Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mises]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0810/Odierno_Troops_staying_in_Iraq_to_prevent_foriegn_interference.html?showall

I have nothing to add. I lost my breath when I read that headline.

[Leon]

I guess we like having a monopoly on foreign interference.

[Louis VI]

We can interfere but others can't, with only the sort of maligned influence that is due. It's all there, just read between the lines:

[caniff]

Deleted a quoted comment from the link because it was skewing the margins.

Anyway, the BS has now reached moronic level (as in only morons buy it).

Edit: Oh wait, it wasn't my quoted comment messing up the page. Anyway, this sums it up for me:

[Leon]

I would much rather have Iraq be a U.S. client state than an Iranian one. That being said the 50,000 troops are likely to matter, Iran is probably a more natural partner in many ways.

[caniff]

The US needs to secure its energy security, stop doing the bidding of the Israeli gov't, and get the hell (militarily) out of the region.

Let them fight each other (which they inevitably will). The US needs to not have a dog in their internecine conflicts.

(Very unfortunately, I don't see things heading in that direction anytime soon.)

[bacasper]

Why did you start a new thread for this?

On the Stop the Wars thread, I posted:


Published on Tuesday, August 3, 2010 by the Inter Press Service

Obama Drops 2009 Pledge to Withdraw Combat Troops from Iraq

by Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - Seventeen months after President Barack Obama pledged to withdraw all combat brigades from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2010, he quietly abandoned that pledge Monday, admitting implicitly that such combat brigades would remain until the end of 2011.

Obama declared in a speech to disabled U.S. veterans in Atlanta that "America's combat mission in Iraq" would end by the end of August, to be replaced by a mission of "supporting and training Iraqi security forces".

That statement was in line with the pledge he had made on Feb. 27, 2009, when he said, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: by Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

In the sentence preceding that pledge, however, he had said, "I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months." Obama said nothing in his speech Monday about withdrawing "combat brigades" or "combat troops" from Iraq until the end of 2011.

Even the concept of "ending the U.S. combat mission" may be highly misleading, much like the concept of "withdrawing U.S. combat brigades" was in 2009.

Under the administration's definition of the concept, combat operations will continue after August 2010, but will be defined as the secondary role of U.S. forces in Iraq. The primary role will be to "advise and assist" Iraqi forces.

An official who spoke with IPS on condition that his statements would be attributed to a "senior administration official" acknowledged that the 50,000 U.S. troops remaining in Iraq beyond the deadline will have the same combat capabilities as the combat brigades that have been withdrawn.

The official also acknowledged that the troops will engage in some combat but suggested that the combat would be "mostly" for defensive purposes.

That language implied that there might be circumstances in which U.S. forces would carry out offensive operations as well.

continued at link

[bacasper]

Why do people act all surprised when they hear this same crap again and again? Some of us have been saying it form the beginning. Starting from 9/11, it was all just a pretext to go in there and stay there.

Oh, that's right, we were all just "conspiracy theorists."

[Leon]

[mises]

[mises]

[bucheon bum]

[caniff]

[bacasper]

[mises]