Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So then, what's the real difference?
Kuwait gets all our nations wealth that will be spent to maintain troops in the region instead of Iraq.
Our troops will no longer be in a situation where a foreign govt could prosecute them.
Thats about it.
Let's just hope and pray that we never have a reason to go back in. But that if we do we have an administration in place that will take care of business............
Well, the Kuwaitis are very good to their own people and in general are an asset to the international community with their emphasis on literacy.
So then, what's the real difference?
Kuwait gets all our nations wealth that will be spent to maintain troops in the region instead of Iraq.
Our troops will no longer be in a situation where a foreign govt could prosecute them.
Thats about it.
12/31/11 Was a date set by President Bush in the infamous shoe throwin' press conference.
Bush offered Maliki the date of December 31, 2011 for all combat forces to withdraw from Iraq. Maliki countered that the end of 2011 sounded just fine, but that all American forces would be gone by then. Bush reluctantly agreed to this, and to the June, 2009 deadline for American troops to be out of Iraqi cities.
Chris Weigant: Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Timeline
12/31/11 Was a date set by President Bush in the infamous shoe throwin' press conference.
Chris Weigant: Obama's Iraq Withdrawal TimelineBush offered Maliki the date of December 31, 2011 for all combat forces to withdraw from Iraq. Maliki countered that the end of 2011 sounded just fine, but that all American forces would be gone by then. Bush reluctantly agreed to this, and to the June, 2009 deadline for American troops to be out of Iraqi cities.
....and we have always been at war with Eastasia
But it's Obama's plan!
Democrats increase pressure on Bush for phased troop withdrawal ...
Nov 13, 2006 · Democrats increase pressure on Bush for phased troop withdrawal ... possibility of talks with both Iran ... Senate sets deadline for withdrawal of troops from Iraq
You're right, SFC Ollie. If we leave, they will just start killing each other again because their jihad requires them to kill people. At least, it won't be our troops, unless they get bored and decide to come over here again and harm our infrastructure.Doesn't matter, you still never tell the enemy on which day they will win................
It's a treacherous part of the world from my limited world view, but it's likely you're dead on.the problem here is a failure as obama has not minded the store over the last 2 year ala provincial and nationwide elections, the iraqis have been ala Iran style vetting candidates who are 'allowed' to run in elections, this has fostered sunni shia separatism again to 07 levels. you won't get this story in the mainstream media, obama says he wanted to pull us out, he did , they will fashion this as a huge big win for him. When the place blows up in ohh, 2 years MAX?
with the lack of an agreement to allow us to remain deployed there if necessary etc. the rep candidate can imho argue that obama can indeed kill people, but his diplomacy and the vaunted Hillary state dept? Is inept.
It's a treacherous part of the world from my limited world view, but it's likely you're dead on.the problem here is a failure as obama has not minded the store over the last 2 year ala provincial and nationwide elections, the iraqis have been ala Iran style vetting candidates who are 'allowed' to run in elections, this has fostered sunni shia separatism again to 07 levels. you won't get this story in the mainstream media, obama says he wanted to pull us out, he did , they will fashion this as a huge big win for him. When the place blows up in ohh, 2 years MAX?
with the lack of an agreement to allow us to remain deployed there if necessary etc. the rep candidate can imho argue that obama can indeed kill people, but his diplomacy and the vaunted Hillary state dept? Is inept.
heres the thing- though I initially sppted the iraq venture, once wmds were not found on scale with what was advertised, and this became a straight nation building exercise, it made Powell right on in the respect that we broke it, we own it.
Then, when Bremer started effing things up and the whole Chalabi yes we'll dance with him, now we won't, yes we will, it became crucially problematic when we let sadr escape reckoning for his hand in killing a rival cleric. right there the hand writing was on the wall;
there would have to be a strong man to sit on the shia, from the minority sunnis, in short a non saddam, saddam.
as much as it pains me to say this, I see it as truth- Bush made a huge geo/grand strategic blunder, with Iran on the cusp of nukes, and the only hard power check that was a) on their border, b) hated them with a passion, and c) would have been amendable to control offered the right combination of carrot and stick was- Iraq. period.
Obama is just completing the mess, even the NY Times, yes the Times took him to task for blundering the status of forces agreement, and on purpose, as he doesn't want to be there and wants to cash in with his base on bieing able to say he closed our involvement with Iraq down
Minus US Troops, Iraq will become a non player as a bulwark vis a vis Iran and thats the best scenario. We fucked up, bad.
heres the thing- though I initially sppted the iraq venture, once wmds were not found on scale with what was advertised, and this became a straight nation building exercise, it made Powell right on in the respect that we broke it, we own it.
Then, when Bremer started effing things up and the whole Chalabi yes we'll dance with him, now we won't, yes we will, it became crucially problematic when we let sadr escape reckoning for his hand in killing a rival cleric. right there the hand writing was on the wall;
there would have to be a strong man to sit on the shia, from the minority sunnis, in short a non saddam, saddam.
as much as it pains me to say this, I see it as truth- Bush made a huge geo/grand strategic blunder, with Iran on the cusp of nukes, and the only hard power check that was a) on their border, b) hated them with a passion, and c) would have been amendable to control offered the right combination of carrot and stick was- Iraq. period.
Obama is just completing the mess, even the NY Times, yes the Times took him to task for blundering the status of forces agreement, and on purpose, as he doesn't want to be there and wants to cash in with his base on bieing able to say he closed our involvement with Iraq down
Minus US Troops, Iraq will become a non player as a bulwark vis a vis Iran and thats the best scenario. We fucked up, bad.
Without exception one of the biggest strategic blunders in the history of our great republic. The Bush administration went out of it's way to tell thousands of lies in order to gain support for war from the public and the congress and no sooner realized their mistake until they began an organized "mission change."
Here we are 8 years later... a trillion dollars shorter...with only the dead and wounded to show for it.
BAGHDAD Iraqs prime minister signaled Wednesday that he was open to the eventual return of American troops as trainers, underscoring the reality that the United States is likely to be involved in this countrys security even after the last soldiers depart in the coming weeks.
No doubt, the U.S. forces have a role in providing training of Iraqi forces, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said after meeting Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is here to mark the withdrawal and to inaugurate a new phase in relations between the United States and Iraq.
Mr. Maliki insisted that Iraq could provide for its internal security. And he made much of Iraqs desire to build a relationship with the United States as a sovereign country, dealing with Washington on the basis of national interest and mutual respect.
But his comments suggested that for all the solemn pageantry of a wars ending, there is likely to be considerable continuity in the security relationship between the United States and Iraq, as it struggles to contain terrorist attacks by insurgent groups.
The inability of the United States and Iraq to agree on legal immunity for American troops led to President Obamas announcement in October that the last soldiers would leave the country by the end of the year.
But administration officials have suggested that once the withdrawal is complete a politically significant milestone in both the United States and Iraq the two sides could negotiate the return of American troops to the country for training purposes.
Mr. Biden on Wednesday reaffirmed that the two countries would maintain a robust security relationship, adding that it was up to the Iraqis to decide what you think that relationship should be.
We will continue our discussions with your government over the substance of our security arrangements, including areas of training, intelligence and counterterrorism, he said.
One area of lingering concern is the role of Iran in fomenting attacks on Americans. Mr. Biden told Mr. Maliki that he did not want Iran to use our presence in Iraq as a target, said a senior administration official, who took part in the discussions.
There are now only 13,000 soldiers left in Iraq, and their ranks are dwindling by 500 a day, though the United States will leave a vestigial force as liaison officers and to guard the embassy in Baghdad.
Mr. Biden cited the withdrawal as proof that the United States keeps its promises. And the administration was eager to keep the focus on departures rather than on potential future missions.
A senior administration official on Wednesday emphasized that there were currently no discussions with Iraq about future deployments of American troops.
WASHINGTON (AP) - With the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in its final days, President Barack Obama and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki met at the White House Monday to discuss the next phase of the relationship between their countries.
The withdrawal of all American troops on Dec. 31 marks the end of a nearly nine-year war that has been deeply divisive in both the U.S. and Iraq. While Obama and al-Maliki have pledged to maintain strong ties, the contours of the partnership between Washington and Baghdad remain murky, especially with Iran eager to assert influence over neighboring Iraq. And serious questions remain about Iraq's capacity to stabilize both its politics and security.
Yet the end of the war still marks a promise kept for Obama, one the White House is eager to promote. In addition to his meeting with al-Maliki, Obama will mark the milestone Wednesday when he speaks to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. And he thanked service members and their families for their sacrifices when he attended the annual Army-Navy football game Saturday.
The number of U.S. troops in Iraq has dwindled to about 6,000, down from 170,000 at the war's peak in 2007.
Obama, along with Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, met with al-Maliki in the Oval Office Monday morning. The meeting was expected to focus heavily on how the U.S. and Iraq will continue to cooperate on security issues without the presence of American troops. Iraqi leaders have said they want U.S. military training assistance for their security forces but have been unable to agree on what type of help they'd like or what protections they would be willing to give American trainers.
The White House said Obama and al-Maliki would also discuss cooperation on energy, trade and education.
Obama and al-Maliki will also hold a joint news conference at the White House and then lay wreaths at Arlington National Cemetery, where some of the nearly 4,500 Americans killed in the Iraq war are buried.
Looming over the talks are concerns among U.S. officials over how Iraq's relationship with Iran will develop with a significantly smaller U.S. presence in the region.
Al-Maliki has insisted that Iraq will chart its future according to its own national interests, not the dictates of Iran or any other country. But some U.S. officials have suggested that Iranian influence in Iraq would inevitably grow once American troops depart.
Both countries have Shiite majorities and are dominated by Shiite political groups. Many Iraqi politicians spent time in exile in Iran during Saddam's repressive regime, and one of al-Maliki's main allies - anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - is believed to spend most of his time in Iran.
Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said how Baghdad chooses to orient itself will significantly influence the future of Iraq's relationship with the U.S.
"A lot of this really comes down to, what kind of role is Iraq going to play in regional security?" Alterman said. "Is it going to be a place where bad people come and go, or is it going to play a role in calming down a region that needs some calming down?"
The first hints as to how Iraq will assert itself in the region may come from how it handles the troubles in Syria, where a bloody government crackdown on protesters has killed more than 4,000 people, according to the United Nations.
The Obama administration has called for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down. But Iraq has been much more circumspect, with al-Maliki warning of civil war if Assad falls and abstaining from Arab League votes suspending Syria's membership and imposing sanctions. Those positions align Iraq more closely with Iran, a key Syrian ally.
heres the thing- though I initially sppted the iraq venture, once wmds were not found on scale with what was advertised, and this became a straight nation building exercise, it made Powell right on in the respect that we broke it, we own it.
Then, when Bremer started effing things up and the whole Chalabi yes we'll dance with him, now we won't, yes we will, it became crucially problematic when we let sadr escape reckoning for his hand in killing a rival cleric. right there the hand writing was on the wall;
there would have to be a strong man to sit on the shia, from the minority sunnis, in short a non saddam, saddam.
as much as it pains me to say this, I see it as truth- Bush made a huge geo/grand strategic blunder, with Iran on the cusp of nukes, and the only hard power check that was a) on their border, b) hated them with a passion, and c) would have been amendable to control offered the right combination of carrot and stick was- Iraq. period.
Obama is just completing the mess, even the NY Times, yes the Times took him to task for blundering the status of forces agreement, and on purpose, as he doesn't want to be there and wants to cash in with his base on bieing able to say he closed our involvement with Iraq down
Minus US Troops, Iraq will become a non player as a bulwark vis a vis Iran and thats the best scenario. We fucked up, bad.
Without exception one of the biggest strategic blunders in the history of our great republic. The Bush administration went out of it's way to tell thousands of lies in order to gain support for war from the public and the congress and no sooner realized their mistake until they began an organized "mission change."
Here we are 8 years later... a trillion dollars shorter...with only the dead and wounded to show for it.
Thousands of lies? really?
