pretending to be, to keep US dollars flowing in. I hope our powers-that-be don't fall for these gutless wonders' shenanigans and scenery-chewing, tear-jerking excuses.

Yes Thinker, and what happened to Viet Nam after we left? - eventually, they unified and are on their way to becoming an economic power.

So the moral of the story is to stop messing in other people's business.

By the way - After we left Somalia in 1993 they eventually stabilized and were on their way to being a functioning society until GW Bush had Ethiopia invade and now we are back to square one with them.

Iraqis Unable to Defend their Borders as U.S. Exits

Well, gawd dang it, life's just tough in the big city, eh?????

The Iraqis only had TEN effing years to get their rears in gear and formulate their own protection of their "sovereignty".

Enjoy your new "democracy" under Al Sadr and Ahmedinajad, and the Iranian mullahs, btw.

Other than maybe some minor border incursions from Turkey going after PKK rebels or maybe Iran in some of the disputed border territories, I do not see any other country trying to move into Iraq. They all know full well that it would not be tolerated and that the US and other western forces would move in quickly. The Iranians are not stupid enough to give the US an excuse to attack them and, other than dealing with the PKK, Turkey has no designs on invading Iraq. I also do not see Syria being dumb enough to give the US an excuse to go after them either.

It is a very sad commentary that after many years of training and billions of dollars in equipment from the US that the Iraqis are incapable of defending their own country. If they are truly as tenacious a fighting force as Lt. Gen. Caslen says then the only reason I can see for their inability to defend themselves would be a failure to put a priority on building up their capabilities. They certainly have the oil money to buy combat aircraft. They had pilots when Saddam was running the place and I am sure that there are still plenty of them around. The only question would be are they willing to go back into the military to fly the aircraft if the government buys them. These are all issues that need to be addressed internally by the Iraqis, they are not problems the US or anyone else can solve for them.

They wanted us out. Oh well, I guess they will just have to deal with it. Maybe they can use the billions in oil fees to buy an army.

Me-256723: I was just thinking the same thing. Is the "pull out of Amerian forces" really just a pre-text to utilizing American forces to knock off another dictatorship ? You have to wonder who will strike first, Syrian or Iran. If they do move to invade Iraq, you have to wonder if their leadership has basic cable. Don't they even watch "bait car" ?

If Iraqis can still keep bombing and shooting each other, then they can defend their borders. Not that the borders were being defended when the Alliance occupied them. Iraq is too much like Afghanistand and Pakistan, in that mountains, dessert, and hundreds of miles of waste land are essentially undefendable. They just try and keep the cities and towns with a perimeter.

"The departure of American forces this month also leaves Iraq vulnerable to threats from its neighbors"

There are more than 17k US personal left in Iraq and the US has built the biggest embassy in the world there. Let's not bull sh.t the American people, the US is NOT leaving Iraq. We have bases all around there and will never let Iran or others threaten Iraq. We are there to protect our interest (oil) and we will be there for a loooooong time.

HOTTICKET...You are right on the money. Too bad, so sad. If they had not invested in corruption and oppression, they might have had a chance. Now, they have asked us to leave and that is exactly what we should do. If they want a country, they will have to cowboy up and earn it. The defense and security contractors will make billions--but now they have to pay for their own safety instead of having our troops die for them--at GS wages. Things are tough all over, Iraq. Get on with it or get over it. The choice is yours. Now you will have to pay for our weapons, aircraft, and protection.

I am sure the Iraqis are happy to have one set of troops leave just to have another power march in! May not be a problem though I don't think anyone wants to occupy Iraq - a dangerous crap hole - too much trouble.

If they had not invested in corruption and oppression, they might have had a chance. Now, they have asked us to leave and that is exactly what we should do. If they want a country, they will have to cowboy up and earn it. The defense and security contractors will make billions--but now they have to pay for their own safety instead of having our troops die for them--at GS wages. Things are tough all over, Iraq. Get on with it or get over it.

Nailed it, Colorblind.

I agree with GTR5. After 9 years, the Iraqis should have sorted this out. NOP = Not Our Problem. Deal with it.

Not many can defend their borders completely..look at us and the Mexican border.

Now that the U.S. presence is gone, look for Iraq to be the next Middle Eastern country to be taken over by Muslim extremists. They've already got Egypt and will soon announce they have Libya.

Finally, just as soon as they can pry Assad from power, they will, under the ruse of elections, have Syria. Their eventual goal is for the entire Middle East to be one large Islamic caldron of barbarism at war with the west.

Regarding Iraq, the first poster said that it's their problem now. A myopic view, since this will eventually be the worlds problem.

The Israelis must not be too keen on what's happening all around them.

In 9 years the U.S.A was able to pull itself up out of the great depression, destroy the German and Japanese empires, and emerge as the strongest country on the face of the earth. What is wrong with this picture?

This article is so stupid, none of Iraq's neighbors ever attacked it, Iraq under Saddam attacked its neighbors, Iran and Kuwait. Why make a fuzz out of an issue with no precedent? The only country that bombed Iraq was Israel.

Romilio, and the U.S. led western alliance, twice.

The area of Iraq that has much of the oil is largely Shiite (near Basra), which is the same branch of Islam as Iran.

There will be trouble there.

While Iraq has been largely quiet since Bush negotiated the current withdrawal in 2008 (thanks to Bush's 'surge' that Obama opposed), we'll have to see if stability reigns.

Obama did nothing of note in Iraq (except follow the agreement that Bush negotiated), but he will try to take credit for the war's end.

This all sounds well and good but when the country starts being overrun and the civilians are being killed just for being there the liberal media will blow it up all over the news the Democrats will cry that it's such a terrible shame and complain about the lost of life but if we send soldiers back to aid and protect them again it, it will be the terrible Republicans fault every time a soldier dies and all the bleeding heart liberals will complain some more about that. So I'll say it right now pick a side and don't whine and complain about every all the time. Just pick one side, stay with it and shut-up about everything else, you can't have your wine and drink it too.

The republicans have new interests if elected back into power and Iraq won't be on their menus this time. They don't give a damn about anyone's security. Their answer of helping the Iraqi's at the little people of the U.S.'s expense will be to do a pre-empt on Iran next time around as they have already spilt that out into the media.

Well we certainly can't teach them a single thing about border security. No big surprise here.

They are no worse off now than they were before Bush and the Necons decided to change the middle east. They have been at war with their neighbors for centuries and will be for more.

As to the border situation here and there....We have a border problem because of one reason...Employers who knowingly hire these people. Target them and the problem goes away. We do not because the elite have the republican party in their back ocket and they use that labor both because it is cheap and it keeps American wages down.

One of the reasons that "Pollock" has been coined in Western Pennsylvania as a slang for a person of Polish decent who is not all that bright is because of propaganda that was disseminated during WWII by the Germans about the "Polish Calvary" units. It asserted that the Polish cavalry had ordered a charge against German tanks and that - as would be predicted - the Polish calvary unit was annihilated.

This was all a lot of posturing by the Germans to make the "Polish" military seem to be weak and ineffective to their populace (and by and large - it worked). Just as an aside - the Polish military did organize itself into cavalry units. Horses were used by the "infantry division" to get the infantry into place quickly as an advantage - but the notion of them charging tanks with sabres and lances is pure hogwash.

I relay that story to make a point.

It doesn't matter how well trained the unit... tanks beat lances every time - in this case, jets beat Iraqi military. Those of you who are pipping off about how "the Iraqi's have received 10 years of training by not-arguablythe best military in the world" and should now be able to defend themselves leaves the cold hard fact that we're giving them training - not weapons. If you want to know how much damage one warplane can do - just ask the Japanese about the "Enola Gay". There's not much you can do when your ground forces are getting carpet bombed from the air. All the "sabre rattling" and "lance shaking" in the world doesn't equalize that advantage.

I would guess that if Iran, Syria or Turkey started to advance with air power, the US would probably move to counter that - but it'd certainly be nice if we weren't the only ones attempting to protect Iraq's sovereignty.

I'm glad our boys on the ground are coming home. It's long overdue. Whether you agree with the war or not (I don't) - you have to understand that once we committed to action, we were bound to deal with the fallout from that action. Had we gone in - removed Hussein from power - and then vacated immediately - there would have been a homogenization of the population (read that as mass killings) at horrifying levels. I certainly envision the country would be referred to as "Western Iran" instead of Iraq - and it may still become that... but at least we've given the populace a fighting chance.

We have a border problem because of one reason...Employers who knowingly hire these people. Target them and the problem goes away.

Let's also put greedy landlords on your list that let 2-5 families live in a 2-3bedroom apartment just because they know they share the rent and the landlord can then up their rental prices forcing the single family legals out of the housing market as they will not live 2-5 families under the same roof so can no longer afford to pay the rent without working 2 or more jobs to pay for it. Add rental lords to your list and I then agree with it.

All of this is reason #864 we should not have gone into Iraq in the first place.

While we can not go back in time and not go in, we can accept the reality that-whenever we leave-now, 10 years from now, 20, 30....this is going to be an issue. That being said, we have done all we can and can leave now before we lose any more American lives.

"I would say that they have the discipline and the tenacity to fight as well as anybody I've ever seen.".....Great job US Armed forces!

Well I'll agree with your last comment but as for General Caslen's statement, I seem to recall that similiar things were being said about the ARVN right before we left S Veitnam.

America's cost for the two wars in Iraq shoud be reimbursed by their oil. We should take their oil, credited at the current market value, until every cent is repaid to us. (Kuwait owes us too)

@vermontguy

and our forces in kuwait and the gulf will just watch iran conquer iraq? really? interesting theory.

Conquer Iraq? Oh no, there will be no “conquering” of Iraq by Iran. The Iranians will be welcomed with open arms. Don’t forget, when Hussein was in power the country was controlled by the Shia minority, now the @!$%#es are in charge. It’s already far, far easier for an Iranian citizen (their “enemy”) to get into the country than it is for an American citizen (their “ally”). The Iranian’s will have no need to conquer their new ally in the region.

...the country was controlled by the Shia minority, now the @!$%#es are in charge.

Whoops, guess I forgot the second "i" in Shiites.

When Saddam was in charge, it was the SUNNI minority that was in charge, just to make that clear, and it was a branch of ba'athism, like with Syria's Assad family. Before Desert Storm (when the coalition forces bombed the last of Saddam's tanks) Iraq was perfectly capable of fending for itself, especially against the Iranians. Iraq was one of the strongest Arab powers, along with Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Now the Shia (Shiites) are in control and it looks like they are worse than the Saddam regime. They are much more friendly with Iran and especially hostile towards Sunnis.

I am pretty sure we would provide air support. I can see an air craft carrier stationed just off the coast of Iraq for quite a few years to come.

America can't attack Iran Mike. They have the bomb and we don't have the stomach for another middle east war right now. An attack on Iran, even if it in defense of Iraq, is a declaration of war and we have to take them out completely or they will take out our "allies" over there. Plus they have the bomb.

what justification would we have to attack them for not turning over the drone? none. Unless you think america should become a rogue state, attacking anyone anytime for any reason, "sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you".

and how would leaving some troops in iraq prevent the building up economic, diplomatic, political, and religious ties between shia iran and shia-dominated iraq? they wouldn't. If we wanted to prevent this, we should have left saddam in charge.

Yeah, I thought maybe I was the only one who kinda missed Saddam Hussein. For all his evil, he was powerful, a cornerstone of stability in the Middle East, and not friendly with Iran. Strategically, removing him from power is probably one of the worst U.S. military blunders ever.

the CIA gave the drone to them its pretty simple look at the chain of events before. in pakistan seems to me the fire fight that cost24 pakis lives looks like it was a set up that got us kicked out and then thay started peace talkes with al quaeda on the same day just looks a little funny to me one can only wounder what our government is planing

Steve says Iran has the bomb. What bomb are you referring to Steve? Iran is not even close to having a nuclear weapon. You are either delusional or pumping out Zionist propaganda to anyone who will swallow that bs.

If Iraq has problems, they are attributable to the idiocy of Bush and Cheney.

To say the US is leaving or existing Iraq is highly subjective, unless you tie a politician to a written contract with explicated language defining all terms and agreements while on the campaign trail … you get “Here is what you meant you wanted, right”.

The brand new fully functional, fortified, tax payer funded US Embassy monstrosity in Iraq is approximately the size of the Chicago O’Hara airport.

This Megladon of all Embassies will continue to house, feed, fly in and out of Iraq, as well as pay roughly16 to 17 THOUSAND contracted personnel until the end of time.

I’m not sure if the Pentagon has 17 thousand working there, maybe?

The “workers” are making GS-pay and GS benefits so the final dollar amount to build “Fort Megladon”, and equip it, and pay them is any body’s guess but I doubt any one in the US Government can give even a educated guess. 500 Billion to start, then up keep and continued salaries still considered a combat zone.

The Ted Koppel report shows two “English Teachers” being moved in a motorcade of brand new black bullet proof Chevy Suburban’s that would have made the Secret Service blush if it passed them moving the President, and this was so they could teach a English class outside Fort Megladon.

What on this earth would require 17,000 Embassy workers?

Jimmy Neutron-

I agree with you. That drone didn't just fall into Iran's laps, it was placed there. Probably as a misinformation device or something. It's probably all tech that's 2 or 3 gens old. The iranians will develop a defense against what they think is cutting edge tech but it's already outdated and so will their defense against it. We are watching a global chess game here. Way to many shady deals going on at the moment to think it's just coincedence.

Any move on Iran by America or Israel or anyone else will have to be done with the foreknowledge that Iran immediately move to a total war footing. Hezbollah and Hamas would be unleashed and they would try and close Hormuz knowing that something like 20% of the worlds oil passes through there. It would be a political, economic and military conflict which would require us to destroy most if not all of their offensive capability. Even if we did manage all that, there would still have to be a regime change. Otherwise you would be looking at a protracted unconventional war ala Iraq post "Mission Accomplished". Iran knows this which is why they continue to merrily work towards building nuclear weapons.

The question then becomes do you pay the piper before or after they have a nuclear capability, because as bad as they are now (if you believe the media and various governments), they will certainly be much worse with a nuclear shield. My personal opinion, without factoring in economies and politics (I know fairy tales and unicorns) is that you pay the piper before he acquires nuclear weapons.

roybokhade is posting Zionist propaganda without a shred of proof. You don'ty attack a country because you "think" they "might" one day do something, "if" they one day do decide to have a nuclear weapons program. Read below:

February 2011: National intelligence director James Clapper affirms in testimony before Congress that “Iran is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons in part by developing various nuclear capabilities and better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so," Mr. Clapper said. "We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

If you can read with any comprehension, it should be apparent that Iran has not decided to build nukes at this time. "Guessing", based on Israeli paranoia, is not a good enough excuse to go to war. The war in Iraq will cost in excess of 3.5 trillion dollars. America does not need a repeat of Iraq, a war which was based on Israeli paranoia and a desire for an oil pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa.

We never learn a damn thing. 9 years for what? W Bush totally destabilized this area by removing Saddam. Not a good man, so what, he provided the counter balance to Iran that we desperately needed, and still need today. This won't end well, but I knew that 9 years ago. Stay out of middle eastern countries, now and forever. If Iran gets close Israel will do the job. No more warmongering. Sorry Military Industrial Complex, your budgets getting revamped!

Reagan was secretly approached by the Soviets with a plan to work together to disarm all Third World countries (or as many as possible) of western modern weapons. Reagan turned them down. Big mistake. These places are undeveloped in ways beyond the mere technical. Giving or selling them advanced weapons is a bad idea. The Europeans and Americans taught the Japanese the science of aviation which resulted in Pearl Harbor and WWII in the Pacific. While the west gave them this help out of a liberal impulse, the Japanese bombed the U.S. to push the whites out of their region. They apparently did not subscribe to the same liberal ideas. Similar seeds are being sown whenever a western country delivers advanced weapons to a Third World country. The Soviets gave China the bomb and then feared they would use it on them. It never changes. Any weapons not developed by the indigenous people on their own should be disallowed. Through the centuries those parts of the world were not capable of creating a real calamity since they never rose above the spear and simple archers and swords.

We invaded ILLEGALLY???

The US Congress approved the Bush AUMF against Iraq. That Obama is currently using to INVADE and VIOLATE the sovereign airspace of - Pakistan, Yemen, Iran, and many other countries...

Unlike the actions of Obama in Libya, without Congressional approval...

Even Clinton had a AUMF when he bombed Bagdad in 1998.. When Sadam was supporting terrorist bombers families, KILLING hundreds of thousands of his and Turkey's & Iran's citizens with WMD, and threatening the world with WMDs. And which Sadam continued to do after the failed bombing campaign...

No he just had world approval, Congress has does not have a clue. Fool.

Yes, we invaded ilegally.....The last time congress made a declaration of war was in 1941.

The United Nations never authorized the use of force against Iraq.

The invasion was in Violation of International Law.

This invasion was naked aggression against a soveriegn nation that neither attacked us not threatend us...not did they have the capability to do so......

The attack on Libya was sanctiond by the UN not ordered by President Obama. Just the facts, mam!

So because one person (bush) performs an illegal act it makes it okay for another person (obama) to continue an illegal act? That is like saying that if one person rapes a woman that it is okay for another to continue the rape. Remember obama's promise that if he were elected he would immediately cease the "raping". Yet here we are more than three years later and he is still there.

Bumbling idiots.... Put down the Kool-Aid and step back into reality...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101102a.htm

No, you put down the Kool-aid.

Hey Steve...no name calling necessary......Congress authorized the use of force which circumvented the constitution...it was not a formal declaration of war.....

But even if it was.....Remember....every country Germany attacked and Invaded during world war 2 was legal and necessary according to German Law and protecting the " Homeland "

The attack and invasion was not authorized by the United nations.

The attack and invasion was in violation of International law.

Again...the attack was naked aggression against a soveriegn nation...that had not threatend us or attacked us....nor did it have the capabiltiy to do so......remember they didnt find any WMDS....even if they did there was no evidence they were going to use them against us.....

Yes, I remember, but I guess my point was that while we were there, while we wielded influence, we weren't using Iraq as a base to threaten Israel, or as a place to potentially stage surface to surface missiles or as a staging area for an invasion of somebody else.

Point being, stop looking 7 or 8 years into the past and rehashing history. Nobody is going to the Hague for a war crimes tribunal as much as it appears you would like to see that happen. One can see how Iran influences Syria and what has happened in Lebanon. Do we, Israel, other countries in the ME or democracies in general want to see a repeat performance of that in Iraq?

My point is not to rehash history ...but we are about to repeat the same mistake again with Iran....

Naked aggression against a sovereign nation that has done nothing to us.... and yes I would like to see those responsible brought forth before the world court for their war crimes.....

Again why should it concern us if Iran has any influence with Syria, Lebanon or any other country?

Are we the only country that can exert our influence on these countries or others around the world>>>??

Israel can take care of Israel....

Obama promised he would end the war in Iraq, so he is not lying.

Obama, the community organizer, got Bin Laden killed, something that Bush couldnt do in 8 years.

Get over it dude!

Henry B-338755,

It was the CIA using tactics 'out-lawed' by Obama that obtained the information to catch Usama ben Laden...

Obama changed the 'Catch and interrogate' policy of the CIA/Bush, to 'KILL suspected terrorist' with armed drones...

AC-- Not true-- Obama approved getting Bin Laden-- they couldn't have gone in to get him without his approval. And personally, I prefer unarmed drones to trillion dollar invasions. Al Queda is no longer the threat it was 10 years ago.

Obama would have left the troops there if the Iraqis had wanted it. They are a sovereign country and asked us to leave.

Obama Lies

Can you say I'm a racist, the with-drawl was negotiated by non other then Bush Jr. the man who started it all and is responsible for the murder of thousands. During negotiations for US troops to stay longer the Iraqis would not give our soldiers amnesty which means that they could be tried in Iraqi courts for anything they did in performing their duties so President Obama decided to go forth with the agreement Bush Jr. negotiated while still President. Are you such a racist and UN-American that you would put your fellow citizens at risk to fuel your hatred.

kritt,

You need to review the EOs that Obama has signed...

Notice the ones that have restricted the CIA from using their interrogations on suspected terrorist and the one that has given INTERPOL free access to operate in the USA without any oversight...

The information that reveled the location of ben Laden was obtained this way PRIOR to Obama assuming office...

If Obama had left troops there you would be bitching about that, you fools would bitch if Obama put every American back to work and balanced the budget in a month. Would you fools have us sacrifice more of our young fighting men and woman?

these posts are what happens when stupid spineless political hacks like obama lies repeat mindless fox news talking points. I guess bush was a spineless community organizer too? lol.

The withdrawl, which your father should have done, was broekred by your Republican leasers. You seriously need to do some research before posting.

AC, you said the information where Bin Laden was know PRIOR to Obama taking office. WOW, you just proved almost everyone's point. Bush/Cheney was incompent to be President.

Even 3rd graders know you are full of it, but your post really confirms it.

If President Obama walked on water, there'd be a bunch of you guys out there who would say "See I told you he couldn't swim".

Some people would complain even if you hung 'em with a new rope. ssshhhheeeessssshhhhh!

AC Robertson- you and I are usually on opposite sides of an argument- is this the AC Robertson that usually complains about anything that Bush / Cheney /has done?

I ask, because I sure haven't changed MY ideas, and I'm agreeing with you all the way here- you even admit that Saddam had WMD . That's a switch.....

Interesting! Maybe have learned something?

Obama Lies

"Obama withdraws troops solely for political purposes and against his generals advice. This has the makings of another Cambodia and the results are on Obama's hands. This is what happens when a spineless community organizer is given the presidency by a fawning media."

I imagine you as one of the bleating sheep in 1984 at the two minutes hate. Slobber hanging from your jowls, your face beet red with anger. And of course Obama is your Goldstein.

Just laughable to relate this to Cambodia. Is there any Republican out there who knows anything about history? I saw someone once compare Obama to Pol Pot, a man who exterminated fully 1/4 of that countries population. In your hatred you folks say some pretty loony things. No need to point out here that the Obama adminstration did not set this date for withdrawal.

This is their problem not ours. And we never should have been involved beyond sanctions.

Obama Lies - I think you are the one who is lying or certainly delusional on the truth. I can always count on your posts to give me a great laugh.

So we have one poster who has some serious ball issues he should be counselled on and a collection of folks with short memories. Bush said he would consider withdrawal, but only on the advice of his generals, not in direct contradiction to them as Obama has done.

John Skags

Sh!t floats!

For me, this statement sums up the Republican thought process in their approach to the beginning, the middle and the end to this fiasco in Iraq;

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld

Careful What You Wish For Republicans..............

Obama Lies, you have weak points. Bush set a deadline for troop withdrawal by December 31, 2011. Obama simply agrees.

Ritdog-908299,

You need to review my old post, nothing has changed...

Some of us have seen and experienced the effects of Saddam's WMD. Ask many of the Marines that were with me in Saudi/Iraq. I have a formed neighbor that is still suffering from the nerve gas poisoning, when the US Army destroyed a munitions dump outside of Baghdad...

or through kuwait or saudi arabia or from carriers in the gulf. we are still there..and iran knows it. Iran isn't going to invade iraq..they will use religion. politics, diplomacy, and economics (if possible) to secure their goals in iraq.

I think thay are doing just fine we are selling them all our tanks we are selling them our f16s i bet on sale to

Protection for oil and lots of it!!!!

We are doing that as we speak elh.

how is it going to end? you mean iran will send tanks that will end up being blown up by american airpower from the gulf, giving the US justification (finally) to attack and invade iran? that kind of "end'?

The US Government has 'boarders"?

Yes we do. About 15 million illegal boarders.

The Iranians could invade Iraq and shut down the Persian Gulf by way of blocking the Strait of Hormuz, thus blocking all oil shipments. The region would essentially be held hostage because for the US or NATO to do ANYTHING, they would have to find a land route which currently doesn't exist. Turkey is on the fence and may well resign from NATO before the end of next year. Syria is Iran's closest ally. The current geopolitical topography of the region is almost perfect for an Iranian military safari.

so iran, who is desperate for money from their oil, is going to blockage their own oil? why didn't they do that before, they could have done so already.

MFranklin, the Iranians don't have a navy. Ok? Unless they want to borrow a Chinese aircraft carrier, or a couple of Russian nuclear powered subs. All they have is a few rebuilt fishing boats, with a bunch of scared so-called sailors.

Demetrious,

Iranian military officials regularly warn of blocking the Strait of Hormuz -- the route through which 40 percent of world's oil supply by sea passes -- in case Iran comes under attack.

"Iran is mass producing a smart ballistic missile for sea targets with a speed three times more than the speed of sound," state news agency IRNA quoted Commander Mohammad Ali Jafari, who heads the elite military force, the Revolutionary Guards, as saying about the new missile.

The missile -- named "Persian Gulf" -- has a range of 300 kilometres (185 miles) and its warhead will carry 650 kilogrammes (1,300+pounds) of explosives.

Iran does not need a Navy to block the Strait of Hormuz. The strait at its narrowest is 54 kilometres (34 mi) wide. The traffic lane is six miles (10 km) wide, including two two-mile (3 km)-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile (3 km) wide separation median.

I agree with your statement to get out of Afghanistan,but not with staying in Iraq.We have accomplished our mission in getting Osama bin Laden and its time to leave them to their corrupt leaders.Let them fight their own war against themselves,since its nothing but about their religion.

ren,

ummm, defending your borders kinda means your country....just saying!

Mary, is Bummer Obama running for dogcatcher again? ASPCA!!!!

Greg, you are correct. For many many years our country has not really enforced our borders, and it doesn't matter who or what party is in the White House, nothing will stop the illegals coming here. Cheap labor and all the stuff, you know.

it was as much a decision by bush originally to disband their military, even though, of course, 90% of the military was just simple people not having any interest in politics. It took 10 years to build up their internal capability, and that was the important thing..at first, since the US can still provide border protection.

another fine example of a stupid comment, since bush made the agreement in the first place. must be another fine example of bush's superior foreign policy? :)

Crusher we are watching and waiting we know our government is corrupt it will be delt with when the time is right by voting or well i dont have to print it you know but it will happen

Crusher-609012,

What you are describing is exactly what is going to happen. Except the Republicans will be CHARGING for the weapons and training, unlike the Democrats (Pelosi & others) who were complaining about charging the Iraq's for the war cost with oil... Or did you forget that, when Bush was in office...

What you are seeing is the Military Industrial Complex coming into power, wearing the dressing of POLITICS...

Communism, Socialism, Dictators, and now the so-called Democracy of the USA is FAILING. It is being replaced with puppet leaders that are controlled by the Military Complex. If you want to see what the future holds, look at China, the Military controls everything mixed with for-profit businesses... The society is given just enough freedom to keep the masses in-line or controlled...

Or look at the successful countries that have Universal Health Coverage, the Medical fields are filled with Military/Government Doctors or care givers...

The POLITICIANS, Lawyers, and Business Leaders have proven they are incompetent and are not accountable to the people they supposedly represent...

Charged who, the Iraqis? You must be joking. The only people charged were the American taxpayers for this and many more free military equipment and armament to Iraqi forces.

J just abit of enlightenment for you. Bush Jr. made the treaty with Iraq to remove ground forces from Iraq by January 1st 2012. I would imagine he thought that the Iraqis by then would be able to defend themselves on the ground/control their borders, police their citizens fairly, and with the US Air Force always present, it could possibly survive as a peaceful nation.

Cinci. Obama has done practically nothing. He promised change and instead sat on his butt for two years while he had control of the house an senate. He could have had anything he wanted, but did nothing with the power he was given. After two years the republicans gained a few seats in the house and now you're calling them the republicans the bad guys? Gimme a break.

Sorry Fred, what you're saying simply isn't true. Obama has certainly NOT "sat on his butt" and done nothing. "He could have had anything he wanted..." nothing more than right-wing revisionist history, and you and I and everyone else know that statement is just stupidly inaccurate. The Dems had numerical advantages in the house and senate from Jan '09 to Jan '11, but not enough to break Repub and TP intransigence, and their determination to PREVENT him from enacting any part of his agenda. Their ENTIRE purpose since his Inauguration Day has been to prevent him from succeeding and gaining re-election, and to a great extent. That's precisely what all their rhetoric, legislative proposals, and money has gone to, and by any measure, they succeeded. You ought to stand down, and think about what you're saying. Obama hasn't been great by a long shot. But Americans still want the kind of country and society that he talked of in 2008. They don't want the nasty-ass conservative, ignorant, Business=God, we're-always-perfect kind of country and society we've had for most of the last 30 years. They want a real force for good and cooperation type of country that they can really be proud of. We don't have that now, thanks to conservative policies and ideas.

Mike-357988,

The Democrats had a 'Super Majority' in the Senate, until Kennedy died, and a majority in the House, until the 2010 elections...

The Democrats could not control their own people and Pelosi was forced to compromise to receive Republican support...

That is why Obama's 'single payer' health care and many of his other policies could not pass...

The biggest problem Obama has had is due to Pelosi & Reid's incompetence and basicly bad policies...