When will America leave Iraq?

This thread is NOT about the legitimacy or legality of the war. This is NOT about whether America is winning in Iraq. It is a question as to what will be acceptable for America to leave.

To begin with America was aiming for a reformed society and what Galtung refers to as 'positive peace', then it became restoration of the rule of law and end to violence ('negative peace'), a few years ago Bush suggested America would leave once Iraq was at an 'acceptable' level of violence.

As many of us already know the US is building permanent bases in Iraq and is likely to have troops stationed there for the foreseeable future, to play a support role to the Iraqi security forces. What I want to know is what will be acceptable for the majority of forces to with draw?

(PS if this not yet crystal clear DO NOT DERAIL THE THREAD)

[edit on 8-2-2008 by tarichar]

When will America leave Iraq?

Right after we've left Germany, South Korea, Phillipines, etc, etc.

In other words, never.

When all the oil and poppies are gone.

the US is building permanent bases in Iraq

Permanent sounds forever. Does either political side really show
any indication that the majority of the forces there will be leaving
anytime soon? Nope.

It's going to get a lot worse, before it gets any better.

I think the majority of Americans believe its perfectly acceptable for them to leave now. We went out and created a whole region of problems, when we have plenty of problems here at home. But this is reality, what's acceptable to us, isn't always what's acceptable to them.

When all the oil and poppies are gone. You bethca. You bethca.

reply to post by tarichar


Well John McCain has flat out stated - not for 100 years.

Yeah, so, ditto on the "never".

Without Ron Paul I fear that we will be in the middle east for quite a long time. The people have spoken so far, and it doesn't look good.

Keep in mind,w e screwed the place up, again. Maybe instead of taking of and leaving them the mess we try to pick up after ourselves for once? It'd be nice.

reply to post by RuneSpider

Keep in mind,w e screwed the place up, again. Maybe instead of taking of and leaving them the mess we try to pick up after ourselves for once? It'd be nice.

Soon, perhaps!

Recent news from Iraq and Iran. On Tuesday, Iraq oil Minister Shahristani said he was about to reach an agreement with the Iranian oil ministry concerning developing the southern border region shared by Iraq and Iran. Because oil reservoirs do not follow borders, it is a good sign that the two countries are talking about a shared development program which will forestall arguments whether the common slant drilling is taking oil that belongs to the other country. This Iraq-Iran region is the largest oil field for both countries, including Iraq’s Rumaila field.

Iraq’s five major oil fields on its side of the Iran border, Buzurgan, Al Noor, Halfaya, Majnoon and Nahr Umr, are producing about 150,000 barrels per day (bpd). Before the 2003 War, western oil prospecting firms estimated the total production potential from all 5 fields is at least 1.5 million bpd. But see note following.

Note: The Buzurgan field was the site of significant fighting during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war so it has not been prospected as throughly as the others. The 1.5 million bpd figure above does not include possible increases at the Buzurgan field.

The Majnoon field’s current output is only 50,000 bpd, but with its estimated reserves of 20 billion barrels, it is Iraq's largest field. Baghdad estimates that Majnoon alone could produce 600,000 bpd if investment money was available and a sharing deal struck with Iran. Note: Average world production of crude oil is 85 million bpd. Average world consumption is 84 million bpd. US daily consumption is 22 mpd, and our domestic producton is 7 mpd.

If Iraq does not soon reach an agreement on oil production and distribution of the oil revenues, then it is anticipated the Shia in Iraq will deal directly with the Shia in Iran. Americans GO HOME!

[edit on 2/20/2008 by donwhite]

Maybe if the coalition troops went in flying the Iraqi flag alongside their own (which is legal under the geneva conventions, I believe), and observed the local customs, they would have had a lot more support. I'm not arguing whether it was right or wrong to go in, just that the way we did it caused more problems than it solved, which in turn means we're going to be there longer. If we kept the Iraqi Army intact and started educating the Ba'athists by showing them what their cause had done, we wouldn't be fighting - the Iraqis would be fighting on their own. The Army was the power, not Saddam, and it was us removing the army that caused the power vacuum. If we'd thought about what happened after we went in (which we didn't, and not by a long shot), then we wouldn't have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. To free a country from the grip of a dictator, we needed to have the permission from most Iraqis. As we didn't, we couldn't expect them to want to help us. But I digress.

When enough citizens of the soverign nation of Iraq decide we should... or die trying.

The Democrats want us out now. If Hilary or Obama get the presidentcy then we will be out of their, at least in a major way. When the US set's up shop somewhere we rarely leave altogether. Also, the current Iraqi government doesn't want us to leave. Why would they, us being there keeps the power with them.

reply to post by resistor


Heh, that's exactly the post I was going to make when I read the original post. I'll add Japan to the list, too, off the top of my head, and there's probably lots of other countries they are still involved in some minor role or other.

Some day, years from now, I expect that Iraq will eventually become a fully autonomous state, but I don't expect Iraq to control its own destiny for another five or ten years, at least.

We most likely won't leave. The USA that is. I sometimes feel like a pig in a barn waiting for trackter to string me up so the farmer can slit my throat... I know all hell is going to break loose, but really have no where to go.

My reasoning on why we won't leave. As you know the NWO is the power and what is left of the constition is allowing us to continue this war. All our wars have been based ultimately off interests. Some of NWO interests could be oil, global democracy, unified currency and unified health care to name a few. Our constitution allows our government to protect our interests. So you have to ask yourself, what interest of theirs is most important and will it warrant the war to continue? My opinion is yes.

McCain trembles when surrounded by the presence of Bush's. I wonder why he seems so nervous when being endoursed by probably 2 of the most powerfull men in NWO. Although nervous he might be he should also feel relieved. With the interests of the NWO backing McCain a war hero, highly respected individual, who in all honesty probably began life as a great human being has his nomination nearly wrapped up and in the bag. With a few threat here and possibly some over there too McCain steps up to be our president and the war goes on, but we won't last long. McCains dream of 100 year war might not lost longer than 1-3 years.

posted by HruthTurts
We most likely won't leave. My reasoning on why we won't leave. As you know the NWO is the power . . All our wars have been based ultimately off interests. Some of NWO interests could be oil, global democracy, unified currency and unified health care to name a few. Our constitution allows our government to protect our interests. With the interests of the NWO backing McCain a war hero, highly respected individual, who in all honesty probably began life as a great human being has his nomination nearly wrapped up and in the bag. With a few threat here and possibly some over there too McCain steps up to be our president and the war goes on. McCain’s dream of 100 year war might not lost longer than 1-3 years.

We do not have enough resources to continue waging the WoT in the manner thoughtlessly chosen by B43. His ‘West of the Pecos’ response is too costly in men and materials. We’re nearing the #4,000 KIA in Iraq and there is no end in sight. Are we better of today that we were on March 18, 2003? Are those poor souls in Iraq about to join the 59,000 KIA in the Vietnam experiment who it must be admitted, died in vain for a non-cause?

I’m convinced the Iraqi Parliament will not reach a reconciliation as long as we are throwing TWO BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK around in Iraq. Can you imagine what $2 b. would buy here? Every week? Geez. Say hello Halliburton. Which company recently FLED Houston to Dubia to keep its records OUT of the hands of Congress in 2009.

In my opinion,never.
We never truly ever leave any country we get our claws into.
Were building one of the biggest embassies/bases in Iraq right now.
Since this war is called a "War on Terror",there will be no end.
Seeing as terror isnt a person or a group,its a idea and a tactic.
And therefore this war can never be won.
This war benefits the big oil companies and the military industrial complex.

**Double post**
Oops!

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Black_Fox]

Originally posted by Black_Fox
We never truly ever leave any country we get our claws into.

You mean like Germany at the end of WW2? If we had left as soon as the shooting was overwith, the Soviets would have overran the rest of the country. Our presence in Germany has significantly been reduced since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Fair enough. However, that doesn't explain why Americans still have troops in Germany 63 years later.

bah first I can't do math, then I can't remember the year WWII ended. 1945, 63 years. Done.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by DragonsDemesne]

[edit on 20-2-2008 by DragonsDemesne]

It’s looks now that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for the high office of president. History is being made. He stands well placed to be the first African American to be elected to our highest office. Well, he’s part African American. But that’s another topic. My free advice to Barack is to name Bill Richardson his VP choice. People of color will elect the next president. Brown, black and yes, white!

Unless John McCain should suffer a fatal heart attack - not likely - he will be the standard bearer for the Grand Old Party! And OLD is the operative word here. OLD and OUTDATED. John is not a throwaway candidate like Tom Dewey in 1944, he is a THROWBACK candidate. You know Barack polled more votes in the Arizona primary than did John McCain? Is that a portent of November 4?

Let’s play a game. Discount McCain who said we’d be in Iraq for 100 years. Be serious for a minute. Bush43 will begin withdrawing troops by July, 2008, to help McCain. Aside from being deceitful because the troops were already set to be withdrawn due to expiration of their tours, it will not help the GOPs. Too little, too late.

Obama takes office January 20, 2009. He makes his inaugural address from the Capitol's steps. "Subject to unforeseen set-backs," he will announce the immediate reassignment of the first troops out of the combat zone into a safe occupying zone. Then, he’ll promise to have half the troops out by the end of 2009 and the remainder except for a contingent to guard the Embassy, out by the end of 2010. Then for better or worse, the ill-conceived and poorly planned Bush43 adventure in nation building in Iraq will end. That and his futile and aimless chase for Osama bin Laden will be for the historians to debate. Remember Bush43 once said, "Dead or Alive!" with a wink?

America will have sustained 4,200 KIA, about 10,000 so severely wounded they will always be dependent on others, and about $1.4 t. in the red, to show for the Bush43 adventure. Yes, we can save a little by closing Guantanamo Bay ASAP. And shutting down the other SECRET prisons Bush43 has placed around the world. Freeing any more Americans held here in communicato by Bush43 as “enemy combatants.” His definition.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by donwhite]

Considering the situation in the Middle East, troops won't be pulled out of Iraq until a much better militarily strategic location can be found elsewhere.