Last U.S. Combat Troops Leave Iraq This Evening 8/18/2010

After 7 years of war in Iraq and over 4,400 U.S. service personnel that didn't make it out of Iraq alive and at the cost of trillions of U.S. dollars spent there, what did we get for our investment? Keeping this simple, list the top 3 returns on our investment. I'm just curious now that we are done, what people think we gained.

 

1. A military base to launch an attack against Iran when necessary
2. Our first black President
3. A democratic ally in the middle east

Whether you believe it or not, Iraq may turn out to be one of the best investments we have ever made. Nobody can predict the future, but I doubt that Iran feels good about the fact that the US has an army base right next door. And I am a strong believer that Iran will go to war before they abandon their military nuclear program.

 

A democratic ally? Thats funny. The Iraqis are whispering 'dont let the door hit ya in the butt as you leave.' Whats democratic? The voting? Oh yea, thats legitimate. An Army base close to Iran? Do we need that? Cant missles do even more damage than some troops with rifles ''when necessary.''? Is this country really worried about Iran so much? That it might be defeated unless we are really really close? Our first black President isnt turning out to be the investment over half this country reckoned for. All Iraq was that some guy avenged his father without having done it himself. And a few Iraqis got very very rich.

 

This is the result when you actually attempt to involve yourself in the subject matter. All this post proves is that we should all be glad that you have nothing to with our foreign policy decision making process. Nuke Iran, good idea! And to think you took time away from your clown studies to make that post.

 

Well I can understand why you included the first black President as an asset to the war in Iraq. But your retort only shows you dont like anyone to disagree with you. And that you might be wrong is so unimaginable to you. Show us where democracy is applied in Iraq besides voting. Show us please. And try not to take as long as you did when you admitted the P in BP no longer stood for petroleum. Oh wait you didnt admit to that. I never said NUKE. Why did you lie? I said missles Missiles. Get it?

 

At present, Iraq is considered a democratic country. You can criticize the Iraqi government all you want but let me ask you this. Under which government would you rather live, the Iraqi government or the Iranian government?

You may have not said NUKE, but it was certainly implied. You said we don't need a military base in Iraq because missles can cause more damage than troops. There is no other missile in our arsenal that can completely eliminate the need for ground troops other than a nuclear missile. So it seems you have a choice. Either admit that you meant NUKES, or admit that you are an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about.

BTW, the tone of my retort is reserved solely for you and has nothing to do with people disagreeing with me. Your response to my statement was nothing more than forum trolling. You didn't answer the OP's question and your sole motive was to disagree with me at all costs. So dedicated were you in your endeavor that you successfully came of sounding like a moron. Congratulations donkey!

 

Saddam Hussain was a pain in the ass for the Iranians. He attacked them and fought a long drawn out war that kept them busy. Now the government of Iraq is, at least theologically, aligned with the Iranian government i.e. they are both Shiite Muslims. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim.

I'll give you one concession though, you are the only one that listed three returns on our investment. I may not understand them and maybe they were meant facetiously or maybe not but you are the only one so far. And BTW this isn't a trap. I seriously want to know what people think the return on our investment really was. To prove it, I will not criticize your response.

 

Saddam was a pain in the ass to the Iranians only with the support of the United States government. He eventually became a pain in our ass and more to the point, a thorn in W's side. Despite the reasons that started the Iraq war, it may turn out to be one of the most important stategic decisions of the century depending upon how the Iran situation unfolds.

My reasons were absolutely sincere, including the black President. Notice I did not list "a victorious battle in the war on terror" as a return on investment. There are people who believe that the biggest threat the national security of the United States is terrorism. I am not one of those people. Terrorism is merely a symptom of a bigger problem, a clash of cultural and religious ideologies. Terrorists employ guerilla warfare tactics and we will never truly beat them. Likewise, they don't have the size to challenge the soveriegnty of our nation. However, there are countries in the world that agree with the terrorists and do present a very real threat to the United States.

Those countries in order of threat level are: Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. Iran is easily the biggest threat and they are actively seeking to develop nuclear weapons. The current Iranian regime makes no secret of their opposition to the United States and the entire Iranian government is unstable. That instability makes the current regime very dangerous and it is easy to forsee events that could lead the US to war against Iran. Incidentally, Iran has the largest military force in the world making the a very formidable adversary.

North Korea is less of a factor due to geography, South Korea, and China. However, if they get the technology to reach the US with a nuclear weapon, they are crazy enough to do it.

Pakistan scares the crap out of me. I don't believe they consider the US an ally don't think we should consider them one. The already have nuclear weapons but they are limited because of their proximity to both China, Russia, and India.

My point is that these states are the real threats to US national security. Having a military base available to combat our most threating enemy may prove to be invaluable. Lest we not forget how important military bases can be, the 9/11 terrorist attacks were a direct result of the US decision to place US troops in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war. I am not saying that a showdown with Iran is immenent but it is certainly likely at this point. And I for one would like to be prepared when it happens. That said, having military bases in Iraq is meaningless unless the government of Iraq considers the US an ally. We need to do everything in our power to ensure a measure of democracy in Iraq and that the government is in good relations with the United States.

I hope this helps explain my list.

 

Nuke wasnt implied. I said missles. I didnt say they could replace troops. Are you able to read a sentence? I said they could slow an enemy down until troops arrive. You imply want ever you want . That makes you look like a jerk. You are the one acting like an idiot. You said We needed a base close to Iran. For what? For troops I guess. But missles can do what what they do until troops arrive at a needed location. So theres no need for a base there because we have modern things like jets that can bring troops right in the thick of it. And it has everything to do with people disagreeing you. Because in a previous post you wrote that you only use insults when provoked. So either you are a liar or you just dont like when someone disagrees with you. Thats your choice. You have no other. Thats how you sound. Like a dope. And dont give that 'Its just you because''.., and 'You and blah blah blah.' Because you included my name in the post in which you said you resort to insults only when provoked. Go ahead and think Iraq is a democracy. But you are wrong. A country that allows women to be stoned to death is not a democracy. And stop acting like an ass. You see Iran as a serious threat. I dont. I see China as an even bigger threat. And it is your opinion that we need Iraq. And that we do everything to enusre we have good relations with its government. Even if it means the ''elected'' leaders to torture the oppostition. So you mean like the great relationship we had with Hussien? We allowed him to rule with an iron fist so we could call him an ally. We allowed him to toture and wreck havoc on his on people. For our own end. And just like Iran. The Shah was 100 times worse than Hussein. But Iran was an ally so we closed our eyes to the murders and the stealing. I just dont think those are the top three things that came out of this conflict. I dont know what good has come of it, but I dont think its what you wrote. On the other hand. Go chase yourself. Can you tell what I'm implying there sport?

 

Okay, here is your first comment about missiles.

This passage indicates that you think a military base in Iraq is unnecessary because missiles do more damage than ground troops and accomplish the same goal. So tell us Craig, what missile in the US arsenal has the ability to do what you claim that can be fired from the Persian Gulf or further? Guess what, there is only one answer! Nuclear missiles!

Most of your post is an incoherent emotional response. It is a desperate attempt by a troll to engage in serious debate. You are confirming everything I have said about you with every pathetic word you type. Want proof. Okay! You just stated that Iran is not a threat to the United States. That is absolutely ludicrous. What will it take for you to believe? Perhaps a mushroom cloud over sin city from an Iranian nuclear bomb!

If you really think that China represents a bigger threat to US national security than Iran, then provide the members of this forum with the reasons why!

Go chase yourself huh? That comment hurled at me by the biggest on the entire forum. See the difference clownboy. I don't need to hide behide innuendo. If you have something to say, then take off your skirt and say it!

 

There really is something wrong with you. We have missles in Turkey that arent nukes that can reach Iran and do devasating damage to Iranian troops. We have missles in UAE that can also reach Iran. And they arent nukes. . And I said I dont see Iran as a SERIOUS threat. But again you seem to read things that arent there. Thats retarded. OOOOOOOO..You said . Wow youre cool. Youre quite the brave one. If I called you a would that make you feel better. If I said *******s like you who, by your own admission, like to beat up weaklings and steal money from kids dumb enough to be afraid of dopes like you, are usually just big windbags who are so insecure in there manhood and place in the world they resort to foul language and tough talk to make them feel better about themselves.

 

Anytime you care to test your little theory, just let me know grandpa!

BTW, Iran has a medium range ballistic missile called the Shahab-3 that is capable of reaching all of those sites you just mentioned. Do you really think Turkey and the UAE are going to allow the US to start launching missiles at a neighboring Arab state who has retaliatory capabilities? Furthermore, I am aware of nuclear missile installations in Turkey but not non-nuclear. And congratulations on being the lone US citizen who does not consider Iran a threat.

Hey, I am still waiting for the reasons why China is a bigger threat than Iran!

 

can we please leave the personal insults out guy's

 

I gotta admit I am not big into all this hoopla about 'combat troops leaving when there are still 50000 troops left and the troops leaving will probably just end up in Afghanistan trying to turn that craphole into a country.

 

Iraq was a waste of people, time and money.
My daughter has been there twice, and thank the lord, is home safe on American dirt now.
Admit it righty's, Bush F'd us with this war.

 

I've been to Iraq only once and Afghanistan only once too but, reasons or no reasons for us having gone to either place, I would put my money on the Iraqis long, long before the Afghans. Unless things have drastically changed in the last couple of years, I can't see Afghanistan ever being a country as most of the world thinks of one.

The impression I got was that we could leave Afghanistan yesterday, today or in 10 years and it will still revert to a land of chaos and easy picking for the next Taliban, Al-Quaeda, etc. It is a lost cause if we are sacrificing live thinking it will be anything else.

I am not saying staying in Iraq that long was not a waste but they have a pretty good odds of being an actual country again in the future. Afghanistan hasn't been one and won't be one regardless of what we do.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39019711/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/


Just shows how the whole hoopla about 'combat troops' and 'combat operations' is just political BS of the worst sort.

 

Yep....they are stil there fighting and dying. It's like the book 1984 where the Ministry of Truth just blabs whatever they want and MOST of the proletariate believe it.

 

It's worth noting that although combat troops may have left Iraq, the non-combat troops there still receive combat pay. The only difference between Bush's "Mission Accomplished" and Obama's "the combat troops are gone" is that Obama had sense enough not to put it on a sign that he let himself be photographed in front of.

 

The U.S. removed troops but left a large contingent of contractors who are getting very well paid.There are more than 2000 contract companies in the United States .

Pep