Gates: Iraq Withdrawal Could Speed Up

(CBS/AP)  Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday he sees "some chance of a modest acceleration" in the pace of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

Gates, returning from a trip to Iraq, told reporters aboard his plane that perhaps one combat brigade would come out of Iraq ahead of schedule. He did not give a precise timetable.

Gates said that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. general in Iraq, told him that the security situation there is going better than expected.

President Obama has announced plans to withdraw American combat forces from Iraq by Aug. 31, 2010, leaving 30,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops in advising and training roles until the end of 2011.

U.S. officials had been worried that last month's scheduled handover of security to Iraqi security forces might erode security gains that had already been made. However, Gates said Odierno told him the security situation there was going well.

The defense secretary told reporters "there is at least some chance of a modest acceleration" in the pace of U.S. troop withdrawal.

Gates got a firsthand look Tuesday at the future of the U.S. military mission in southern Iraq.

Gates flew from Amman, Jordan, to a command post in southern Iraq where U.S. troops are serving mainly as advisers to Iraqi forces. The advisory unit in Talil is a prototype for U.S. forces as they shift from front-line combat to support roles.

The secretary met with U.S. and Iraqi officers who have been patrolling together since July 15. He also saw the command center, a room where U.S. and Iraqi commanders meet each morning to go over coordination of patrols.

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 12:38 PM EDT
I wasn't even talking about the few fighter jets patroling the no-fly zones, who cares who owned the jets.....we are talking about the UN having no muscle, without the USA.

apparently, you think Russia and China will go against their best customer Iraq and destroy their own Migs and Chinese weapons....DUH !







Again - your train of thought is all over the place.

One minute you're claiming that the UN resolutions are so important, they're worth going to war over, and the next you're claiming that the UN is a useless agency that shouldn't even exist.

Then you claim that two of the biggest UN member nation's shouldn't have participated in action against Iraq, because they sold Iraq weapons and ammo.

What about the rest of the nation's like those listed here:

http://www.globalfirepower.com/




Why couldn't ANY OF THEM provide some sort of military effort?

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 12:40 PM EDT

That is a good question, why didn't the powerful UN pony up the invisible equipment they don't have to enfore the resolutions ??? after all, it was a UN cease fire agreement, so where were they ?







This is brilliant.

Now you claim that the UN member nation's don't possess any military capabilities?

You're far too stupid to discuss anything with.

Buy a book.

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 12:35 PM EDT

My point is simple, but you dance around the issue, because you know I'm right.....Saddam may not have directly attacked the U.S. mainland, no, but neither did Germany prior to WW2.....either way, sometime we have to act to stop attrocities around the world, even if we weren't attacked directly......

do you understand this ? or do I have to bring in an elementary teacher to bring to down to your level ?







Name ONE INSTANCE when America invaded a sovereign nation and deposed it's leader because of "atrocities", other than this debacle in Iraq.

Just one.

[Joe_NY_15]

Panama, Haiti, Afghanistan (not one leader, but a group), Serbia

[hungry1968-16]

Funny - I thought the UN was in charge of the Haiti and Serbia operations.

Also, I thought we invaded Afghanistan because the terrorists there ATTACKED US!!!!

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 12:26 PM EDT

You should read the article on the F-22 myths....destroys everyone of your assertions, that the U.S. doesn't need to replace aging fighters.







You're the moron making the claim that the US is the ONLY nation in the world, with the Air Force capability to enforce the UN no fly zone resolutions - not me.

Again - YOUR train of thought is all over the place.

[Joe_NY_15]

I wasn't even talking about the few fighter jets patroling the no-fly zones, who cares who owned the jets.....we are talking about the UN having no muscle, without the USA.

apparently, you think Russia and China will go against their best customer Iraq and destroy their own Migs and Chinese weapons....DUH !

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 12:14 PM EDT

Do you understand that countries in Europe do not have large active militaries ? who are you expecting to enfore those resolutions, if the U.S. doesn't ? who ? just fill in the blank ____________






How many fighter planes do you think that it took to enforce the no fly zone resolutions?

You don't think that ALL of Europe, Africa, and Asia (to include China and Russia), could muster enough planes to do the job?



Tell us what you think we needed the F-22's for again.

[Joe_NY_15]

Did you actually suggest that China and Russia would supply fighter jets against Saddam and Iraq ?? The discussion isn't about the no-fly zone, it was about the UN and their inability to enfore anything without the U.S., using teeny tiny examples, like bosnia is laughable

You should read the article on the F-22 myths....destroys everyone of your assertions, that the U.S. doesn't need to replace aging fighters.

[hungry1968-16]

They ARE part of the UN, aren't they?

AGAIN -- If those UN resolutions ****HAD**** to be enforced by a UN member agency, then WHY didn't the UN member agencies pony up the men and equipment to do the job?

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 12:11 PM EDT
One Problem, my question wasn't "what got us into WW2", not the question I asked.....I asked specifically about Hilter and the Nazi's and you bring up Japan ?

Again, I ask you....what direct attacks did Hitler and the Nazis (not japan) commit on the U.S. prior to our involvement ?

just answer this question, please







Hey stupid - I have NO OTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU.

We didn't get into the fight with Germany, until we were attacked by their ally -- Japan -- at Pearl Harbor.

We didn't have ANY TROOPS in the war, we had NO EQUIPMENT in the war zone, with the exception of the merchant marines, their ships, and the naval ships that attempted to keep them safe.

And even though DOZENS of those ships - merchant AND naval - were sunk by Germany, we STILL didn't get involved in the war against Germany, until we were attacked by Germany's ally -- Japan.



It's AMAZING to me how ignorant you are regarding America and our history.

Pitiful really.

[Joe_NY_15]

Thank you, you finally confirmed my point....My question wasn't

What got us into WW2 or What ally of German attacked us....my question was about Germany ONLY, not Japan, GERMANY !!!! GET THAT MORON !!!!

Germany didn't attack us directly, just like Iraq didn't attack us directly....but just because someone doesn't attack us, doesn't mean we shouldn't act against evil atrocities being committed, as was the case with Saddam Hussein.

Thank you for making my point.

[hungry1968-16]

I have no idea what your point is or was, because you make no sense whatsoever.

Your post at 11:44 attempted to portray us as having went to war with Germany, for no reason, other than they "posed a threat" to us.

I refute that with an education for you on how we got into WWII, and then you claim that I made your point for you, when I clearly proved you wrong, and showed you that we got into WWII ONLY AFTER WE WERE ATTACKED.

As usual, your train of thought is all over the place, and you're trying to link WWII to the Bush created Iraq disaster, when Bush acted more like Hitler, (invading a sovereign nation for no apparent reason), than he acted like FDR, (defending ourselves AFTER we were attacked).

[hungry1968-16]

by jgg00000008 July 29, 2009 12:01 PM EDT
Saddam was a bad guy. The world is a better place without him.
After 9/11 we needed a toe-hold in the middle east as we knew that was the motherland of the enemy that attacked us. We couldn't attack saudi arabia. Do we trust them? No. But we couldn't attack them. Any of the other countries we could attack? Nope. Iraq had defied the UN. Iraq had surrendered it's sovereignity when Saddam invaded kuwait. Saddam was boasting daily about his wmd's, do you remember? He even had a history of using mustard gas. Iraq was the most logical place on the map to stick the pin. And I believe Iraq is at a better place now then what it was under Saddam.







There are MANY "bad guys" in the world, and it IS NOT the United States obligation to "get rid of them", no matter how bad the atrocities they commit are.

[Joe_NY_15]

GET A LAUGH AT THIS CLASSIC !!!!

I asked what attacks did Hitler commit directly on the U.S.A.

Look at Hungry's response:
________________________

by hungry1968-16 July 29, 2009 11:53 AM EDT

You're obviously unaware of the event known as Pearl Harbor.
______________________________________
I can't stop laughing.....this is the Lib's premier expert on military matters.....LMAO !!!

[hungry1968-16]

Post the WHOLE post LIAR:




by hungry1968-16 July 29, 2009 11:53 AM EDT
by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 11:44 AM EDT
Hungry, What exactly did Hitler do to us directly during WW2, with the exception of a few U-boats ?? .....were we supposed to say, sorry world, Hitler hasn't hit us directly yet....therefore too bad ?

Is there some reason you bolted and ran away crying when you found out we won the Iraq war ? I know you dreamed of us losing.







You're obviously unaware of the event known as Pearl Harbor.

If you were aware of it, you would know that is when we got into WWII.

But feel free to keep guessing. You might get something right eventually.

[Joe_NY_15]

One Problem, my question wasn't "what got us into WW2", not the question I asked.....I asked specifically about Hilter and the Nazi's and you bring up Japan ?

Again, I ask you....what direct attacks did Hitler and the Nazis (not japan) commit on the U.S. prior to our involvement ?

just answer this question, please

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 11:59 AM EDT
Pearl Harbor ??? LMAO.....that's Japan....I asked about Hilter....he was the German fellow....again, I ask, as you said "the vicious terrorist dictator", never committed any acts of terrorism against us....So I ask you, what acts of terrorism or attacks did Hitler commit on the U.S. directly ?? I hate to tell you, we don't need to be attacked to act in the face of evil, as we did in the case of Iraq.






WOW!!!!

I can't believe how completely ignorant you are regarding America or our history!!!!


WOW!!!!
WOW!!!!
WOW!!!!
WOW!!!!

[Joe_NY_15]

I asked you a direct question.....what attacks did Hitler commit on the U.S. ??? THE ANSWER "NONE", HE WAS NO THREAT TO THE U.S. DIRECTLY AT THE TIME.

you bring up Pearl Harbor ??????? as your answer to what attacks Hitler and the Nazi commited on the U.S. prior to our involvement in WW2 ???

and I'M IGNORANT ???? what the _______?

[Joe_NY_15]

WOW WOW WOW, YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GERMANY AND JAPAN ??

WOW !!!

[hungry1968-16]

by Joe_NY_15 July 29, 2009 11:52 AM EDT
They aren't ???????? who do you think gives muscle to the UN to enforce anything ?? guess who ?

without the USA, the UN is a bunch of girly euromen in blue helmets....whispering "peace please' in the face of armed brutal regimes.






Bad news for you dummy - the US is one of several hundred nations that provide military equipment and personnel to the UN.

See "Bosnia", "The 199 Gulf War", and "Somalia" among hundreds of other conflicts they've been involved in - particularly in Africa.



And if and when the UN deems it necessary to send in military personnel, they can AND DO send it in. They didn't send the military forces into Iraq, because it wasn't necessary, as everyone in the world -- except you -- are aware of.