US Troops Out of IRAQ by Jan 1, 2012

FoxNews is Reporting:

Iraq Government sets dates for US Troop withdrawls.

July 1, 2009 for all US Troops to be out of all Major Cities in Iraq.
January 1, 2012 for all US Troops to be OUT of Iraq.

The only caveat is that Iraq can ask for US Military Advisory Staff to stay if needed for Iraq Troop Training.

Happy ThanksGiving !

Hopefully being out of Iraq doesn't mean in Iran or Afghanistan.

By 2012, the Iraqi's should have everything under control and not need us anymore.

So that means we will be in Iraq throughout Obama's whole term in office?

I wonder how Obama supporters feel about this? I wonder if they are going to protest this also?

reply to post by slated


I think you might have hit the nail on the head there. My son-in-law is in the Royal Navy and they have had some unexpected call-backs.

We still have to hope it quietens down though.

Woody

reply to post by RRconservative


"July 1, 2009 for all US Troops to be out of all Major Cities in Iraq. "

I feel great, by the way.

Originally posted by davion
reply to post by RRconservative

 

"July 1, 2009 for all US Troops to be out of all Major Cities in Iraq. "

I feel great, by the way.

Isn't it great though! To be slowly withdrawing from Iraq in the form of a victory! Thanks President Bush! Thanks John McCain for seeing the surge through. Can you imagine the mess over there if we would have followed Obama's retreat for defeat plan?

2012? By then we'll be at war with someone else. (ex.Russia, Venezuela,Iran,N.Korea,etc)

[edit on 11/27/2008 by Andre Neves]

reply to post by Evisscerator


please God it all goes according to plan, and the last man is out by 2012.
The Mumbai atrocity may further destabilise the region though.

reply to post by Andre Neves


You're probably right. There's always a war going on somewhere, it's just a matter of whether we get sucked into another one. (Or if we stick our noses where they don't belong in the name of democracy.)

It's great news though that they feel they will be ready to handle everything on their own by then. Here's hoping nothing happens to change their minds and that nothing horrible happens when we're completely out.

reply to post by RRconservative


A victory?

How much of that has been accomplished?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

In any event, we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by davion]

I'm sure my brother has already received the good news...That he is stuck in a hell created by corporate America because someone, somewhere wasn't playing ball, for the next three freakin' years. We should have been out of there yesterday damn it.

They don't care about us, we don't belong there and never did. How on Earth this is a victory in anyones' eyes is beyond me. We took heavy loses financially and sacrificed MANY of our boys and girls, killed a whole bunch of Iraqis in the process, tortured the hell out of people out of mere suspicion, lied about the reasons we invaded in the first place, lied to cover up that lie, and then continued to lie. We got robbed by the same people we awarded contracts to in order to help rebuild Iraq. We even got robbed by two CIA agents who are still on the run to this day, and we did so by allowing a lawless environment to permeate beyond our scope of control. We took ideological sides during the Civil War that broke out for some time further driving the divide between ethnic groups in Iraq.

Then, in a country whose population was largely wiped out by sectarian violence and military action, we sent in a wave of new troops and called it a success because there was no one left alive to kill anymore.

www.reuters.com...

The images support the view of international refugee organizations and Iraq experts that a major population shift was a key factor in the decline in sectarian violence, particularly in the Iraqi capital, the epicenter of the bloodletting in which hundreds of thousands were killed.

This is the success we're leaving behind. We caused, by the invasion to begin with, the death of an entire nation by the hundreds of thousands. And some dare call this a success. Talk about tunnel vision.



[edit on 28-11-2008 by projectvxn]

Originally posted by davion
reply to post by RRconservative

 

In any event, we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by davion]

BS!!!! On SO many levels, nothing but pure BS!

We began to fight back against terror starting with the nation that was misbehaving the most regarding middle-eastern terrorism, and that was Iraq run by none other than Saddam Hussein.

Shouldn't have been there in the first place, MY ASS.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by sos37]

reply to post by sos37


There are NO links to Saddam and State Sponsored Terrorism. Even the President has admitted this.

We never cared for the cultural aspects of invading the Middle East, because of this we have suffered greatly, American and Iraqi alike. Iraq is not an extension of the War on Terror and never has been. It has on the other hand served wonderfully as a cause of terrorism.

reply to post by sos37

While some of the designated state sponsors have taken steps to accede to the international norms of combating terrorism, others—notably Iraq, Iran, and North Korea—have done little to comply. Iraq, through its intelligence service, prepared for possible attacks against Western targets and was a safehaven, transit point, and operational base for terrorist organizations that included members of al-Qaida. Iran, for its part, remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism during 2002. It has provided funding, training, and weapons to Central Asian and anti-Israeli terrorist groups. In addition, some members of these groups, as well as al-Qaida, have found safehaven in Iran.

Source: US Department of State's Report on Terrorism in 2002

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003: Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Ministry of Intelligence and Security personnel were involved in planning and support for terrorist acts. Although Iran detained al-Qaida operatives in 2003, it refused to identify senior members in custody. Tehran continued to encourage anti-Israel activities, both operationally and rhetorically, providing logistic support and training to Lebanese Hizballah and a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups.

Source: US Department of State's Report on Terrorism in 2003

Was Iraq the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism?
No, according to the State Department, which gives that title to neighboring Iran. The State Department has listed Iraq as one of seven states that sponsor terrorism, but experts say Iran, Syria, and, at least in the past, Pakistan, all surpassed Iraq in support for terrorists.

Source: Council of Foreign Relations

So, according to you we went into Iraq because it was the "hot spot", but according to the government the "hot spot" was Iran during the years of 2002-2003. In fact, according to the recent 2007 report Iran is STILL the most active in sponsoring terrorism and harboring terrorists, and it has remained the most active as far back as the reports go (2000).

By your logic we should have been in Iran rather than Iraq.

So what's your explanation, did they draw from a hat and Iraq was the pick?


[edit on 29-11-2008 by davion]