This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.



Your Ad Here

Monday, March 2, 2009

Obama Promises to Continue Iraq War

One of the main reasons Obama was elected was the fact that the Iraq war was really unpopular. He promised to "change" things.

This article in the NY Times (cited many other locations) made me say "ROFLMAO!"


Even after August 2010, as many as 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq would remain, including some combat units reassigned as “Advisory Training Brigades” or “Advisory Assistance Brigades,” the administration and Pentagon officials said.

Summarizing, President Obama still plans to keep 50,000 "non-combat" troops in Iraq. This is *AFTER* his troop withdrawal.

There's no such thing as noncombat troops. If you're walking around carrying a gun and demanding other people obey your orders, you're a soldier.

It's amusing to see the mainstream media give Obama a free pass on this. They're not saying "Obama, you ***hole! You said you were going to end the Iraq war!" They're saying "Duh! Of course we have to keep *SOME* troops in Iraq!"

How many people remember Obama saying in his campaign "I promise to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq!"?

Once elected, a politician has no obligation to keep campaign promises. If you don't like it, you have to wait 4 years and vote for another fake choice.

If you don't want to support the Iraq war, agorism is your best option.

4 comments:

fritz said...

Yea, not only are we going to remain in Iraq. but We even get to take another giant step toward socialism. Looks like our government is right on track with their agenda.

Fritz

robert30062 said...

I've posted many times on this subject. The Middle East/Central Asian invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan are most likely proceeding as originally planned in terms of the timeframe since their respective beginnings. As I've said, the main reason for a decline in violence in Iraq is that most people have simply fled the country for Iran or Syria. Syria has extended its refugee migration limits every year since 2005 with President Assad himself saying in 2007 that "Syria cannot turn a blind eye" to the severity and enormity of the humanitarian crisis. For their trouble they tolerate illegal US military activity inside their own borders on a regular basis including a missile strike in September 2008 which left dozens dead and at least that many injured including innocent civilians. This operation was conducted under the auspices of "the pursuit of terrorists", the usual end-all excuse for US military operations anywhere. Now that violence is within an "acceptable level", the phase of long-term presence will be held in place into the indefinite future through the SOA (Status of Forces Agreement) which of course includes the legal contracts for virtually exclusive US rights to oil reserves with the roughly 50,000 "non-combat" troops left in place for "security training" and "force protection". It’s important to note that included in the language of the SOA, which I would encourage anyone to read, is the right to escalate the level of troops and operations at anytime within the country if the “needs” or “security concerns” arise.

There was an article in the Washington Post this weekend which led with the headline: "'Dark era' over in Iraq as Bars Reopen". This story included a mention of young Iraqi women who "Appeared to be prostitutes in tight pink outfits dancing around to pop music". The story went on to hubristically boast the triumph of democracy found in the scene of US soldiers in uniform, rifles strapped around their shoulders, sipping beers and cavorting about with the young Iraqi woman and the male bar owners. The quote of the "dark era" being over was placed in the headline as though it was the commentary of the UN Secretary General himself when in reality those words were taken from an interview of an international pop singer who performs at the club featured in the article. To the victors go the spoils of war I guess, but when realizing the true weight of losses that the Iraqi people have endured since the first gulf war, the immoral 10-year sanctions which starved and killed hundreds of thousands including mainly infants and children, the latest invasion and occupation which is coming up on its 6th anniversary, it's clear to see that the state of existence in this ravaged country has reached the bottom of the barrel in terms of hardship and hopelessness.

It might be worth observing that even Genghis Khan employed a military code of non-fraternization with women of conquered lands and enforced it as strictly as he could as part of a policy, similar to that of Alexander the Great, which preferred vassal partnerships as opposed to direct and marshal rule. Even a barbarian from 13th century Mongolia had a better understanding of regional stability and human relations than our own experts at the Pentagon and on the Defense Policy Board. If you take away a man’s house, his livelihood and ability to attain it, then deny and/or greatly impede his ability to have children, he will become desperate and solely driven to resistance and non-cooperation. The simple translation is that, given the current assertions of policy by the great hero of “Hope” and “Change” and his administration, we will have never-ending violence and deaths for the Iraqi people and US military personnel. If the ‘Dark Era’ has ended, then we have now entered an historic black hole of civilization.


Robert

Kyle said...

YAY, Democrats are up for disappointment.

robert30062 said...

Hey FSK, Fritz, I have a few posts up on my blog now and would love it if you guys could become followers or post some things on it. Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated!

http://imperialrealities.blogspot.com/


Robert

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at realfreemarket.org.