...Video won't load for me...
Is this another 'the war is over. We're staying, of course, but not "at war" anymore' thing, or are the troops actually leaving?
Hmmm Handfleisch don't see you making any mention of the legislation that was signed by Obama at the beginning of the year about Gitmo. It's still there and does not look as though it will ever be closed. Some people sees it as a strike against human rights. Obama saw it the same during his initial Presidential campaign - and that was a REAL mission of his too, but then had a change of heart along the way. How do you see it?
Good. Would be better if the private military contractors weren't sticking around. I guess the war is over. The occupation probably never will be.
However, like Arnold said "I'ii be back"! Iraq will be asking somebody's military to defend their lazy butts again soon. Iran already knocking on their door.
Glad to see the Surge that Democrats fought against worked, as well as the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East with a free Iraq as the anchor. We'll see if this is actually a true end of military operations on the part of the US, however, or yet another sign that Obama would rather create a PR stunt that plays well with his base while putting the US’ interests and her soldiers in harm’s way. From the reports of increased violence and attacks in Iraq since Obama’s publicity stunt, however, it seems this has been poorly planned and managed, which is of no surprise.
I'm not sure I'm following. How exactly is removing the troops putting any soldiers in harm's way? Surely having them fight a war is more harmful than... not fighting? I can see how pulling out would not be considered the best option, but I can't see how it could be considered the most dangerous one for the soldiers.
And how can you say Bush's "spreading democracy" (by military invasion) is a success if the country is still violent and dependent on US military?