Today's Poll: What's the future hold for Iraq?
None of the above. Iran invades Iraq within 12 months.
Well if that is the case, the United States would be excited and have a valid reason to invade Iran. Iran won't invade with military force knowing that this would allow the U.S. to attack. Iran has sent insurgents to help de-stabilized Iraq's government and help establish a pro-Iranian support.
Iran's interference along with the tensions amongst religion differences and tribal differences will probably collapse all that the U.S. has established over there. When I was there in 2010, I had Kurdish Soldiers worry about the U.S. pullout because, they felt the establish government will send Iraqi Forces to wipe out Kurdish Forces and take control of the Northern Oil Fields.
We need Obama to stop believing that the "tiny little country" of Iran does not pose a threat to the United States and her allies. Actually they can de-stabilize the world. Russians have just intercepted a package loaded with radioactive sodium inbound for Iran.
With this all said, Iraq does have the means to sustain itself as long as they acknowledge the threat and initiate programs to help block the threat. I do believe we may go back to Iraq but, maybe as an ally of Iraq against Iran.
John, you don't have any faith in the contractors who are replacing the troops? All of Obama's photo ops of the troops coming home don't show kid's waving goodbye to their mothers and fathers who are replacing them.
Look for nothing but lasting peace because that's what President Obama told us in what ranks as one the most hypocritical speeches ever made by a sitting US President:
"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war." Barak Obama on Iraq 2002
"You will know that you answered when your country called, you served a cause greater than yourselves, you helped forge a just and lasting peace with Iraq and among all nations." Barak Obama two days ago
"A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." Barak Obama on Iraq 2002
"Because of you – because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny,” Barak Obama two days ago
"We should be more modest in our belief that we can impose democracy on a country through military force. In the past, it has been movements for freedom from within tyrannical regimes that have led to flourishing democracies" Barak Obama on Iraq 2007
"But we're leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people." Barak Obama two days ago
"We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad." Barak Obama on Iraq 2008
"Because of you, in Afghanistan we've broken the momentum of the Taliban.
Because of you, we've begun a transition to the Afghans that will allow us to bring our troops home from there. And around the globe, as we draw down in Iraq, we have gone after al-Qaeda so that terrorists who threaten America will have no safe haven." Barak Obama two days ago
"So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer." Barak Obama on Iraq 2008
"That's part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don't make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it's right....
...That success was never guaranteed. And let us never forget the source of American leadership: our commitment to the values that are written into our founding documents and a unique willingness among nations to pay a great price for the progress of human freedom and dignity." Barak Obama two days ago
He basically maintained his predecessors position, strategy, and timetable for withdrawal, then stood up there two days ago and made it look as though his leadership and brilliance were responsible for this outcome. I wanted to vomit and every person who supported Obama's pre-presidency Iraq stance should have wanted to also.
Ten years ago the war against Iraq began with the stream of lies and mis-information coming straight from the Bush/Cheney administartion, first they banged the drum conflating the 911 attack with Iraq, then it was weapons of mass destruction that they knew either did not exist or had been degraded in the 10-12 years since the first Iraq war that neutralized the weapons which were gleefully provide by the Reagan/Bush administration to be a thorn in the side of Iran. Now, the neo-conservatives cry out that it's a cut and run on the part of the Obama administration from a war predicated on one lie built upon another. It's time for the U.S. to fold its tent and remove itself from the area, no more troops and no more contractors one the taxpayers dime. After last nights GOP debate, Ron Paul has come very close to winning my vote if he chooses to run.
Ed, the Senate voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. The House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.
Are you saying that Bush and Cheney were smart enough to pull the wool over everyone's eyes? I thought liberals believe that Bush and Cheney were the biggest buffoons to ever stroll through Washington DC.
The House supported the president’s measure 296-133. Voting against the resolution were 126 Democrats, six Republicans and one independent (Vermont’s Bernard Sanders). Had the 81 Democratic representatives who supported the war bill voted with the opposition, the measure still would have passed, but only by one vote, 215-214, a majority so small it may have imposed restraints on a wildly adventurous White House. House minority leader Dick Gephardt (MO), another liberal, was a strong supporter of a new war. In 1991, 179 Democrats voted against war.
Had the 29 Democratic Senators who voted to support a new war cast their ballots in opposition, the resolution would have been defeated 52-48—sufficient to scuttle the GOP’s war plans. Liberals such as Clinton, Dianne Feinstein (CA), and John Kerry (MA), supported the Bush administration’s go-it-alone war plan, despite a deluge of pleas from constituents to vote otherwise.
The facts speak loud and clear, Ed. If there's blame to go around for invading Iraq, it clearly falls on both parties, not on two men. Please give that tired, old argument a rest.
Ed, actually there were WMD located in Iraq. However, the U.N. was delayed by Saddam's antics. Right now Syria and Iran have a large stock pile of Iraqi chemical weapons. Remember back in late 2003 or early 2004, we had a convoy unit hit by an IED which, contained a chemical agent. Second, do you believe Saddam was stupid? He is the same man that buried sixty (60) fighter under the sand. The only reason we discovered it was because, the sand shifted and exposed a tail fin of a fighter and upon investigation recovered the sixty fully fueled and armed.
Now we have a President that backs up the muslim brotherhood which are anti-American. We have Americans who believe America has caused the radical muslims to attack, when we contribute more aid and assistance to islamic nations of the world, then anyone else.
I would vote for Ron Paul if, he was not so weak in his foreign relations policies. I am not saying the U.S. needs to be aggressive but, we need to stop turning a blind eye to the real threats. Islam is a religion forged by war. It is not as peaceful as it is described. It is said they welcome Christians and Jews alike but, only as second class citizens and/or slaves.
I do not want the United States to keep fighting wars but, we need to protect our allies and ourself from these threats. I have been deployed numerous times and have not ever enjoyed any of them, it removes me from my family.
Am I mistaken in thinking that through the Clinton years we heard about the wmds that Sadam had and had sanctions on Iraq for just that reason? Dumocrats only see what they want to see.
Who cares what happens in Iraq or Iran? As long as our guys are out, let them rot.
Maybe I've been listening to Ron Paul too much...
Listening to Republicans and Democrats argue over wars executed by representatives of both parties reminds me of horse track denizens who insist that the races are fixed. ...Especially those who's party is not in the White House, trudging to the Parimutuel window, muttering, "I'm due..."
Obama was only following the law by getting all the troops out by the end of 2011..It was George Bush and Condolisa Rice who forged this agreement and signed it into law in 2008...Give credit were credit is due...Obama had nothing to do with this agreement...
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.
Charlie, no sympathy for the contractors?
This video proves Obama can flip flop Newt/Romney style about using contractors.
I love the line at the end when he says "a monopoly on violence"
Rex, here's the result of those Clinton sanction's.
Madeleine Albright defends the death of 500,000 children.
Ron Paul's position on foreign policy is one actually of strength, not weakness. It's also the morally right and economically sound policy. It's a policy that will make America stronger and safer.
Ron Paul I think has a pretty good shot of winning Iowa, he's peaking in the same way that Kerry did in '04 a few weeks before the caucuses. From what I hear his campaign's organizational capacity, energy and enthusiasm blows Gingrich and Romney's out of the water. I won't make a prediction right now, but if they were held today, I'd say that Paul wins by roughly 3-5%. He's already polling in the top teir consistently and a win in Iowa may make him the front-runner. So, in my view, he's anything but weak.
I am also not by any stretch of the imagination a Paul supporter.
Howard, I'm thinking you didn't see \the last debate. Ron Paul proved that he has about the same grasp on reality that obama has.
If we leave them alone, the'll leave us alone??!!?? Are you serious?? They want us "infidels" dead. Period. No matter the cost. No matter our foreign policy. Jihad must be accomplished throughout the world.
Ron Paul has about as much chance at being elected President as my dog. To say many of his views are extreme puts it mildly, he decries the concept of pork yet lavishes it upon his own Congressional District, and to this day he has yet to give a plausible explanation for previous statements and writings that lead one to believe he has some racist opinions.
He likely will do well in Iowa. I believe it will be the apex of his campaign, followed by a very long nadir and concluding with his retirement from Congress next year. On the up side, he'll have much free more time available to dialogue w/ Alex Jones.
Who exactly would want to live in Ron Paul's America? Is disengagement your definition of strong? How do you negotiate with someone who's sole goal is to kill you?
You can try to re-write history if you like but the facts are the facts. The bottom line is the U.S. invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, misinformation and propaganda that bothe political parties were sucked into. There were no WMD, no nuclear program, connection to the 9/11 attack, and no threat to the U.S.. The net result is Iran emerging as the winner in this geo-political game bought and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers, killed and injured troops and a legacy that contradicts all that we claim to stand for.
Ron Paul's opposistion has been consistant regarding Iraq and our invasion, and to the dis-appointment of the GOP correct in his predictions of the outcome of the mis-adventure.
Just to add a little info to this post, you might want to read a book I just finished that covers this subject in spades.
"The Way Of The World" written by Ron Suskind
A story of truth and hope in an age of extremism.
It really doesn't matter who was in power when this whole mess in Iraq commmenced, both parties have to bear some blame. The fact the war was started on the heels of the 9/11 attacks, and the emotional state of the American people, led us all to be duped by our elected leaders. I'm leaning towards Ron Paul as the next president of the USA.
I'm not interested in foreign policy, our biggest problems are domestic. Until we fix our economy, lower the countries debt, and secure our own borders, what happens in other countries is not our top priority.
If our politicians can find a way to get our economy going, the rest will take care of itself.
Terry no I do not have faith in contractors that replace our troops. Especially, since most of them are from other country and work for pennies. I had a company (contractor) hired workers from an African nation who just finish a few years ago, an eleven year civil war. Half are muslim and half christians. They carried AK-47s to guard our base. Most of them did not want to be there but, were getting paid $250.00 USD, per month. If they quit they had to pay back the company for the airfare it cost them for transport.
I find it interesting that people hold a blind eye and believe America will be stronger and safer if, we try to play nice with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc....... It amazes me that people believe this. Maybe certain people should read up on radical muslim's thoughts and goals. Right now America has not suffer another 9-11 because, we still carry the fight over there. No one wants are soldiers to died in vain. Think of the properganda they can use if, the U.S. pulls out. The defeat of two super powers would be a huge win in their eyes.
Economically, it would help in some areas. However, it would also hurt.
Do we really believe Iran will play nice? Do you really believe North Korea will play nice?
As long as there is political, religious, ethnical, and cultural differences, this world will never know "True Peace!"
As long as there is political, religious, ethnical, and cultural differences, this world will never know "True Peace!"
Is that quote from Genghis Khan, the British East India Company or George Grant?
What does it matter whom said it originally Cm? There has never been true peace ever, anywhere on this planet. From one celled organisms to us it is our very nature to want whatever it is we dont have and if we see someone weaker that has it, we take it. From early humans taking one anothers hunting land and or women to corporate wars for taking our incomes. Even if humanity was wiped from exsistance there would be no true peace. at least til God actively intervenes in the world again.
Peace is an ideal that humanity can strive for but will never attain on its own....ever.
For one thing- I get a shiver whenever anyone uses the words 'always,' 'never' and 'impossible.' If anyone had suggested forty years ago that Americans would be paying for and consuming, en masse, bottled water...
More urgently, I find it particularly un-American (don't forget; our nation's motto WAS E Pluribus Unum) to read that tenets our nation was founded upon have been rendered obsolete by cynicism (or intolerance- whichever fits). Political, religious, ethnic, racial and cultural differences only become divisions when economic disparity and scapegoating converge to yield fear. ...And as a great man once said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." That was an American president's advice to a nation gripped by financial collapse- stark contrast juxtaposed with his German counterpart's casting of blame. The balance of FDR's inaugural address follows:
"I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our people impel. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.
"In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things. Values have shrunken to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
"More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.
"Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men.
"True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish.
"The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.
"Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. The joy and moral stimulation of work no longer must be forgotten in the mad chase of evanescent profits. These dark days will be worth all they cost us if they teach us that our true destiny is not to be ministered unto but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow men.
"Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Small wonder that confidence languishes, for it thrives only on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection, on unselfish performance; without them it cannot live.
"Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.
"Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources.
"Hand in hand with this we must frankly recognize the overbalance of population in our industrial centers and, by engaging on a national scale in a redistribution, endeavor to provide a better use of the land for those best fitted for the land. The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products and with this the power to purchase the output of our cities. It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly.
"Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.
"There are the lines of attack. I shall presently urge upon a new Congress in special session detailed measures for their fulfillment, and I shall seek the immediate assistance of the several States.
"Through this program of action we address ourselves to putting our own national house in order and making income balance outgo. Our international trade relations, though vastly important, are in point of time and necessity secondary to the establishment of a sound national economy. I favor as a practical policy the putting of first things first. I shall spare no effort to restore world trade by international economic readjustment, but the emergency at home cannot wait on that accomplishment.
"The basic thought that guides these specific means of national recovery is not narrowly nationalistic. It is the insistence, as a first consideration, upon the interdependence of the various elements in all parts of the United States—a recognition of the old and permanently important manifestation of the American spirit of the pioneer. It is the way to recovery. It is the immediate way. It is the strongest assurance that the recovery will endure.
"In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.
"If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.
"With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.
"Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.
"It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure.
"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption.
"But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis—broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.
"For the trust reposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less.
"We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life.
"We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.
Political, religious, ethnic, racial and cultural differences only become divisions when economic disparity and scapegoating converge to yield fear....
This statement above that you made makes absolutely no sense, even when there is no economic disparity or scapegoating, these diffrences are still the root cause, as a matter of fact our own continent's american indians had the wealth of the bounty of this land we live in and they warred and slaughtered each other over political, ethnic and cultural differences. Go down to South America where native tribes with no financial system in place war with each other over religious political and culture differences.
Sorry all your FDR quote did was show in the long run we havent learned from our mistake as we are at the edge of a precipice, looking down into a chasm, which at its bottom hold darker times than FDR's.... With big business,and our polticians pushing us all as a whole from behind. So much for lessons learned.
C.M. what third world countries have you been to? What countries other then Pro-U.S. have you been to? Did you speak to the locals? Have you learned about them, other then from a book? Where does my statement, "As long as there is political, religious, ethnical, and cultural differences, this world will never know "True Peace!", not hold true? Do you believe that this world can set aside all their differences and make nice with each other. Can we make everyone happy?
Now granted there are some of us who can get along with one another but, this does not hold true for others. I have friends that are Iranian, Iraqi, Kurdish, Israeli, Chinese, Korean, etc...... I do know that if, I visited Iran I would be endanger because, I am different in many ways such as, I am Christian and do not pray five times a day, I live in a free society and do as I please, I may wave with my left hand or display the bottom of my feet which, Iranians would view as a major insult.
Oh I doubt highly Genghis Khan would care about "True Peace", he would use fear to control it or the British East India Company as well, they might care if, the bottom line was effected.