Originally Posted by Swyne

It's about time.
It was not even worth it considering that U.S. jumped into a conflict that we could have left well enough alone.

Originally Posted by Echoforce

I believe if we would've stayed a bit longer things could be better for them, or at least should we have left a small enough bit of troops to make sure everything over there stays on the up-and-up. It's great that Obama kept his promise to make sure the troops came home, but we'll probably pay for it later.

Iraq and the United States had previously agreed to end the war by 2011. But that announcement was overshadowed by a reporter throwing his shoes at then-President Bush.

This is a deal-breaker, because it would expose American personnel to unacceptable risks and make it almost impossible to do their jobs without being exposed to potential arbitrary prosecution by Iraq’s politicized police and judicial authorities.

Originally Posted by Vox

@OP:
Do you have any opinion on the speed of troop withdrawal? The original plan was by the end of 2011, now it's 2012, how the heck will they pull that off?

Originally Posted by Marco

The last 4,000 troops are leaving within the next two weeks, which is quite doable. If you're talking in terms of when they were originally supposed to return to the US it has been incredibly slow. Granted, Obama hasn't at any point tried to keep troops there but progress has not been speedy. However, he has kept to the agreement made between America and Iraq in late 2008: 'All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011'.

And to answer my own question, no it has not been worth it. No WMDs were found and no 'victory' has been gained, because there was never an aim for victory in the first place.

Originally Posted by T0ribush

Not everyone deserves a trial Vox.

Originally Posted by Chr0niK

i doubt its actually over our government does pretty sneaky shit

Originally Posted by Vox

@OP:
Do you have any opinion on the speed of troop withdrawal? The original plan was by the end of 2011, now it's 2012, how the heck will they pull that off?

Related video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-C2v_q0d-w
1.5 trillion dollars, you killed Osama, without a trial. GOOD JOB WITH THAT. :|

Eh, you failed to do your research, here are the problems with that post:
A) The troops came home according to bush's plans, Obama let the current plans continue. He did nothing of value.

Yea remember that? src: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/war-is-ov...-by-years-end/

B) The Iraq government would not grant the US troops legal immunity, the US retracted due to that, care to guess why? The real problem is that the US Government kept asking if they could stay even longer.

Because obeying the law is for noobs. src: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/17/...roop-presence/

C) The number of troops staying is 150. To defend the embassy. How is that going to keep things on the up and up?

By the way, USA, your military is coming home, the 'Defence authorisation act' looks like it will pass, that means they can now arrest you indefinitely without trial or reason, and the military can act within borders: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tO2irR2Wj8
Have fun with that.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Manufactured outrage. If you're going to complain about how soldiers fighting in open combat aren't given a trial, you're going to have to condemn a whole lot more than the United States.

Originally Posted by Vox

durr

Originally Posted by Gormun

Personally I don't condone war in the first place, but I digress; invading a country and killing a man who you just woke up, still in pyjamas, who cowers behind his wife in his bedroom is hardly comparable to 'how soldiers fight in open combat'. From a moral standpoint I think you can at least appreciate that killing an unarmed man - no matter how much you don't like them - is unjustified. I am pretty sure a well trained elite team can overpower a 50 year old man in his pyjamas, so there is really no excuse for killing rather than detaining.

I entirely agree with you, apart from the fact that he was scrambling for an AK, and wasn't not cowering behind his wife, she jumped in front of him to protect him. This is the common story, and can be found on CNN, ABC, and many other credible news sources.

I think there would be quite an outrage if soldiers attacked sleeping enemies and slaughtered them.

You expect there to be 'honor' in warfare? If the next day, they are going to shove explosives in their ass and try to blow you up, would you let them live on account of the fact that they are sleeping? Would you rather the team of seals be sent in at daytime, while guards are all armed to the teeth?

However the worst part is when Americans refer to the killing of Osama as 'justice'. Actually, the really sickening part is when Americans go on about 'oh how weak Osama was, I heard he was huddled and crying and begging for his life and even cowering behind his wife, haha what a loser. I'm glad they killed him'. Whenever an American says something like that it makes me sick to my stomach.

Its because you have a fairly anti-american stomach.

This is the kind of behaviour which is an indicator of a psychopath... I guess the most troubling part of this situation is that the majority of USA are showing psychopathic tendencies.

A psychopath is a person that lacks empathy. Something to do with their amygdala or something(psychology is rusty). Your claims of the majority of the USA showing psychopathic tendencies is idiotic. Go drown a bucket of puppies on national television, see how we react.

I think you are really scraping the bottom when you say someone is wrong in saying;
'9 years' instead of '8 years and 270 days'
'4500' instead of '4483'
'800 billion' (obvious typo was made) instead of '757.8 billion' ignoring your other source
And 1,000,000 dead Iraqis vs 103,536 to 113,125 casualties as a a result of the war. Notice you are both talking about different things, the 1 million includes deaths from food shortages, infrastructure failure, in other words it is 'how many people died as a result of the war' as opposed to 'how many people were killed by the war'.

Its ironic that you are the one saying this, seeing as this is what you do in every argument.

The current purpose of the war is to support stability and rebuilding of the nation, correct? In my opinion although the war should never have been started nor have gone this far, nor should USA have carpet bombed civilian targets, etc, in short there were a lot of mistakes and bad things, however it is irresponsible of the USA to pull out now.

I agree with you, but, I also disagree with your last statement. Our troops don't need to be there. We took out the tyrannical Saddam Hussein. Mission accomplished, as far as i'm concerned.

But I guess if you consider that USA is the main target of the insurgents, and internal and international pressures, maybe it is the right move. Allied forces are less at risk and without the US presence the region stands a better chance of stabilizing.