Barack Obama Would Withdraw From Iraq By End of 2008
Filed under: News, Politics | By: Ryan
Posted on: September 12, 2007 | 10 Comments
Barack Obama’s latest attempt to impress the states is with his recent announcement regarding completing a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2008, if he were to be elected.
If Obama was indeed elected president, he would apparently take effort in helping the relationship between America and Iraq.
“I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now,” the Illinois senator said in a speech.
He claimed that he would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations and at a significantly fast rate too, in order to be completed by the end of 2008.
“The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man,” Obama said.
Has Barack’s withdrawal from Iraq concept won you over? Would you agree in saying that Barack and Ron Paul have the same ideas when it comes to war? Let us know.
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more news.
Yeah, they have the same idea, but Ron Paul is the only one talking about monetary reform (getting rid of the Federal Reserve System), which is the almighty governing factor in getting our country safe and prosperous. So I don’t really care what Obama would do, because he doesn’t talk about getting rid of the Fed Reserve, period. There is no other more important issue, because the money runs everything. If you don’t begin learning about how the Fed was set up and how it runs our lives, you are not being Patriotic to the true USA.
“Would you agree in saying that Barack and Ron Paul have the same ideas when it comes to war? ”
No, of course not. Obama’s strategy is not very dissimilar from that of the aggressive empire building military philosophies of neoconservatives that Ron Paul faces in his own party.
Refer to this quote from Obama’s website:
“No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others – the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm. ”
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga
Ron Paul, on the other hand:
“Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations. ”
Ron Paul advocates a revolutionary paradigm shift in how this country operates in the arena of foreign policy. What Obama offers is largely more of the same you have been getting for the past few decades.
No. Ron Paul’s views on the mid-east war are totally different than Barack Obama. Obama is in favor of maintaining a huge presence of troops in the mideast on multiple new nases and possibly invading Pakistan. Obama also supports the war efforts by voting infavor of the last patriot act bill!
Ron Paul is for closing down our hundreds of foreign bases that project our empire upon nations around the world and saving american taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. In this way we will be better able to protect ourselves at home(should another Katrina strike).
If you look at Obamas recent article in the Council of Foreign Relations magazine you will see that he is in favor of INCREASING our soldiers in the military by about 90,000 troops! Ron Paul has not advocated anything remotely similar to this. Please do some reading!
The problem is this… Earlier this year Obama was talking about going into Pakistan. Most of the Democrats have talked about a military presence in Darfur. We have seen that no member of either party has done anything of real consequence to end this war. Congressman Paul is the only individual running for President that has a long history of opposing our interventionalist foreign policies. No matter what is being said about Iraq NOW every candidate (besides Paul) believes that it is the United State’s duty to send her military around the world and meddle in the internal workings of other sovereign nations. The people of the United States are beginning to speak out against such actions. We do no want to waste our lives, nor our treasure to do so. Especially when such actions result in “blowback.” The most recent example this being the tragic events that occured six years ago on Sept. 11, 2001
Obama’s statement that, “No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are imminently threatened” is the same sort of aggressive imperialistic thinking that has gotten us into a 1 trillion dollar immoral war that we cannot afford in dollars, lives, or in the currency of respect.
There is a major difference. Paul has taken war with either Iran or Pakistan off the table. Obama has not.
For some levity:
Ron Paul 4 Freedom
Knights of Liberty (5 min)
http://ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaul4FreedomKnightsofLiberty.mp3
As far as a general foreign policy, Obama and the Democrats are in agreement with Giuliani the other warhawk Republicans. They only disagree on Iraq.
The difference is utter.
Ron Paul bases his position upon Constitutional principle.
Everyone else bases theirs on public opinion.
The difference is visible each day as the other candidates
waffle their way through public appearances
saying whatever their audience wishes to hear.
Obama is just another puppet of those who wish to
destroy America and replace it with a fiefdom of the NAU.
Ron Paul has maintained his bearings throughout
and can be relied upon to perform in accordance
with the principles of non-interventionism.
Obama has already hinted he wanted to invade Pakistan.
Moving troops from Iraq into a nuclear-armed Pakistan
is the sort of wisdom he represents.