Obama pledges troop withdrawl by end of 2011.

Story here.

Obama pledges approximately 100,000 US soldiers out by August of 2010, and all of them out by end of year at 2011.

Do you believe it?

I dont know but I feel it is way too late, but better late than never right.

i think its fair to say actions speak louder than words and todays address is the opening. imv i believe all poloticians are the same but i believe obama because no other president has stated judge me by the stim bill or the withdraw from iraq. people attacked obama from the begining and you know the mans been in office for a little over of a month. the acctions the republicans did with bush determined the partys fate and no republican will admit it do to career credibily

Yup, I believe Obama.

2011 sounds about right. It gives the IRaqi Govt a goal to strive for. Unconditional support should never be granted to any country the USA helps.

it sounds a little true. good news is his thinking about getting them out of there but will probaly move them somewhere else. my cousin is in the military and he just got moved to Afghanistan. iam2green

Believe it? Yeah, why not? But the unfortunate truth is that most of these troops are simply being displaced to Afghanistan.spazzx625

A few posts in and I saw the correct answer. They are not coming home.

Big Fat Lie....dont trust that guy, just by the way he looksRigga911

Wow...

Sure, I believe he'll pull the troops out of IRAQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all just get moved to Afghanistan, or even Iran. Didn't Obama say something a while back about how we can't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and if Iran gets nukes we are going to take action? Come on, it's not our business to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons.FoOd77

The worst idea ever. The US and other NATO countries are in the thick of trying to stabilize the region. They got involved and should stay until its finished. To leave now would just set them up for failure and even more conflict.foxhound_fox

Just in time for the 2012 campaign to kick into high gear ;)xaos

if you wanna win, you gotta start early.

the average starting plan is 6 years in advance. you can never be "too early."

[QUOTE="FoOd77"]Sure, I believe he'll pull the troops out of IRAQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all just get moved to Afghanistan, or even Iran. Didn't Obama say something a while back about how we can't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and if Iran gets nukes we are going to take action? Come on, it's not our business to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons.-Sun_Tzu-

I dont know but I feel it is way too late, but better late than never right.

-SPECTER-MIKE

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="FoOd77"]Sure, I believe he'll pull the troops out of IRAQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if they all just get moved to Afghanistan, or even Iran. Didn't Obama say something a while back about how we can't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and if Iran gets nukes we are going to take action? Come on, it's not our business to say who can and can't have nuclear weapons.FoOd77

[QUOTE="FoOd77"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I'd say it is our business when a country that doesn't like us obtains nuclear weapons.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="FoOd77"]

stuff

SEANMCAD

One extra part you forgot to add, unless I missed it

We have nuclear weapons pointed at countries that hate us. Why would they not have the exact same desire to do the exact same thing we are doing?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="FoOd77"] No, it isn't our business. It's extremely unlikely that ANY government is going to use nuclear weapons, because we all know that just one country launching ONE nuke at another can trigger a nuclear holocaust. And while Iran's leaders are overzealous, they certainly aren't bat s*** insane enough to actually USE nukes. It's far more likely that the U.S. will be attacked by somebody smuggling in a nuke bought off the black market rather than an organized government, no matter how corrupt, launching an ICBM at us. Also, a lot of countries don't like us, even our allies are beginning to hate us. Does that mean we should go to war with them because we are the only ones allowed to have Nuclear Weapons?FoOd77

On the subject of "policing the world", I completely agree with you. I think the America's involvement in countries like North Korea and Vietnam was completely unjustified and in hindsight it was a morally repulsive thing to do. But the situation with those countries was different than it is today with countries like Iraq and Iran. Iraq appeared to pose a significant threat towards the U.S., and if Iran is to obtain nuclear weapons that would threaten the stability of the region by triggering an arms race and most importantly it threatens our home land security.

And I never suggested stopping a country from obtaining nuclear weapons; I only said it was our business if they attempt to obtain them.

I believe everything Obama says because he is the President.Jandurin

Just because he's the president doesn't mean he can do everything he say he is going to do.

Terrorists have already marked the date on their rock calender.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] STUFF

SEANMCAD

lets break it down to a generic example. If I have a gun pointed at your house I might be intrested in knowing if you are also planning to get a gun to point at my house and I might be intrested in making you stop.

But being intrested in something like that is different than "its my business".

Keep in mind within the modern world WE (the US) are the agressors

Terrorists have already marked the date on their rock calender.Stevo_the_gamer

That's fine.

By 2011, the USA will have alreayd trained 300k Iraqi soldiers. Bring on the terrorists. They'll just get stomped again. :)

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

lets break it down to a generic example. If I have a gun pointed at your house I might be intrested in knowing if you are also planning to get a gun to point at my house and I might be intrested in making you stop.

But being intrested in something like that is different than "its my business".

Keep in mind within the modern world WE (the US) are the agressors

SEANMCAD

I repeat, if you are THE AGRESSOR with a gun pointed to someones head you do in fact have an intrest if that person tries to defend themselves however its a stretch to call it "your business" when you have a gun pointed at their skull

Now with that said, from a humanitarian perspective, I believe in nuclear proliferation (at least in theory). But from a nationalistic perspective I think that the U.S. should do everything in its power to prevent a country (especially a country that we do not have good relations with) from obtaining nuclear weapons.

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Terrorists have already marked the date on their rock calender.xaos

If I'm not mistaken, weren't we supposed to have them out in six months with this guy???awmannn

Think about it:

When was the last time a black president lied to us?

Never.

Exactly. So he must be telling the truth.