×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Obama Sets End of Iraq Combat For August 31st

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the end-of-an-era dept.

Announcements 659

eldavojohn writes "President Barack Obama has announced that on August 31st the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011. It's been a long seven-and-a-half years, with no guarantee of this announcement actually signifying the end of violence. Pundits are already speculating on whether or not this withdrawal speech is 'Mission Accomplished 2.' It's possibly the most significant confirmation of and commitment to a withdrawal the world will hear from the United States in Iraq."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

659 comments

End of violence? (0, Troll)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112072)

You're kidding, right? It guarantees that the few remaining insurgent groups will prepare for the date, and then attack with whatever they have left. That's why you *don't have a specific date* nor do you release your plans to the enemy.

Re:End of violence? (4, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112116)

On the contrary. You announce the date and pull out sooner. When the little shits come out of hiding you nail them.

Re:End of violence? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112196)

>> You announce the date and pull out sooner. When the little shits come out of hiding you nail them.

Is this a military tactic, or a birth control method?

Re:End of violence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112260)

why not both? Damn rats!

Re:End of violence? (4, Insightful)

linumax (910946) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112160)

Yeah, right! Because if you don't notice it one month ahead, then insurgents would never notice that Americans have left and will stay home. They are that dumb you know.

Re:End of violence? (4, Insightful)

mdm-adph (1030332) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112166)

You make it seem as if Iraq is going to be completely undefended or something. In reality, there's the Iraqi military and police forces, right?

Let's have a little bit of faith in them, okay.

Re:End of violence? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112574)

I think those are the guys who the insurgents keep blowing up, right?

Since 2005, according to the icasualties.org website, there's been 3078 American casualties and 8286 ISF casualties.

While I mourn for the loss of life, it seems to be like the ISF aren't going to be able to handle the load alone. Not that the U.S. should bear this load alone (and we haven't), but it seems like those folks still need help.

I can only imagine that after the U.S. leaves (and other countries will probably follow, soon), Iraq is going to be the center of out-of-control violence like we've not seen over there.

Re:End of violence? (1)

knavel (1155875) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112708)

"I can only imagine that after the U.S. leaves (and other countries will probably follow, soon), Iraq is going to be the center of out-of-control violence like the only thing we've ever seen there for the past 50+ years."

/FTFY

Re:End of violence? (2, Informative)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112188)

It's my understanding that AQiI is pretty much dead, now, and JAM has devolved into civil disobedience now that al-Sadr is in self-imposed exile. If there are any insurgent groups left, they will be local, disorganized, and without the kind of tacit police protection JAM had up until 2005. They will also have no popular support whatsoever.

Eight Killed Today (4, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112194)

You're kidding, right? It guarantees that the few remaining insurgent groups will prepare for the date, and then attack with whatever they have left.

That was the criticism in the article based on two car bombs and a drive-by killing eight in Iraq today [google.com] -- the day of this announcement. I guess a better question should have been "will Iraqi security forces be able to contain the unavoidable violence following this withdrawal?"

That's why you *don't have a specific date* nor do you release your plans to the enemy.

Or perhaps you gamble and show the world that the situation is under control by releasing your "plans" of withdrawal showing that those now in charge are very capable hands. Otherwise what do you do? Sit there and then just magically disappear one day? And when that happens, you think you're not in the same scenario you just mentioned? No matter how you cut it, it's a delicate situation.

Re:Eight Killed Today (1, Informative)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112384)

President Barack Obama has announced that on August 31st the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011.

This "the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq" plus this "50,000 troops will remain" is a meaningless statement.

A meaningful statement would be "the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq" plus "no American troops will remain."

Of course, current right wing propaganda is that the current president is not a warmonger but some kind of pacifist, despite the fact that there s no evidence to suggest that. (Indeed, I'm worried the administration is blundering into a war with Iran.)

Why would they need to attack on that date? (-1, Troll)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112198)

Really? Like the 'few remaining insurgent groups' couldn't figure out that, oh hey! the Americans are gone. Because after we are gone, they have all the time to prepare that they need. And why, exactly, would they need to attack exactly on the date we leave? This is just more Obama Derangement Syndrome, fear of the Big Black President causing people to throw all logic and common sense by the wayside and find something, anything, to justify their fears. So our President has a bigger dick than you, and can please women in ways you'll never be able to. Is that any reason to hate him?

Re:Why would they need to attack on that date? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112382)

This is just more Obama Derangement Syndrome, fear of the Big Black President causing people to throw all logic and common sense by the wayside and find something, anything, to justify their fears. So our President has a bigger dick than you, and can please women in ways you'll never be able to. Is that any reason to hate him?

Jesus Christ. Not only are you trying to play the race card, you're trying to play it in a game of marbles.

Re:Why would they need to attack on that date? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112450)

Seek professional help. Seriously.

loverevolutionary@yahoo.com

Re:End of violence? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112234)

Way to read the article, champ.

Where did you get "end of violence" from? It's the end of combat operations, not the end of military presence. I suggest you look into the meaning of the term "combat operations" before making assumptions. We'll still have 50,000 troops there... essentially to prevent exactly what you are foreseeing.

Re:End of violence? (5, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112254)

I was thinking something similar (that it's easy to declare you will leave on a certain date, but hard to do it if the situation on the ground doesn't match at the time), but I think the way they are doing it is actually good.

They aren't declaring the specific date to leave, they are planning on the specific date to stop fighting. Basically on August 31st they are going to turn everything over to the Iraqi government (who at this point can probably handle anything the insurgents throw at it), but they are going to stick around, just in case. That way if the insurgents do throw everything at them, there'll still be troops around to help deal with it if they really need help. If they can handle themselves for a year, it is a sign we can safely remove the troops. The Iraqis still won't be alone, we can give them air superiority almost instantly if any insurgency gets too bad, and we can easily re-conquer the country within a month if necessary.

Obama did well on this one. Let's give him credit.

realism is not appreciated in Obamaland (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112288)

Silly troll, the Obama halo will make it so.

Re:End of violence? (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112344)

Violence isn't the problem, extricating US troops is the problem.

It didn't matter when Saddam was killing Iraqis, and it won't matter when we hand off to the locals again. The insurgents "attacking" /= "winning", and UNLESS Iraqis buy their country with their own blood sacrifice it won't mean anything to them. There is obviously much more tribal violence to come, but that's normal in that part of the world.

It's called "self-actualization" and there is nothing much Caucasian Colonials can do about it.

Re:End of violence? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112478)

>Violence isn't the problem, extricating US troops is the problem.

Moving the vehicles is a hidden, really tragic problem. In order to move the forces, we consume almost the entire planet's yearly production of mahogany, for the plywood. It's really a horrible waste of the bet wood that there is. Yeah, I'm actually more upset about that than I am about soldiers getting killed. Soldiers grow back, forests don't.

Re:End of violence? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112362)

Pretty much what you'd expect from B. Hussein Obama. The only thing I can think of is that there's some hidden agenda in here, in that knowing the bad guys are going to have a FIELD DAY when we leave, there must be some benefit to B. Hussein Obama.

Re:End of violence? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112440)

Please don't call them insurgents.That's a liberal Media pansy designation
Not Insurgents They're:
  "Terrorist sand Niggers "

About time. (4, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112080)

The war, over there, has been over for years. Now, they are just working as cops. Not the type of job the military was ever cut out to do.

Re:About time. (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112328)

2008 was the year the final nail in JAM's coffin. Up until then, it was always still a little dicey. Once the Iraqi government proved it had the balls to go after even politically-powerful, popular and influential terrorist groups, they gained a lot more credibility, amongst their own people, the US military, and the terrorist groups that have since fled to riper opportunities in Iran and Pakistan. If we have done nothing else in the last two years, we have at least prevented those groups from seeping back in. But yeah, at this point, our forces there are becoming superfluous.

Re:About time. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112516)

There was a war? I've been pouring over the Congressional record and see no mention of this "War" you speak of. The last one I can find was way back in the 1940's.

Re:About time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112582)

Dictionary definitions are generally more reliable and accurate than Congressional definitions.

Re:About time. (1, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112524)

Well the US have been in Europe for 60+ years doing exactly that. I suppose you could say the same thing.

Re:About time. (1, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112598)

The war, over there, has been over for years. Now, they are just working as cops.

Do you really feel that car bombs [google.com] are just police work? Let me try to rephrase it for people that are living comfortably: if two car bombs went off in New York city and killed eight, would you just shrug that off as normal everyday police work?

Some of this stuff -- stuff that even happened today -- requires the intelligence collection and expertise of people trained to do more than "just work as cops." I would suggest you are selling our troops short in their ongoing work at preventing and disarming these kinds of attacks. I think we're all hoping that the Iraqi security forces meet or exceed the current work going on in a country that occasionally shows signs of instability and something more opposed to the US than everyday criminals as we know them.

Good on paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112090)

Someone going to tell the insurgents to stop?

They need a banner: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112092)

"Mission Accomplished, Re-accomplished!"

Too little too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112108)

I am with Linus on this one
Linus is right
The man makes sense
He is absolutely correct on this one

About freakin' time (0, Flamebait)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112124)

We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Re:About freakin' time (4, Insightful)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112190)

We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

You mean when Saddam invaded Kuwait? We've 'been there' since that time. Just the level of troops and mission changed.

Re:About freakin' time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112214)

Too bad you're not in charge- we could have done the right thing.

The reason this is on Slashdot (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112136)

The president used a microphone to make the announcement. Microphones are technology.

Controversy generates ad revenues (1, Flamebait)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112230)

With which the owners of this site can buy technology, so yeah, it's technology related.

Re:The reason this is on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112322)

The president used a microphone to make the announcement. Microphones are technology.

Obama announced it over his recently jailbroken iPhone 4.

damned liberals (5, Funny)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112142)

Real Americans don't give up so easy. A measly 7.5 years? Puhlease... If McCain had been elected we'd be there for another 7.5... along with 30 years in Iran and who knows how long on the Korean peninsula. I mean really, which party would you rather have in office?

Re:damned liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112268)

+1 Flamebait ... oh sorry, no Mod-Points today.

Re:damned liberals (4, Insightful)

tool462 (677306) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112276)

Pirate Party. Though not for any political ideals. I just really like rum. And besides, who else could possibly save us from the ninjas?

Re:damned liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112714)

Michael Dudikoff

Re:damned liberals (5, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112302)

I served on the Korean peninsula under Clinton. We never leave anywhere. Ever.

-Peter

Re:damned liberals (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112578)

That's exactly what I'm getting at! A liberal pussy like Clinton only had the ambition to station troops on the southern part of the peninsula. It takes a visionary like McCain to realize the true potential of our military by adding the northern part.

Re:damned liberals (5, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112616)

Heck, we still have significant numbers of troops in West Germany who do an excellent job of preventing Nazi insurgencies and invasions by the USSR.

Re:damned liberals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112734)

You think that's bad... There are troops still stationed on the eastern coast of North America. They've been there for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS!!! Talk about never leaving...

Re:damned liberals (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112332)

Real Americans don't give up so easy. A measly 7.5 years? Puhlease... If McCain had been elected we'd be there for another 7.5... along with 30 years in Iran and who knows how long on the Korean peninsula.

I mean really, which party would you rather have in office?

Well, we are still in Germany and Japan. Long enough for you?

Re:damned liberals (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112402)

The US will be there for decades.

Germany surrendered in May 1945, the US is still there.
Japan surrendered in August 1945, the US is still there.
Korean cease fire started in July 1953, the US is still there.

Re:damned liberals (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112612)

By request and/or treaty obligation, in all 3 situations.

Re:damned liberals (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112692)

The other two are valid, but Korea is only a a cease-fire and could become a shooting war again very quickly.

Re:damned liberals (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112740)


The US will be there for decades.

Germany surrendered in May 1945, the US is still there.
Japan surrendered in August 1945, the US is still there.
Korean cease fire started in July 1953, the US is still there.

Vietnam?

Re:damned liberals (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112470)

It would be like us staying in some small Asia country for nearly 15 years. *cough* kenedy *cough *lbj* *cough* nixon got us out *cough*.

This is great news (4, Insightful)

electron sponge (1758814) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112168)

Let's hope the insurgents and other ne'er-do-wells get the message they're supposed to stop blowing people up on August 31.

Re:This is great news (5, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112732)

Because the US military presence there has clearly helped to stop the ne'er-do-wells' activities, right?

What about Afghanistan (4, Insightful)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112176)

From TFA: "While the US has been scaling down its troop presence in Iraq it has been stepping up its military commitment to Afghanistan, with the president ordering a surge of 30,000 additional soldiers there. " So, we're pulling our armed forces out of Iraq, just to send them to Afghanistan. A couple of nukes and they can all come home! I'm just saying...

Re:What about Afghanistan (5, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112326)

Nuke what? What structures and populations there are could easily (and more importantly more cheaply) could be dealt with using conventional weapons. The problem with that? The structures and populations that live in them aren't our enemy. It's the whackos out in the boonies hiding in caves (or other countries) that blow up our troops and their fellow countrymen. Low target density and the terrain is naturally hardened. And there's the little fact you can't actually use nukes these days.

Re:What about Afghanistan (0, Flamebait)

mistiry (1845474) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112552)

Can't use nukes? All of a sudden they just won't go off anymore??? Oh, you mean because of international treaties and agreements...Nobody ever breaks those... The fact is that the title of this story is how troops are coming home, but the whole part about Hobama ordering 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is ignored. And that's 30,000 troops on top of those that are already there. Announcing something like this and slipping the "30,000 more are going to Afghanistan" part in when everyone's cheering about the troops coming back from Iraq...typical political maneuvering. What's sad is that he'll go up in popularity because 99% of people won't even know about the troops heading to Afghanistan until next week sometime.

Re:What about Afghanistan (1)

Bemopolis (698691) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112712)

So, we're pulling our armed forces out of Iraq, just to send them to Afghanistan.

Wel,l be fair — the reason we didn't send a lot more troops to Afghanistan when they were really needed was that Bush and Cheney needed those troops to secure the Iraqi's oil^H^H^H freedoms...

don't rejoice just yet (4, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112202)

This probably just means we can now devote more of those troops to Afghanistan. *sigh*

I wonder how much we're spending on all those troops in Germany, South Korea and Japan? Bring all the troops home from everywhere, cut the military budget in half, and we'd have no economic woes, and still have a gigantic military.

Re:don't rejoice just yet (2, Interesting)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112436)

Sure about that? In 2009, defense accounted for 23% of the federal budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png [wikipedia.org]

Re:don't rejoice just yet (5, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112676)

Sure about that? In 2009, defense accounted for 23% of the federal budget.

Yep. Half of that is about $400 billion dollars. That would be way more than a shot in the arm for the economy. And once you start paying down the debt, then the interest on said debt goes down, too. And keep in mind those are 'official' numbers, which are widely known to be complete and utter bullshit (in that they're lower than what is reported).

More easy ideas: stop it with the 'war on drugs': it's an abject failure, and is ridiculously expensive. Legalize and tax marijuana the same as alcohol. You then get: tax money for the sales of marijuana (and more money from the increased sales of junk food, most likely :), billions less spent on the war on drugs, and billions less spent incarcerating marijuana users and marijuana-only dealers. By legalizing marijuana, you'll also take a great deal of power away from the drug cartels, and reduce violence.

Similar thing for prostitution.

Re:don't rejoice just yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112488)

right because a bunch on unemployed soldiers would totally save the economy.

Re:don't rejoice just yet (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112568)

right because a bunch on unemployed soldiers would totally save the economy.

Unemployed soldiers are cheaper than soldiers in foreign countries where we have to ship all supplies and equipment to. LOTS cheaper. Plus a lot less of them get killed if they're over here.

Re:don't rejoice just yet (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112702)

Easy to say, much harder to do. Those troops stationed around the world aren't there solely for the sake of the US. Germany, Japan, South Korea and many others might piss and moan about American presence but the simple fact is that if the US suddenly decided to pull out there would be massive uproar. American military presence around the world ensures continued relevance as a world power. Someone would inevitably fill the vacuum left by the US, most likely China. And despite all the problems, the World is better off with the US filling this role. And the fact that the US is slowly eroding its relevance in so many other ways we probably need this more than ever.

This situation, unfortunately, places the burden of military spending on the US. So many other nations can get away with spending so little because they're fully aware that if they were faced with attack the US almost certainly would move in to defend them.

Surge (2, Insightful)

kwishot (453761) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112206)

So does this means the libs are admitting that the surge worked?

Re:Surge (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112422)

The fact that the president committed 30K more troops (a mirror to the surge in Iraq) to Afghanistan is proof of that. The problem, I fear, is that Afghanistan is not Iraq.

Re:Surge (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112456)

Speaking as a liberal ... yes. The surge worked. I thought it would be too little, too late, and that the Washington politicians would find a way to micro-manage it into failure. I was wrong. And I'm happy I was wrong. :-) And happy to admit it. I still don't think the invasion was a good idea in the first place -- but the surge was probably the best choice that could have been made given the circumstances.

Re:Surge (3, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112594)

So does this means the libs are admitting that the surge worked?

If by 'surge' you mean paying the Sunnis not to fight us and upping the air strikes by a factor of five so we could mostly disengage the ground troops.

But the media lost interest in it all and the public outcry over the ongoing casualties faded away, so the pro-war party got what it wanted.

iraq ii was unfinished business (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112266)

if bush i in iraq i had decided to push on to baghdad and topple saddam in the early 1990s after racing across the desert unimpeded, then the world would have seen that as justified

however, the political fear of americans coming home in bodybags was too much, so they turned around and left saddam in power. kuwait was liberated, saddam was cowed, end of story... not

of course, the shiites who revolted under the false impression or false covert promise of american support were massacred. and of course, the tragedy is saddam was removed when war hawks in the usa sensed the political will finally existed after 9/11 to finish the job. not that 9/11 had anything to do with saddam hussein, but it had everything to do with agendas and the willpower to get them done. the world sensed this massive disconnect and the seedy trumped up lies, and therefore did not support the americans at all the second time around

and it was done at the price of probably many more american, and iraqi, body bags, many years later, under bush ii in iraq ii

so colin powell and assorted numbnuts: you screwed up in 1991. you should have gone all the way. if you start a job, finish it completely. leaving it half done meant a problem that festered

yes, you had the highest and noblest of intentions in mind, but war is messy and has nothing to do with nobility and good intentions, and you need to take some ugly jobs to completion, or don't start the ugly job at all

Re:iraq ii was unfinished business (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112642)

however, the political fear of americans coming home in bodybags was too much

I think the actual reason is that it was starting to look too much like shooting fish in a barrel. The pictures of the hundreds of military vehicles bombed out along the highway shocked the public.

rofl (-1, Redundant)

darjen (879890) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112278)

cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011

Are you F'in kidding me? It's hard to imagine anything more self contradictory coming from a politician.

Re:rofl (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112360)

Yes, because obviously the presence of troops means that combat operations are underway.

Oh, wait...

What are the 50,000 going to be doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112280)

My guess is rebuilding homes and buildings that were destroyed?

Nice, but News for Nerds? How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112290)

What's the slashdot angle on this one?

Mid Term Elections Two Days Later (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112296)

Nooooooooooo coincidence there.
Unlike those chickenhawk Republicans, Obama isn't playing politics with the lives of our troops, no sir, not him.

Two Days before US Elections? (0, Troll)

bugeaterr (836984) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112340)

No coincidence, nope nothing to see here. Move along.
Unlike chickenhawk Republicans, Obama will NOT be playing politics with our soldiers' lives.
No sir.
No Him.

Re:Two Days before US Elections? (3, Funny)

Attack DAWWG (997171) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112544)

November 2 minus August 31 is two days?

Let me guess . . . you just graduated from high school in Texas?

and the war crimes trials start when? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112380)

Did I miss that part? Certainly invading a sovereign nation without provocation and killing civilians, women, children, reporters, first aid workers, is not something that would go unpunished? Not in the 21st century.

It isn't like this is 1939.

Umm... right?

Re:and the war crimes trials start when? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112592)

...except we already invaded Iraq and were doing military operations against it on a daily basis.

It's just that they were "nice clean air attacks" so no one really paid attention or objected. Our forces were pretty much completely safe. We were basically playing the role of bully. So there were no body count to disturb the Television viewers back home.

Iraq War 1 never really ended.

People just didn't care because it didn't seem to impact them.

Re:and the war crimes trials start when? (4, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112720)

Starting a war (even a war with collateral damage) is not a war crime; the idea of a war crime is simply to state that one's legal means to wage war is not unlimited. Deportation of entire populations for deprivation and/or genocide, for instance, is right out. To compare US conduct in Iraq to such things is histrionic nonsense.

Whatever (5, Insightful)

smith6174 (986645) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112424)

So, we are ending "combat operations" but keeping the soldiers with guns there? It's only slightly comforting to hear that nothing has changed in the military since I got out (Only in an "at least it isn't me" way). This used to be the trick they would pull on all the missions I was on. When people get tired, just tell them it's almost over, whether it really is or not. Since I'm allowed to think now, what does an end to combat operations really mean? It sounds like they are just going to end combat pay.

a promise not to oppose terrorists (-1, Flamebait)

Jodka (520060) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112522)

President Barack Obama has announced that on August 31st the United States will cease all combat operations in Iraq, although 50,000 troops will remain until the end of 2011.

Those 50,000 American servicemen will be sitting ducks; Obama has just promised the terrorists that if they attack our troops in Iraq after 31 August that we will not counterstrike. Peace and democracy in Iraq depends on the definite assurance that we would counterstrike. What happened to all the talk of making decisions based on, "conditions on the ground?"

Preparing for the next war? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112554)

When Israel and the U.S. decide to bomb Iran, the U.S. troops in Iraq are going to be in some serious trouble. My perception of the country is that the population feels a much stronger affinity with their religious beliefs than with any concept of Iraqi nationalism. What do Obama and friends expect the Shiite majority government and military in Iraq to do when Israel and the U.S. start dropping bombs on their Shiite bretheren across the border? I'm guessing that U.S. soldiers are being pulled back inside fortified positions in preparation for the inevitable counterattack.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that this pullback process is somehow proceeding as planned.

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112564)

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic “anti-Semitic” stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren’t always wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren’t always wrong, then there’s an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.

After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very, very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale, Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he was coming down with Alzheimer’s, that well-known incurable brain disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to confound medical science and recover from it.

Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn’t take the final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity, but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jews around the world. They didn’t like something and they were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.

And what was it they didn’t like? A movie about an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ. So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art, literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization and the White race who created it.

After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews weren’t just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race – mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights – I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades.

Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like “Hannibal Lecter” and “Prince of Darkness” and “Dracula” to Jewish politicians. Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our blood, and it’s about time we started firing a few silver bullets.

timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112572)

(no, I'm not a Republican)

Obama seems to be timing this to give his party a boost in the upcoming election. It's really sad to see that he's willing to grease the wheels of his political machine with American lives. Why couldn't this have been done six months ago? Why isn't it being done six months from now? The timing is heavily suspicious, smacks more of pandering to voters for political gain than doing the right thing at the right time.

Irrelevant and far too late. (1)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33112620)

First, this "draw down" is a perfect example of political agendas fucking up military strategy. We should have drawn down a long ass time ago! Recent interviews I've read talk about the lack of professionalism in the IA/IP, the lack of running water and electricity, and have heard in numerous interviews with Iraqi's a theme, that at least dictatorship was more merciful on the general population. Any other similar wars like this going on....? We should have never been in Iraq in the first place, and we must expose and punish all those involved in blatantly sending Americans to their deaths and to kill innocents. My prediction is that Afghanistan will follow this pattern, the shift of focus to another "enemy" (Probably the unjustly demonized Iran) and in while the American public forgets about Ganny we will do the same thing, will the same ambiguous and debatable results, with almost no benefit to America other than some control of natural resources. We despise and often actively undermine true democracy in the middle east (See Iran, Lebanon etc). This is all just political posturing with little tangible improvement for us, but I guess its better late than never...

yro = yeah right, obama (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33112622)

yro=yeah right, obama

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...