Beta
×

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!

US Troops To Leave Iraq By End of Year

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the pack-your-things dept.

The Military 386

mayberry42 writes with news that President Obama has announced an end to the U.S. military engagement in Iraq. All U.S. soldiers will leave Iraq by the end of the year. "Mr. Obama said that as of Jan. 1, 2012, the United States and Iraq would begin 'a normal relationship between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.' In a videoconference on Friday morning with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama told him of the administration’s decision, which grows out of an inability of the United States and Iraq to come to an agreement on leaving a few thousand military trainers in the country. The United States had earlier agreed to exit Iraq by the end of the year and leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq as trainers, with some members of Congress advocating the retention of a reduced fighting force as well. But Pentagon lawyers insisted that the Iraqi Parliament grant immunity from legal prosecution to the troops if they were to remain."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

US. vs China (-1, Troll)

TechLA (2482532) | about 3 years ago | (#37796906)

Which country has attacked more countries. US or China?

Re:US. vs China (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797010)

China, for varied definitions of "china". Though it's not exactly a fair comparison.

But nice try, troll.

Re:US. vs China (3, Interesting)

bennomatic (691188) | about 3 years ago | (#37797028)

Since 1776 or since 3000 BC?

Re:US. vs China (1, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 3 years ago | (#37797044)

Which country has freed more countries? US or China?

Re:US. vs China (3, Insightful)

Riceballsan (816702) | about 3 years ago | (#37797304)

Define freed? Does tearing down an oppressive organization that will later be replaced by another that will be similarly oppressive? The problem with another group winning your freedom for you, especially in the middle east is that people that are used to being oppressed and enslaved, the oppressed middle eastern countries, are like girls with an abusive father. They grow up move out, and move in with an equally abusive boyfriend. A white knight "saves" her from the abusive boyfriend, he goes to jail or whatever, without massive amounts of therapy, guess where she'll be in 2 years. 9 times out of 10, with a new abusive husband.

Re:US. vs China (4, Insightful)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | about 3 years ago | (#37797192)

In recent years- the US.

However, I am sure if China were the global super-power and the US just an emerging power we would see the numbers reversed.

Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?

Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Singapore? Indonesia? India?

China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.

Re:US. vs China (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797326)

Not a valid comparison. For one thing, the U.S. itself acts as an inhibitor for Chinese overseas-aggression. But my main point is, it's only relevant to compare against nations that had similar military & diplomatic supremacy -- such as the USSR (sort of), or the British Empire, or Germany. I doubt that Sweden for example would be the same peaceful loving country if its position were swapped with the United States of America.

China (2)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#37797396)

China at various times has conquered most of central and Southeast Asia.

Unmanned drones are not soldiers (2, Interesting)

h00manist (800926) | about 3 years ago | (#37796958)

They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 years ago | (#37797076)

Who would have thought that the movie Toys was a grim warning from the future.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

myth24601 (893486) | about 3 years ago | (#37797164)

Richard Pryor was hilarious in that movie.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

Kenja (541830) | about 3 years ago | (#37797196)

Naw, he was only a toy. It took Mork to be more then one.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

dthx1138 (833363) | about 3 years ago | (#37797430)

Are you suggesting that Obama plans to leave unmanned airbases full of drones in Iraq for the purpose of continuing the war? Or that this would even be possible?

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

Bucky24 (1943328) | about 3 years ago | (#37797706)

Technically it could, if they hired third party contractors to service the drones.... I don't know if that's likely but it is a possibility.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (4, Insightful)

h00manist (800926) | about 3 years ago | (#37797746)

Are you suggesting that Obama plans to leave unmanned airbases full of drones in Iraq for the purpose of continuing the war? Or that this would even be possible?

No. I am suggesting governments speak at best in doublespeak, at worst in blatant lies. And reading between the lines is part of understanding what they say. It's been added to the conversation that 5000 "security contractors" are not soldiers, 17000 "embassy personnel" are not soldiers, and thus, it's not clear at all that US military activity in Iraq will end when the last "troops" leave. And so the military drones, satellites, information and psy ops, etc are quite possibly going to be part of the future picture as well - without even having to deploy any strategic truth.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#37797934)

Embassy personnel aren't soldiers. They're diplomats and secretaries and cafeteria workers and IT admins and so on. That's not doublespeak. In fact, the only deception here is your use of scare quotes.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37798048)

Except the soldiers who guard the embassy; they might rank high in that 17,000 employee figure for all you know--but we can say we don't have any soldiers in Iraq--they're not really in Iraq because our embassy in Iraq is US property granted extraterritoriality by treaty.

That's the kind of doublespeak we do employ, you know.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | about 3 years ago | (#37797780)

No, but it would probably be easy enough to have bases in Turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia that could strike there.
According to Wikipedia, a Predator drone "can fly up to 400 nautical miles (740 km) to a target, loiter overhead for 14 hours, then return to its base."

With this information and a quick look at a map, it looks like they could fly drones over everything but the eastern parts of Iraq pretty easily.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797626)

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear...

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 3 years ago | (#37797988)

I also hear that it will not stop.

Re:Unmanned drones are not soldiers (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | about 3 years ago | (#37798028)

Contractors, security, and military advisers are not technically soldiers either. I'd like to know how far this pull out goes. Either way, it will look good for the election, and it's not so close that people will ask why 6 months turned into 3 1/2 years.

If I were a voting Obama supporter, I would want a serious explanation of why Gitmo is still open.

Pax Romana (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37796978)

Is that a Roman military helmet icon?

Somehow, that seems ... appropriate.

Re:Pax Romana (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 3 years ago | (#37797052)

When we went into Afghanistan, I told my friends we were entering into an era of Pax Americana.

Re:Pax Romana (4, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 3 years ago | (#37797102)

When we went into Afghanistan, I told my friends we were entering into an era of Pax Americana.

Then you were at least 50 years too late.

Re:Pax Romana (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 3 years ago | (#37797616)

How does going into a war mean a period of peace? How does that make any sense? Maybe you don't know what the Pax Romana was?

Immunity (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | about 3 years ago | (#37796980)

Why do you need immunity if you're not planning to do anything wrong?

Re:Immunity (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797004)

To protect US citizens from the government. In the US, we have juries to do that. In another country, they are not guaranteed an attempt at a fair trial.

Re:Immunity (4, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37797030)

Because a soldier's primary function is to kill his/her enemy and most countries find that illegal, so all we are saying is if you want a fighting force left, we need to allow them to shoot anyone on site. Sounds harsh, but picture yourself in the boots of a soldier if you can.

Re:Immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797128)

Plus it allows the soldiers to act like complete dicks while on leave in the nearby towns, the same way they act in japan.

Re:Immunity (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 3 years ago | (#37797342)

More or less, remember they are subject to military law though, the problem there is if your a sergeant in another country and one of your men gets in a fight, somebody you've fought with, would you snitch them out? Doubtful, the US military has a pretty effective code of silence in regards, just think back to the torture stories and the military cover up.

Re:Immunity (3, Informative)

Q-Hack! (37846) | about 3 years ago | (#37797382)

Not really, that has more to do with the fact that we keep our military personnel confined to Base/Post/Ship for days on end and then let them free on 'liberty' for some R&R. All the SOFA does is tell the host country that they must turn over the soldier to the US for trial. It doesn't stop them from being arrested for doing illegal things.

Re:Immunity (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#37797440)

we need to allow them to shoot anyone on site

I assume you mean "Shoot people according to the rules of engagement", right? The US has treaty obligations that make it very clear that mowing down civilians is not ok. I'm not saying they don't do that kind of thing, but that's not supposed to be the way it works.

Re:Immunity (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797036)

Same reason we won't support the World Court. We can't have something like other people's laws telling us what we can and can't do. We're too busy ignoring our own laws to worry about that.

Re:Immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797702)

The World Court is a ridiculous idea though.

Witch hunts (2)

Shivetya (243324) | about 3 years ago | (#37797264)

Simple really, because the guys in power now may not be the guys in power tomorrow and things they have done may not be acceptable later.

Plus accidents do and will happen. If these troops were forced to defend themselves they should not have to do so with the specter of prosecution hanging over their heads. The bad guys aren't beyond using innocents to setup a situation

Re:Immunity (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797284)

Because "wrong" might include reading the Bible, allowing women to uncover their faces, refusing to pray to Allah at the appointed times, or criticizing the government.

Do we really want US soldiers accountable to Shariah law?

Re:Immunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797446)

As well as cutting cable car lines with a jet and watching the occupants of the cable car fall to their death.

Re:Immunity (1)

haystor (102186) | about 3 years ago | (#37797668)

Not just watching it, but filming it, then destroying the film.

Re:Immunity (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#37797462)

For one.
Who honestly thinks during war any Country including the United States was a pure good group people who never did anything wrong? If you do then you are an idiot. You take a person, you give him a gun, you back him up with thousand of other people with guns, place him in a situation were other people are going to try to kill him. He will bend the rules to the breaking point to survive and if they have a lot of people backing him up he can really test how far it will bend.
When we go to war, having troops who break the laws is expected and is usually factored into the calculation, it just isn't publicized as it isn't PC. Immunity makes sure these people can come back home and lot of them will live normal honest lives when they are outside that environment.

Secondly.
If they are a good person, they will be following US law and orders. Not the other countries laws and orders. So for example it may be illegal to eat pork in the country but while the troops are there they had their monthly Pork Ribs BBQ. or the fact they are hunting down an enemy and had to break into a bunch of peoples houses to get the job done. Immunity will stop the defeated country from being a dick and wrap the US up in decades of legal hearings, or imprison good people.

Third.
For the people who have been committing crimes will need to deal with US court. Where the rules are what they know of and sure that it isn't a show trial.

Third.

Yep, this isn't new (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#37797672)

We have a part of a cemetery in France holding the bodies of US soldiers we executed during WWII for breaking the rules, mostly rape and murder.

Re:Immunity (1)

medcalf (68293) | about 3 years ago | (#37797610)

To be blunt, because Iraqi factions include some who are aligned with us, and others who are aligned against us (and generally with Iran). You need immunity to prevent those factions not aligned with us from using prosecutions of our troops on trumped up charges to manipulate us.

Re:Immunity (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 3 years ago | (#37797644)

Why do you need immunity if you're not planning to do anything wrong?

I may not be planning on doing anything wrong according to my definition of wrong, but that doesn't mean I want to be subject to your definition of wrong.

Whether you believe the U.S. military has no such intention, or that their -- or the Iraqi government's -- definition of "wrong" is a valid one, that is the fundamental issue.

Personally I think getting all of our troops out of the country is the perfect resolution to the problem.

You know.. (4, Insightful)

intellitech (1912116) | about 3 years ago | (#37797000)

This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.

Until it actually happens, I won't believe them.

Re:You know.. (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 years ago | (#37797106)

This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a negotiating ploy. Assuming the Iraqis cave on the immunity issue, we'll change our minds and leave advisors there.

Re:You know.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797148)

Yeah, the go-along-to-get-along stuff is leaving the White House building with Bill Daley. Hardball from here on out!

Re:You know.. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 years ago | (#37797124)

Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.

Re:You know.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797274)

The reason the date has been same is because it was agreed to with the Iraqi government a couple of months before Obama was elected. The only change is the Iraqi's are kicking out the few troops they agreed to keep before, but the general exit framework has been in place for a while.
As it presently stands the US army is an invited guest of the Iraqi government, and they have said for 3 years that 2012 will be our exit date. There is no way the US would violate this (moon bat ravings aside) as it would be an international scandal. Really this isn't even news.

Re:You know.. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 years ago | (#37797714)

I agree, I didn't want to get into assigning credit, because it's stupid to assign credit for ending a pointless war. All you really can say is "about time".

Re:You know.. (2)

StingingNettle (2489942) | about 3 years ago | (#37797574)

Yes, but at least the date above is the same date that the Obama administration has been giving for this action since inauguration(I can't find any reference to specifically this time prior to that). Politicians lie, but this would be a pretty dumb time for Obama to do it.

Sure, but the speeches he was giving before his inauguration called for leaving within his first year of office.

Re:You know.. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 years ago | (#37797732)

Cite please? It's always good to hold politicians accountable to what they promised, but I don't recall anything more specific than "beginning withdrawal", which technically was already started a little before 2009.

Re:You know.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797374)

They're not moving the troops, either. They are simply reclassifying them, remaining as either NATO or UN peacekeepers, not as US troops, It's just a matter of paper shuffling.

Re:You know.. (1)

dthx1138 (833363) | about 3 years ago | (#37797546)

I don't recall either this administration or the previous one ever promising to have all troops out of Iraq by a certain date and then backing down. The refusal of a pullout date was the problem. From what I recall, Obama promised to begin ending the war as soon as he took office, which is why he removed 2/3 of the troops almost immediately.

Even if we kept a few thousand advisers in the country, at the request of said nation's government, that shouldn't automatically be defined as a continued war. You know we still have troops in Korea, right?

Regardless, I'm glad they're all coming home so we can finally put the damned thing behind us.

5000 soldiers (0)

Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) | about 3 years ago | (#37797018)

and 70,000 'contractors'

Re:5000 soldiers (2)

Zenaku (821866) | about 3 years ago | (#37797142)

You didn't RTFA (standard practice) but you didn't RTFS either. The whole reason this is news is because the US will NOT be leaving 5000 troops behind. The administration was unable to reach an agreement granting immunity to US troops, and so will instead be leaving behind only about 150, to "assist with arms sales."

None of the articles I read mentioned contractors, though, so your number on that is probably not far off.

Re:5000 soldiers (0)

Q-Hack! (37846) | about 3 years ago | (#37797188)

There is a huge difference between a soldier carrying a gun and an unarmed contractor repairing the infrastructure.

Re:5000 soldiers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797750)

Well, you have to keep the guys that actually get the work done, right?

Of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797020)

After all, there is plenty of unrest at home that needs quelling.

Next phase (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797042)

War is over, country is destroyed. Time to send corporations to rebuild it, and do it 'the american way' (tm) this time.

The New Math? (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 3 years ago | (#37797062)

Regarding the summary:

When I learned arithmetic, 3 to 5 thousand remaining was not "all".

Same old mind fade: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 3 years ago | (#37797104)

My bad. I misread the article.

Re:Same old mind fade: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797594)

don't lie, you didn't read it at all :P

Re:Same old mind fade: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797762)

LOL. The New Reading? :p

Re:The New Math? (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | about 3 years ago | (#37797246)

I think you missed the part where we couldn't come to terms with Iraq on the Status Of Forces Agreement. Therefore we are pulling out all troops. The original 3-5k discussed wont be staying now.

How about ending foreign aid to Iraq also? (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about 3 years ago | (#37797094)

That should clear out the profiteering contractors...

Yeah, he was supposed to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797096)

He's just sticking to the previous administrations timeline: All US Forces are mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement signed in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq

Well, that's a clever tactic. (-1, Flamebait)

subreality (157447) | about 3 years ago | (#37797140)

Sure we'll stay, as long as you give us the right to rape, pillage and murder with no consequences. Oh, you've decided it's time for us to go home? Well, we know it's gonna be a rough time, but of course we'll honor your wishes. OK, see you next decade!

(takes off and buries a couple WMDs in the desert so they can be "found" again when needed, should have done that last time)

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic. (3, Interesting)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 3 years ago | (#37797276)

Soldiers still have to answer to US laws (theoretically of course). This just means they wouldn't have to answer to Iraqi laws. Imagine if Iraq passed a law that said all women must wear long pants and decides to arrest a female soldier in shorts.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic. (2)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#37797298)

>rape, pillage and murder with no consequences

The military tries and jails people for those things. They just don't want the locals doing it.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic. (2)

subreality (157447) | about 3 years ago | (#37797436)

Yeah, god knows they might convict someone.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic. (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797466)

Funny how the loudest and most outspoken critics have never worn a uniform.

Rape, pillage and murder? Lets take any city in the us thats similar to the size of baghdad and compare the number of rapes between the two cities.

Do you know that a female with an exposed face or a female caught going somewhere without a male escort is a crime in most middle eastern countries. How would you feel if every female american soldier was put in jail and placed on trial for these crimes? I'm sure you wouldnt care because you would never have to leave the safety of your computer chair.

You obviously just spurt mindless bullshit from your fingers and have no idea what is actually going on in the world.

Written by an american soldier in Iraq.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic. (1)

subreality (157447) | about 3 years ago | (#37797588)

I'm not criticizing the soldiers at all, actually. I'm just making a cynical joke of our foreign policy, which has, quite frankly, become a cynical joke.

Re:Well, that's a clever tactic. (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 3 years ago | (#37797606)

give us the right to rape, pillage and murder with no consequences

Those things would be handled by a military tribunal. The immunity is sought in order to prevent US soldiers from being hanged by a foreign court that hates them, for a minor offense. A reasonable demand IMHO, as we did just overthrow their country, there is plenty of, justifiable, hate towards Americans there.

What happens to the embassy area? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797152)

I am curious to know what happens to what I understand is a really really large embassy area in Iraq.

Re:What happens to the embassy area? (2)

pr0f3550r (553601) | about 3 years ago | (#37797380)

The embassy constitutes US soil within a foreign land. Troops stationed there are technically on 'American soil'. For the same reason, we can firmly declare that we have no troops occupying Cuba even though there are thousands of Troops at Guantanamo Bay. It is US soil.

Unless... (1)

bragr (1612015) | about 3 years ago | (#37797186)

Unless they renegotiate the security deal at the last moment. Politicians the world over seemed to like to make last minute deals so that both sides can claim victory.

Leaving Iraq again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797198)

And this is somehow "technical" news/information that as a sysadmin, I just can't wait to learn?

About time, but... (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | about 3 years ago | (#37797250)

With several friends having just been called up to be deployed in Afghanistan, I'm still just a bit cynical about any talks of ending the wars. I'll believe it when it happens.

Re:About time, but... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 3 years ago | (#37797404)

Afghanistan is not actually part of Iraq. If you look on a map you'll find it is a completely different country. I know most people suck at geography but you'll have to trust me on this.

Afghanistan is a whole other war - one that we probably are more justified in being involved with since the Taliban was happily hiding Al Qaeda - the supposed real threat to the US. The Taliban are pretty much worse that Saddam, Osama, and Qaddafi combined. The atrocities they've committed on women are horrific.

Re:About time, but... (0)

cobrausn (1915176) | about 3 years ago | (#37797808)

Really? Different countries? Never knew that hurrrr... Seriously, go fuck yourself with that snarky bullshit. It's part of the reason I rarely bother with this fucking place anymore - the signal to snarky asshat noise ratio is far too low.

Anyway, ending the war in Iraq is a nice move, and it should have happened a long time ago, but means nothing if we're just going to scale up our war effort elsewhere. We will be taking our soldiers out of Iraq and deploying them at other 'trouble spots' around the globe. It's a shell game at best. We will never be without enemies and people who hate us, and the world will never be without douchebags who need a bullet to the head, but it is not our fucking business to go around dictating which ones are the douchebags that get the bullet. It's a problem for the region and a problem for the international community.

Afghanistan is scaling up when we should be getting out. The Taliban is more or less broken and Osama is dead. I'm sure there are plenty of other places in the world where horrible atrocities are committed all the time that we can go invade if you insist on being a neo-con about it.

Re:About time, but... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 3 years ago | (#37797918)

Well honestly based on your comment I didn't know if you really DID realize that they were two unrelated wars. Your statement was a completely non-sequitur.

And Afghanistan is a problem we created in the first place LONG ago by helping them push the Russians out without putting an alternative into place. Taliban took control and trust me - there aren't much worse in the way of atrocities you can commit there. What's worse is they (along with Pakistan our supposed ally) were harboring the people who actually were successfully attacking us - both on 9/11 and abroad on several instances. We couldn't just leave them there. If you think about it - there is nothing else of value in Afghanistan. It's not oil rich or anything else rich. We are there to defeat our enemies and put in place a solid government like we should have 30+ years ago.

Good (2)

wwest4 (183559) | about 3 years ago | (#37797260)

Let's welcome them home from this situation properly -- with pomp and circumstance. To say they deserve at least that much is an understatement. If we can manage to make this happen for the Yankees, then we need to make sure it happens for the troops.

http://www.change.org/petitions/nyc-mayors-office-welcome-home-parade-in-canyon-of-heroes-for-iraq-vets [change.org]

Re:Good (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | about 3 years ago | (#37797508)

I appreciate the sacrifices soldiers make but considering how unpopular and unjustified the war in Iraq was and how much such a parade would be a target for violence and terrorism, as a New Yorker, I vote they move the parade to DC.

Re:Good (1)

medcalf (68293) | about 3 years ago | (#37797716)

As a resident of the DC area, we'd be happy to.

A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes (5, Funny)

Spafticus (2015632) | about 3 years ago | (#37797296)

Re:A funny picture is worth 1000 Bush jokes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797334)

Oh man, I wish I had mod points.

It's the Iraquis' decision (1)

Animats (122034) | about 3 years ago | (#37797400)

It's not up to the US. The current Iraqi government wants US troops out. That's their decision,and they made it. This isn't new news; it's been underway for almost two years.

Sacrifice us for himself. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797506)

Obama is only sacrificing our troops and US interest and safety in order to make himself look good. But then again. Obama, the so called Christian has always truely been pro-islam.

Re:Sacrifice us for himself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797826)

Sounds like a comment straight out of Yahoo news story comments

A pre-emptive "Welcome home" to all of them (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 3 years ago | (#37797664)

Just want to say thanks for having the balls to go into a miserable situation and put your ass on the line for a bunch of people you don't know and then had to stay for reasons very few knew about.

Great news! (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about 3 years ago | (#37797690)

Now, let's get them home from Afghanistan, too. As much as I'd like to see the Afghan people have a safe and stable democracy, 10 years is too long and too many Americans have died. We seem to be having better luck with drones and missiles. Bring *all* the troops home now!

Re:Great news! (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 3 years ago | (#37797924)

I think the quickest way for us to get our troops home from Afghanistan would be to kill every single person in the country. I'm sure that a systematic extermination of everyone in the country would not take nearly as long as just trying to kill the bad guys. If we don't care whom we kill I am sure we can get out of there in around one year.

Mr.? (2)

rotide (1015173) | about 3 years ago | (#37797742)

I don't particularly have a lot of love for the President, but why do they continually call him "Mr. Obama"? If they can't respect the man, that's fine, but at least respect the office. Hopefully I'm not being overly pedantic...

We're heard this before... (2)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 3 years ago | (#37797748)

I seem to recall one way that our beloved leaders have gotten around it is by sending in more "peace-keeping", "training", or "support" forces instead. And of course our dear friends from Blackwater as contractors can be there forever shooting up the place without being counted as troops.

In other words we probably won't see any meaningful change from this, just as we haven't seen any meaningful change from anything else that has actually been done by Obama since taking office.

Go ahead, mod me down now. But I dare you to try to prove me wrong.

Something to think about (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | about 3 years ago | (#37797766)

How much was this decision influenced by WikiLeaks and bad PR this nonsensical war is bringing to Mr. Obama for next elections?

What timing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797832)

Just in time for the run-up to the 2012 election. How convenient.

There are a million normal news sites... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797878)

How is this "news for nerds"?

What about WMD? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37797952)

If all US soldiers will go, who will search for WMD? And who will implement democracy in Iraq? I thought you guys attacked Iraq because they had WMD and besides that you wanted democracy for the poor people of Iraq.

Whatever.... (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | about 3 years ago | (#37797962)

I don't CARE if MOST of the troops leave...
What seems important to me and I hope many people is what is it COSTING us now and after some more troops leave? if one guy is still there, but 10 military bases are being powered and run, and supplies are still flowing in, it's wasting an already bloated budget.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?