What is Digg?234 Comments
- OC73, on 08/13/2008, -6/+60The only thing confirmed here is a draft agreement and it pertains only to combat troops leaving Iraq. Thousands of troops will nonetheless remain for some time in a stabilizing/peacekeeping role.
- inactive, on 08/14/2008, -2/+48"all US combat troops will leave the country within three years"
That does NOT translate to "all US troops". - Waiting2awake, on 08/14/2008, -7/+50They found the WMDS?
- commenter01, on 08/14/2008, -11/+51pull out in 3 years. damn. you can be sure she's pregnant by then.
- MrFurious2k, on 08/14/2008, -3/+42Good to know. When are we pulling out of Germany?
- Hangly, on 08/14/2008, -2/+35I'd like to see it confirmed by someone within the US administration if you don't mind.
- inactive, on 08/14/2008, -7/+30Only made possible HOW??
Because the violence is down and Iraq army is training and taking over...
Iran deals to sell arms to local insurgents down....
Can we NOW give credit to troops where credit is do? Because it WAS the armed forces and not politicians that made this happen.
Or is some liberal gonna say something stupid like Obama made this possible?!?! - enclaved, on 08/14/2008, -3/+26Yeah because they're trustworthy.
- PleaseJustDie, on 08/14/2008, -0/+21Yeah, but at least a majority of the troops will come back, this will just become a duty station like we have in so many other parts of the world, like Korea, Japan, Italy, Germany, etc.
- Shogi, on 08/14/2008, -1/+22And they said nothing at all about contractors.
- IPublius, on 08/14/2008, -0/+18This is good news for the military. They have been strained quite a bit by having both conflicts going at the same time. Some of the combat troops will undoubtedly end up in Afghanistan, but the total number deployed will be far fewer. This will give the military time to rotate combat vets to training centers and apply lessons learned. Something they have only been haphazardly been able to do for the last several years. Hopefully it will also give the military time to treat soldiers suffering from post combat problems.
- inactive, on 08/14/2008, -2/+19That's what we said!
...4 years ago. - inactive, on 08/14/2008, -6/+22Just because the war might be over (it could just as easily flare up again), does not mean it was a just war in any way.
- malex, on 08/14/2008, -3/+18Tarree's seemly nonsensical statement reminds me of a story:
An amateur magician invites a strong man from the audience to join him on stage. He gives the man a sledge hammer and instructs him to strike him on the top of his head. The man does so, and the magician's skull makes a dull cracking noise as he collapses to the floor and bleeds profusely.
6 years later, the magician wakes from a coma and exclaims "TA DAAA!" - kidathinnes, on 08/14/2008, -6/+17Or maybe they don't want us there. Bad news for war mongering neocons.
- inactive, on 08/14/2008, -27/+37When do the war crimes trials start?
- sodoh, on 08/14/2008, -3/+12Your joking right? I am going to ignore the Bush Administration as that is too easy a target, but there have been a large number of war crimes by non-government bodies.
Profiteering, illegal detention, torture, to name a few. - stix213, on 08/14/2008, -1/+10Cue "Mission Accomplished" banner
- mescad, on 08/14/2008, -2/+11Nobody from the (current) US administration will be around in 3 years anyway.
- Equinox1, on 08/14/2008, -3/+12I'll believe it when i see it.
- brstilson, on 08/14/2008, -0/+8This war put our economy in tatters, no he wasn't right.
- SpudgeBoy, on 08/14/2008, -1/+8By contractors, do you mean the 180k mercenaries?
Contractors fold shirts. - inactive, on 08/14/2008, -0/+7Or the security personal for the Embassy that is the size of Manhattan island...
- TheSabre, on 08/14/2008, -2/+9SpudgeBoy: Cite, please.
- CosmicJustice, on 08/14/2008, -4/+11If Bush is so duplicitous, such an evil genius, why didn't he just plant WMD's and then find them?
- Spoomeister, on 08/14/2008, -1/+8"provided the violence remains low" being the key phrase.
- kidathinnes, on 08/14/2008, -5/+11Exactly what were you right about? Please explain. That you can simultaneously destroy another country's infrastructure and flatten your own economy at the same time? Or that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. Or that the mission was "accomplished" on May 1, 2003? If you were right about one ***** thing please explain.
At least the Iraqi occupation made the US and the world safer after 9/11, and it didn't become a hotbed/training ground for more terrorists. Wait.. - IPublius, on 08/14/2008, -2/+8Not necessarily. I know the Iraqis somewhat and their objective is to run their own country by themselves. There is not a real need for it anyway as we have effectively permanent base camps in Kuwait with the Kuwaiti government's permission. Better for the soldiers too. If memory serves, since the end of the first gulf war we have lost less than a dozen troops in Kuwait to violent actions.
- inactive, on 08/14/2008, -0/+6pulling out, only to slide that steaming hot military into Iran/Russia/Sudan/Afghanistan/Kashmir/Pakistan/Israel/Syria ?
- SpudgeBoy, on 08/14/2008, -0/+6Yes, we know, you support the fascists.
- inactive, on 08/14/2008, -1/+7War? it was never a War, well maybe a day or two but after that is has been an Occupation.
- solid12345, on 08/14/2008, -1/+6When the Germans run out of crappy souvenir steins to sell to our troops outside their base.
- solboldi, on 08/14/2008, -5/+10"after a surge of US forces in 2007 helped to push violence to its lowest levels in 4½ years."
- EvilLordBanana, on 08/14/2008, -2/+7We look like ***** morons to the rest of the world already for going in there in the first place.
- dafragsta, on 08/14/2008, -0/+5I guess you have to ask yourself if they are threatening us or Israel. Israel is not a US interest. They are big boys and we've sold them a lot of big guns.
My point was that soldiers are equipped and trained to protect, not to invade. - inactive, on 08/14/2008, -0/+5Not like we are going to walk away from the bases we built.
- HookmasterCH47, on 08/14/2008, -1/+6Does Bush know about this?
- SpudgeBoy, on 08/14/2008, -8/+12No, we are specifically talking about the war crimes committed by Bush and company. Too many to catch you up now, so just sit back and watch.
- clsslc, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4Thank God.
- kigcoopa84, on 08/14/2008, -3/+7spudgeboy not everything (more like anything) the huffinton post publishes is true.
- BESTenemy, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4 On the radio they said that the deal means that about 20 000 troops will be out of Iraq in 3 years and 150 000 more will withdraw gradually by 2020 if the deal is approved and stays in effect in the next 12 years.
What are the chances of any deal surviving 3 presidential terms? - diggerine, on 08/14/2008, -7/+11Wouldn't you just love for the war to "flare up", so that you can say Bush and the US failed in Iraq?
Don't you just hate it when they succeed in defeating the Iraqi insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq?
Next thing you know, the Iraqis might actually thank the US for ridding the country of Saddam, and then helping to stabilize the country, steadfastly persisting despite long odds, despite the liberal naysayers and ill-wishers who badly wished for American failure as the end-result. Oh the horror! The horror of American success!
But take heart, when the US military withdraws, there's always the possibility of the Iraqi government collapsing amidst internal turmoil and civil war. And then you can trumpet the failure of American foreign policy.
Oh, wait... Obama would be president by then! Not to worry, you could always blame it on Bush. But of course, if the Iraqis succeed in maintaining a peaceful and prosperous country, it was always to their credit and not to any US help.
The rule here on Digg is: NEVER GIVE BUSH AND THE USA ANY CREDIT. NEVER, EVER, EVER! - LonesomeFighter, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4it also depends on Iraq continuing to have low violence. I doubt it will pick up much since the terrorists are more focussed on Afghanistan right now, but who knows.
Even if the US for some weird reason decided to fully leave, it would take about a year to just bring everything back to the states. - NeoHomer, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5We ain't gonna get out of there, ever. We never left Japan, Germany, Korea...the list goes on and on.
When we kick someones ass, we will remain there for many, many years. As it should be.
Just wait, Russia is next. - las3rjock, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4@AssJuice: Actual wars are declared by Congress, so what we've had is a unilateral invasion followed by an occupation.
- yojiffyskippy, on 08/14/2008, -2/+6No, even the Iraqis know that Obama isn't going to pull out the troops. It's just another empty promise that only the very narrow minded or mentally challenged are willing to believe.
- thebaron2, on 08/14/2008, -1/+5How about the military having a say in military matters, like, oh I don't know, troop levels, deployment strategy, and withdrawal timetables?
- yojiffyskippy, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4Oh it will remain low now for sure. The insurgents would be foolish to continue the fight now knowing that the enemy will be pulling out in a couple years. If they have any intelligence at all, they'll spend these next few years regrouping, restocking, and planning.
- LAWriter, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4B-b-b-but I thought calling for a timetable was defeatist and Un-american? Won't this embolden the "terrorists," you know, those Iraqis who won't submit to our boots on their faces.
- BrewBeau, on 08/14/2008, -0/+4Do you mean, one of the many defining flaws?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 236 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is