Official: Obama announced U.S. pulling out all troops from Iraq VIDEO

Originally posted by InshaAllah
Yeah pullout of Iraq enter Iran

and folks say ww3 predictions are a joke, wait till we upset china n russia for that matter.

WWIII is a given. It will at least be simmering before November of 2012. It might not come to a full boil until just after the election.

Everything is lining up to be NATO vs. BRIC.

Now, if this is just a typical world war, then a treaty will eventually unfold that forgives all the international debt and splits up the resources of some key areas among the superpowers and rapes the little guys yet again.

BUT, if this is a biblical war, then NATO will eventually bail out on the US, and it will be US/Israel vs. World by the end of the war.

They were having a press conference and a *small* number will be
left for protecting the US ambassadorial complex. hmmmm

Obama is no difference from Bush in terms of foreign policies and he has been lying since his election rallies.

United States and its allies should stop meddling with Middle East countries. It's only a matter of time before mother nature says enough is enough and deliver blows of disasters overnight.

I believe there were around 150k troops in Iraq when Obama took office.

He withdrew all but 50k in 2009...and now he is bringing the rest home.

I honestly don't see the issue with this strategy, except that Obama haters have to hate on something.

Nothing he does will ever be good enough for some of you...just admit it.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by InshaAllah
Yeah pullout of Iraq enter Iran

and folks say ww3 predictions are a joke, wait till we upset china n russia for that matter.

WWIII is a given. It will at least be simmering before November of 2012. It might not come to a full boil until just after the election.

Everything is lining up to be NATO vs. BRIC.

Now, if this is just a typical world war, then a treaty will eventually unfold that forgives all the international debt and splits up the resources of some key areas among the superpowers and rapes the little guys yet again.

BUT, if this is a biblical war, then NATO will eventually bail out on the US, and it will be US/Israel vs. World by the end of the war.

4,483 have been lost in iraq and afghanistan.
A ww3 will most likely be nuclear one way or another..

We might loose more then just soldiers, lets pray everything chills out.

I have a feeling TPTB have had this planned for a while.

We are just going to replace them with more contractors and mercenaries, so don't expect spending to decrease.

This is nothing but a political ploy for re-election, we'll be back.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think there are less than 50k troops still in Iraq to pull out.

And what is this talk about going in to Iran....let's think about that.

If you were planning on attacking Iran....wouldn't you want to keep your troops in Iraq as a base of operations???

Or should be pull them out, all our equipment out and bring them home???


You guys just hate Obama and nothing will ever ever satisfy you.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I believe there were around 150k troops in Iraq when Obama took office.

He withdrew all but 50k in 2009...and now he is bringing the rest home.

I honestly don't see the issue with this strategy, except that Obama haters have to hate on something.

Nothing he does will ever be good enough for some of you...just admit it.

I am VERY glad it is happening.. No i'm not really into Obama.
A lot of people believe this is just a ploy to put troops else where
and I hope they are wrong.

I just hope IRAQ does not go rouge crazy again, but the money saved
will be a boost in itself.

The money on these wars is a terrible waste.

We have spent and had enough people killed.

reply to post by Meekbot2000


Agree with the drone/airstrike angle. I personally do not think we would initially put troops on the ground in Iran. Iran is a totally different sort of terrain than Iraq, and it is also a much larger country. It would be much harder to subdue Iran than Iraq. If we attack Iran, it would be from the Arabian Sea -- if on the ground through the Afghanistan/Pakistan side. Perhaps India would grant us bases on their territory if we give them somme of Pakistan (Kashmir) after the smoke clears. China would stay out of it if we gave them part of Pakistan too. Israel would go in from the west.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You're right, we do hate his ass.

The sooner he is out of office, the better. I can't stand someone who lies through their teeth, that completely ignores the will of the people. and panders to the swaying moment of political tension. He's opportunist and a professional speech giver, nothing more.

Originally posted by DeusVult
reply to post by Meekbot2000

 

Agree with the drone/airstrike angle. I personally do not think we would initially put troops on the ground in Iran. Iran is a totally different sort of terrain than Iraq, and it is also a much larger country. It would be much harder to subdue Iran than Iraq. If we attack Iran, it would be from the Arabian Sea -- if on the ground through the Afghanistan/Pakistan side. Perhaps India would grant us bases on their territory if we give them somme of Pakistan (Kashmir) after the smoke clears. China would stay out of it if we gave them part of Pakistan too. Israel would go in from the west.

Unless the ante was upped, and nuclear warheads are used..

reply to post by haarvik


Actually he is simply taking political advantage of already existing military strategy brought to him by national security officials and top military brass, along with the secretary of defense.

Getting out of Iraq as soon as possible was an essential move in preparation for potential conflicts in Syria and Iran.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I agree, if we were going into Iran, then staying in Iraq would make more sense. That was the Bush plan all along. I've assumed that was the sole reason we are still in Iraq. So, the drawdown does seem contradictive to that scenario.

We don't need many troops for Syria, we could launch an invasion there rather quickly, so it is still on the table.

In reality though, I see us drawing down Iraq, beefing up Afghanistan (both popular things), and then tapping India for covert operations and eventually hitting Pakistan in full force. That is the scenario that draws in Russia and China.

We have effectively been working to replace China with India as our #1 trade partner. India wants to see Pakistan suffer. Pakistan is still supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran really isn't a threat to us anywhere except Iraq, so we don't need to attack them.

I see us drawing down Iraq, quietly boosting up Afghanistan, arming Israel an letting them attack Iran and Syria at some point, while we build infrastructure with India. Then we launch a 2 way strike on Pakistan after some false flag next summer, while Israel strikes out against its neighbors. Saudi and Iraq lend real estate and bases for NATO support. Russia resupplies Pak and Iran. China either defends Pak, or takes over Taiwan in the chaos.

And where did I say anything negative about Obama? Sure, I think he is a failure as a president, but I didn't say it yet, and I voted for the guy, so I can criticize him all I want, LOL!

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

You're right, we do hate his ass.

The sooner he is out of office, the better. I can't stand someone who lies through their teeth, that completely ignores the will of the people. and panders to the swaying moment of political tension. He's opportunist and a professional speech giver, nothing more.

Oh, I would love to see all of the examples of him lying through his teeth.

I really would...please post some.

Here is the official video fresh off the press.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


1. If we pass this stimulus, unemployment will not go above 8%.

2. The American people want this healthcare legislation passed.

3. The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime.

4. We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil.

5. We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care.

Shall I continue?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I agree, if we were going into Iran, then staying in Iraq would make more sense. That was the Bush plan all along. I've assumed that was the sole reason we are still in Iraq. So, the drawdown does seem contradictive to that scenario.

With a successful outcome in Libya... Shifting strategy to a similar mode with Iran and Syria would be a wise and logical change in the over all Middle East strategy.

Staying in Iraq is unnecessary, and risky.

If Israel strikes Iran's nuclear facilities and that escalates, Iran retaliates, the US is drawn into the conflict, Iran could target all US forces in Iraq for retaliation... They would literally be sitting ducks.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

"By the end of the year" is only 2 months away! So, they better be packing up now! I hope it is true also. Hopefully they will all be home for Christmas.

Although, this doesn't do much to help the unemployment and economy situation, but it is still great for the families involved!!

Now, the real question, are they going to Iran, Syria, or Pakistan next?

Thats the frightening part of this whole thread. It has the whole leaving one field of operations for another stink all over it.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I could see that scenario you laid out being a possibility...but on a 5-10 year span...maybe even a 10-20 year span.

Right now...I don't see any new major military engagements for at least 2 years...definately not before the election.

Guess he got all the oil he needed..& now it's time to am-scray.