Hummm....... I can count 50,000+ of them still in Iraq. One of his biggest campaign platforms was all anti-war rhetoric and promises to bring home the troops. All he did was let the surge complete their primary missions and entangle us deeper in Afghanistan. Pulling those troops out of Iraq changes nothing. Don't get me wrong I support out troops 100% and do not want to see them pull out without finishing the job, leaving the possibility of having to come back and finish the job another time .........I think we have learned that lesson already. But to" high five" yourself and take credit for a campaign promise/ job completed when we are fully engaged all over the middle-east.....?????? please.
We still have troops in Germany and Japan even though WWII ended 65 years ago. The Korean War ended 57 years earlier; nonetheless we have troops in Korea. The Gulf war ended 19 years ago and yet we have troops in Kuwait. The conflict in the former republic of Yugoslavia ended over 10 years ago and we have troops in Hungary, Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia as a result of that strife. There will be a perennial modicum of military presence in Iraq, irrespective of the political party in power.
I don't see IED bombings in Germany, Japan or any of the other countries you listed ........... http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/Roadside-Bombs-Shootings-Kill-7-in-Baghdad-100715409.html Maybe you don't read to good, I'm glad some troops got to come home, but I personally know a soldier that's set to deploy there. The President and the DNC want to use this as some type of political feather in their cap, like they did something.......... the war ain't over, and all our troops arn't home.
They left Fred and Joe back there. They've got a metal detector and they're sweeping around for quarters.
Check your own reading comprehension and English writing capability and try to pull your head out of your ass if that is at all possible. The point I was making is that we always have a token military presence, mutually agreed upon, in parts of the world where the U.S. has been militarily involved in the past. The majority of troops and not "some troops" have returned home with the remaining 50,000 or so scheduled to leave by the end of 2011. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the war is over. Roadside bombings and drive-by shootings have been in vogue for the past 6 or so years. The insurgents here have been waging a lengthy and prolonged War of attrition which has killed thousands of U.S. troops. These servicemen and women have spilled their blood and sacrificed their lives for little or nothing. It makes no sense for these soldiers to continue to sacrifice themselves to gain nothing but a never-ending occupation. Iraq more than likely will return to a military dictatorship not unlike Saddam Hussein's regime.
Excuse the shit out of me for getting my to and too confused, guess I'd better check out the door for the spelling inquisition before I open it.... I understand we have people all over the world where we have been militarily involved......... do you see any difference between servicemen stationed in Okinawa and those stationed in Baghdad? I don't believe those serving in Okinawa wear full body armor when stepping outside............... The war is not over, as the war isn't against the country of Iraq, it's against terrorism, and as long as they (terrorists)are there, and the people of Iraq are unable to govern, police and defend themselves we will remain. Regardless if we have designated combat troops there or not. Our Military bravely serves and takes the fight to them there, so they can't bring it again to our doorstep.