Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Obama is declaring that "combat operations" will end, "on schedule," but a force of 50,000 US troops will remain in Iraq for counter-terrorism operations. Who remembers the "police action" in the tiny southeast nation of Vietnam?

Outgoing Bush and incoming Obama meet at the White House, 01/15/09. (photo: AP)
Outgoing Bush and incoming Obama meet at the White House, 01/15/09. (photo: AP)

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+3 # Guest 2010-08-03 01:05
Anyone who thinks Iraq will be over any time soon is smoking better stuff than me.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-08-03 10:39
Right, gehan. Everybody knows why the U.S. is there. The word troops does not mean mercenaries. I can't imagine those 50,000 remaining troops training Iraqis to protect the oil and other resources so that the U.S. may utilize the loot and keep it out of the hands of other oil hungry nations.
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-08-03 15:53
disturbing news this...

why not pull out the troops entirely and try the non aggressive approach...

why do we still feed the concerns that Usama Bin laden started on 9-11... in that we want to conquer and occupy all Arab lands ala new crusades.

Nobel peace prize isn't what it used to be it seems... wonder if Bam-bam should/will return it for some real peacekeepers
 
 
-2 # Guest 2010-08-03 17:28
Before being overly sarcastic, why don't we wait till next year, and stop dumping on the president. Let's see then, if there is a reason to do so.

It was unnecessary to mention that Obama was attending a fund -raiser. unfortunately that is what Presidents need to do, because money rules everything. Should the President just let the Corporation, who are now people, pour all the money into the system and steam-roller us into submission.

The article was not exactly friendly toward the President.
Then again isn't McClatchy part of the big media corporations?? They are all owned by conservatives, so it should be taken with not just a grain of salt, but a lot.
 
 
+1 # Guest 2010-08-03 20:44
Reducing forces to 50,000 plus God knows how many mercenaries is a meaningless gesture if the goal was to disengage from that debacle. I'm sorry, but Obama keeping his promises in this affair is nothing more than his appeasing the hawks and his playing both sides of the aisle yet again. The fact that he won't repudiate the immorality of this war in the first place and refuses to bring to justice those who started it means that he is intentionally extending it as far as he possibly can. He can take credit for keeping his promise as indeed he has to the letter. Indeed, he never promised to completely withdraw all of our troops so I can't say he's lying. What I can say is that he has no intentions of doing right by this situation and is as much a part of our parasitic war machine as his predecessors and that his actions will solve nothing and will not bring any semblance of honor to the reeking corpse of a once great nation that we've become. Hooray for Obama, keeper of promises.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.