Let's see, the #1 job if the President of the United States is the security of the people and the economy, and the #1 threat to the security of the people and economy is that we are 100% dependent on the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf. Now I'm no Tom Clancy but I think I seeing the plan here. Those people in Kuwait like us pretty good since we saved them from Saddam and all. They probably won't be trying to blow us up while we bivouac; right where the oil docks are, right by Iran, right around the corner from Karachi. not bad.
I thought Obama said the "troops are coming home". Is Kuwait home? The thing is Iran saw this exit as a victory, they are gaining momentum in their influence in Iraq. It speaks volumes about the intentions when all you do is move next door when you are saying you are going home. I hope they don't get too involved into the game Iran is playing. The only way this will end is if America attacks Iran or if the Iraqis welcome back America. One of the two will happen.
I'm pretty sure it makes a difference to the Iraqis whether the troops are in Iraq or elsewhere in the Gulf. Having lived in the Gulf for a couple years, I'm pretty sure it makes a difference to the troops whether they are in Iraq or elsewhere in the Gulf, too. My experience is these places tend to be safer for American troops than Iraq and probably have better shopping, too.
If you're going to talk about the people you don't agree with, it might serve you best to offer up something other than a weak insult.
You 100% agree though, that because they are in the area that sooner rather than later they will be back on Iraqi soil yes?
1. Why are you 100% sure that troops will be needed back in Iraq? 2. If the troops are moved to, say, Ft. Benning instead of Kuwait and Qatar, does it make it less likely they'll be needed back in Iraq "sooner or later"? 3. If things do come to a point where US troops are needed in Iraq, what do you think ought to be done?
I wasn't offering up a weak insult. I wonder why people who argue politics would act like going to Kuwait is the same as staying in Iraq. Kuwait isn't Iraq. They are different. I didn't mean to insult anyone, just wondering why people would be willfully ignorant.
"Tend to be safer"? I've been to the Gulf a few times and this is the understatement of the year. The troops won't be in harms way. Plus, there won't be a vacuum left behind. This is the best case scenario. Ron Paul and the lefties would love to bring all troops home from overseas but they live in a dream world, not the real one. But I'm not saying we couldn't significantly pull back from some places.
This is Carl who's posting, you know. Nope. Just because we have soldiers in South Korea doesn't necessarily we're invading the North anytime soon, and we haven't done so for about 60 years.
I've seen this in a lot of your posts, and as I've been in government service for over 20+ years, I figured I would do you a favor and pass your request on to some friends in the IRS. I would start saving receipts if I were you.
I can't believe Obama has betrayed us by leaving troops in Kuwait. First he didn't bring the troops home from Korea, now Kuwait. And don't forget about Germany. Our boys need to leave these countries and come home - Obama please withdrawl all our military forces from the world and bring them home now!
The truth is if it were a republican president, the liberals would be screaming foul. Liberals love to cut military spending, so Im not sure why they believe this is an ok move. As others have stated, moving the troops to kuwait is not bring the troops home.
The beauty of conservatism. If Obama brings all the troops home and Iran invades Iraq then it's Obama's fault for letting the axis of evil prevail. If Obama ends the war and puts troops in Kuwait then he's a liar. Heads I win, tails you lose. Sounds just like what happened in Lybia. Invade Lybia, don't invade Lybia, you waited too long, you led from behind. You guys are really hilarious.
This has been the case in the gulf arab region for the last few decades, why would it change now? Also, everyone is on high alert due to Arab Spring mode, I'm sure Obama wishes he had some stand-by troops which give him the flexibility to respond (Rather than having hands tied in deteriorating Iraq/Afghanistan wars). Police and military presence in the region seems unusually high this year in general. So it's best to monitor either Iran or N Korea, and I assure you, it's far easier, cheaper, and more comfortable to monitor Iran than N Korea. The Iranian and Syrian regimes will probably be toppled soon (internally) and the US needs to be prepared in case another psychotic government tries to come into power - this is the final step to a 100% compliant US-loving Middle East.
People on the board seem pretty chilled about an oil crisis. Last time I asked, it seemed the majority opinion was that the US would be able to replace gulf or opec oil pretty quickly. I disagree totally of course, shifting that amount of oil supply to another region would be slow, dangerous, expensive and unpredictable. The US has been sipping gulf oil for so long, the region is strategically covered in American bases to secure this region. This region is essentially designed to be as stable, profitable and non-interfering as possible - very much how you would run it if it were a company.
correct it isn't bringing the troops home. But it is living up to a previously made agreement with the sovereign state of Iraq. Living up to your word and following through with agreements you made is the right thing to do.
Semantics. We've had soldiers in Kuwait for 20 years. No one has ever complained. It's just a reversion to the status quo before the Iraqi War, and whether we have soldiers in Kuwait, where they won't be fighting and the locals like us, is so much worse than having them sit in some base in America.
