http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/18/...raq.combat.convoy/index.html?hpt=T1

ONLY CAPITAL LETTERS ARE REAL

WHAT WE GUN DO NOW?

I'm really excited about this.

liberals are drinking the kool aid as usual. fucking moonbats.

I don't give a fuck to be honest with you. We should go after Germany for round 3!! They would kick our asses this time. It was all part of their diabolical plan to begin with. It just took 96 years. Damn the krauts are patient.

BTW, there are still 50,000 U.S troops in Iraq who will stay until I think next year. So yeah.

We may be leaving Iraq but we're definitely not leaving Afghanistan anytime soon.

At least we made the progress of leaving one country. Iraq is no longer considered a combat zone. All the offensive strategies are being focused on flushing out the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Call me stupid, but what's the big deal if the last convoy has left, yet there's still thousands of troops there?

trickery of the mainstream media my friend.

Invade IRAN.

you drink the military kool aid

only reason we went to Iraq was so Sadam didn't nationalize the oil fields (like Iran did when we went in and tried to overthrow them)

only reason we went to afganistan was proven true this year when they found those massive mineral deposits...guess who will benefit from the trillions of dollars of resources they just found there...

and the reason we are leaving Iraq is so we can invade Iran or maybe Venezuela, for, you guessed it, both countries are top oil sources.

The two key sentences of the article on Corporate Noise Network:

"Their departure leaves about 56,000 U.S. troops in the country, according to the U.S. military."

"The State Department is preparing to leave much of that footprint. It will handle many of the responsibilities currently shouldered by the military, increasing its security contractors from 2,700 to nearly 7,000, sources said."

And the later is just the State Dept.'s contractor bump; whether the DoD will bump their contractor numbers isn't revealed here, but you can rest assured that there's close to a 1:1 soldier/contractor already, i.e. nearly 56,000 contractors in ongoing support roles for the military, including mercenaries, no doubt.

"We" aren't going anywhere, just yet. Stupid.

Greg Palast makes a pretty good case that Iraq part 1 was less about Kuwait than a massive American debt collection action, on the part of Saddam's Saudi creditors... And that Part 2 was particularly urgent to the oil mafia, who had benefited from Iraq playing the role of "under producer" in OPEC. Saddam was threatening to pull out of the cartel, having been stuck in the less-lucrative Asshole chair for years, which allowed OPEC as a whole to gouge the hell out of the oil/gas market. Our entanglements with the Saudis are easily just as bad as with Israel; I think there's a good chance that the US presence in Yemen may be a precursor to broader involvement across the whole Arabian peninsula, all to keep the House Of Saud hand-holdin'-happy...

As for Afghanistan, I think the mineral wealth will certainly serve as a strong enticement for the corporate community to forget all that "Graveyard Of Empires" mumbo-jumbo, and support Obama's surge in "Af-Pak"... But I'm sure at the heart of it, it's still about this:

theatrics. do people really buy this shit?? how are people so stupid to think this is any different than when W declared victory 4 years ago already? great job people. keep up the good work i guess

yeah. but i think that map seriously underestimates the amount of US/coalition troops in the region especially in afghan, unless i'm reading it wrong.

You're right about Iraq and it's a step in the right direction in getting soldiers home (even though there are still 50,000 troops there) but I hope you don't think the Taliban is the reason we're there. They will never be flushed out. Just our presence there keeps them strong. That area has ALWAYS had oppressors. Remember that US forces have been engaged there longer than any other conflict in history, and we fought the Brits, Germans, and Japanese. Offensive strategies will not work when Pakistani gunsmiths can make 1,000 guns a day by hand so they can eat (nevermind the fact that we're armed the Taliban in the first place).

Only a non-combative peace effort to help those who want to be helped is the only way for the Paki/Afghans to flush out their own oppressors. WON'T HAPPEN.

Truff

bennyhillifier

Word on the street is we only have 50000 reapers left there. We Fucked

bennyhillifier

ONLY OMAR SOULEYMAN IS REAL


bennyhillifier

This is really quite simple actually, this is no sudden media trick or conspiracy. The plan outlined back when Obama took office was all combat troops out by August 2010 and all troops out by December 2011, and they're right on track, including handing over the bases (the most important sign of withdrawal).

The pledge of no permanent bases has also been made in Afghanistan, with a start withdrawal date of July 2011. Looks like it would take two to three years to be out of Afg completely if the Iraq timeline is any indication.

The trickery is within the wording and headlines. It's as simple as that. The title of the article could be somewhat misleading to most.
When I was taking journalism classes in college, they always tell you to have a hook in your headline. The media is notorious for selective journalism (propaganda) and creating hooks to catch attention but not getting into much detail.

Then again, it is nice to see our troops come back

...just to be redeployed!

Also, you think the Taliban is bad - if we're on a crusade for democracy and human rights, why aren't we fighting in Liberia and Sudan?

Because they are niggers, YAY!!

BUILD MOAR PYLONS

Imperialism+getting resources+moving chess pieces = our plan. it's what our taxes pay for.

DONG DONG

the next world war will be like if someone took the table your risk board was sitting on and flipped it over. Ahh fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccc--

Yes, that's definitely true, things have to be either great or terrible when it comes to headlines that sell, kind of like since the oil stopped spilling that everything's supposed to be OK as if there's no long-term damage underwater from the oil.

(The news stories don't say that of course, but they imply it in their simplicity, and lost in the omission is the truth.)

I can therefore understand and agree with you that people who weren't keeping up with the troop levels over the years might be misled by this headline; I just don't think in this case it's any sort of cover to prolong occupations, as it often might have become in the past, but in this instance just media brevity in the worst fashion.

ROCKS FALL, EVERYONE DIES

Is it just me, or did some of her responses seem coached?

They've come to snuff you, that's why, this being a thread about war and all.

Very rich people make a lot of money from their many businesses. Very rich people have lots of money. Money persuades people. The pentagon has lots of guns. Very rich people persuade the people with guns with lots of money to do things that make them more money. What's a few thousands dead soldiers and a few million dead foreigners when you can build castles out of hundred dollar bills? Nothing too bad, I guess.

No doubt; it's short on specifics, but illustrates the key response to the moronic "BUT AFGHANISTAN DOESN'T HAVE ANY OIL ARGUMENT!" that some geniuses put forth. The Caspian Basin is likely the ultimate strategic control point of the Eurasian landmass, and if there's one idea that the US oligarchs and oil mafia hate more than all that crude going unexploited, it's the prospect of a Westward pipeline allowing Russian interests to do the exploiting.

Err... "ARGUMENT" should have been outside of the quotes and not capitalized, but you know what I mean.

YOUR FUCK RIGHT ABOUT THAT!