**** Email update from Adam Montana 09-07-2011 ****

[Mr. Mont]

Exactly. This just a precampain move so Obummer can gain support. I'm sure some where in there it says "combat troops". I wonder how many "noncombat military personel" will be left. And if Iran does invade Iraq, that is exactly what the US wants! We are in the middle east taking out every goverent that is opposed to the west. Don't think for one second that the US didn't have a hand in the Arab Spring, Libian rebals also have been backed by NATO support. Don't be blind people, USA is a war machine.

Yup your right! The fact that we came in and now they are a totally new and improved government(to our standards lol) just shows the influence we have on changing a country to our benefit. The truth is folks that war brings in money but we have always been told it takes money to make money! I think the entire fact that we will be involved in this revaluation proves that. I also believe we have plans to try and change as many middle eastern countries as we possibly can. It would be in our benefit for just the resources alone. I'm not sure I agree with how we do things but the truth is we are a WAR MACHINE!

[Carrello]

I disagree with the 3000 troop scenario. I believe with the 9... count 'em... NINE bases we have there, we will ALWAYS be watching out for them. So I don't think Iran is something to worry about. They can hem and haw all they want - but they aren't gonna do jack squat. They can't. We would wipe them off the face of the planet. With all the lives, money, etc.. we (the United States) have invested in Iraq, we are NOT going to let a country like Iran do ANYTHING.

Shabibi is ready to go. He's using the media 10 fold rite now to get what he wants. I believe this will happen now. As in ---- NOW. (give or take a day or 3). This is just my opinion. Take it as such

Hugs to all invested!

GO RV!!!

Alex

Alex,

I agree with you. They could stuff 5,000 in the 1 billion dollar embassy alone.

From these news articles, it seems that Iraq has a plan, and has purchased weaponry and training, and the number of troops remaining after 2011 is still in question:

Us army fails to deliver tanks (abrams) paid to the Iraqis.

The sources said that a team of professionals, on board the ship that carried tanks and prevented the Iraqis from approaching them and بانزالها and carriers مدولبة and imposed tight security measures were also the installation of the (GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM).

The sources added that the technical team after the completion of the installation of tracking on tanks, was quoted by a military plane to Baghdad to receive tankers loaded with tanks for the purpose of down and placed in stores in American bases and handed over to the Iraqi side so far, while the Iraq to pay the full amount of the deal.

Informed source said refused to disclose his identity, that Iraq bought 250 tanks of (Abrams) US-made at a price of 10 million dollars per tank in Iraq, and the United States signed contracts for the purchase of weapons to the value of 13 billion dollars including a number of aircraft, tanks and warships, which would help in capacity-building military in Iraq, according to a US official.

The official said the training of the Iraqi forces, Gen. Michael باربيرو in his statements to the reporters that these contracts include, in addition to arms sales contracts for maintenance and training the long-term, he said that half of sales worth 13 billion dollars, had been signed and final, while still other contracts in the process of negotiating.

The spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, Major General Mohammed Al-Askari said in previous press statements that the deal includes different types of weapons in preparation for the date of the withdrawal of the US forces at the end of 2011, he said: We have a plan لجاهزية the Iraqi armed forces, which will be responsible for protecting the country from any external threat or internal, indicating that the deals of purchasing is not with the United States only, but there are deals with other countries, such as France and other European countries and Asian-made weapons as well.

He says that the budgeted amounts mentioned in the media is to buy several aircraft, especially with the army, such as helicopters, was received the first three planes of them, namely, US helicopters, pointing out that there is an agreement in principle to f-16 planes, and to buy tanks and abrams, M1, had been received Forty tanks out of a total package of 140 tanks.

http://www.nakhelnew...s.php?nid=10503

Read more:

U.S. Defense Chief Says No Decision Yet On Iraq Troops

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

September 07, 2011

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has denied that the Obama administration has made a decision on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond an end-of-the-year deadline for their withdrawal.

Speaking on a visit to New York, Panetta confirmed that no decision has yet been made.

He was speaking after news reports said that Panetta backs a plan to keep 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq past the end of the year.

The White House on September 6 said it was still waiting for a possible request from the Iraqi government for a U.S. training mission.

Reacting to the reports, three prominent U.S. sentators -- John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham -- said in a joint statement that a force of 3,000 U.S. trainers was "dramatically lower" than what U.S. military leaders have said is needed to support Iraq's military and government.

Since becoming president, Obama has overseen a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, to around 46,000 currently.

http://www.rferl.org...a/24320394.html

Read more:

[TFK]

WE have air bases within striking distance, we have aircraft carriers in striking distance, we have nuclear subs in striking distance, we have destroyers with nuclear capiabilities in striking distance, just how dumb can iran really be? nuff said

They don't think like we do. They're idealists with religious fervent. They'll fight till the last man.

The 80's war between Iraq and Iran was sickening. Iran used thousands of children to walk through mine fields clearing the way for troops. They children died in droves. They are sick. They do not think like we do!

[Spud]

Alex,

I agree with you. They could stuff 5,000 in the 1 billion dollar embassy alone.

From these news articles, it seems that Iraq has a plan, and has purchased weaponry and training, and the number of troops remaining after 2011 is still in question:

Us army fails to deliver tanks (abrams) paid to the Iraqis.

The sources said that a team of professionals, on board the ship that carried tanks and prevented the Iraqis from approaching them and بانزالها and carriers مدولبة and imposed tight security measures were also the installation of the (GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM).

The sources added that the technical team after the completion of the installation of tracking on tanks, was quoted by a military plane to Baghdad to receive tankers loaded with tanks for the purpose of down and placed in stores in American bases and handed over to the Iraqi side so far, while the Iraq to pay the full amount of the deal.

Informed source said refused to disclose his identity, that Iraq bought 250 tanks of (Abrams) US-made at a price of 10 million dollars per tank in Iraq, and the United States signed contracts for the purchase of weapons to the value of 13 billion dollars including a number of aircraft, tanks and warships, which would help in capacity-building military in Iraq, according to a US official.

The official said the training of the Iraqi forces, Gen. Michael باربيرو in his statements to the reporters that these contracts include, in addition to arms sales contracts for maintenance and training the long-term, he said that half of sales worth 13 billion dollars, had been signed and final, while still other contracts in the process of negotiating.

The spokesman for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, Major General Mohammed Al-Askari said in previous press statements that the deal includes different types of weapons in preparation for the date of the withdrawal of the US forces at the end of 2011, he said: We have a plan لجاهزية the Iraqi armed forces, which will be responsible for protecting the country from any external threat or internal, indicating that the deals of purchasing is not with the United States only, but there are deals with other countries, such as France and other European countries and Asian-made weapons as well.

He says that the budgeted amounts mentioned in the media is to buy several aircraft, especially with the army, such as helicopters, was received the first three planes of them, namely, US helicopters, pointing out that there is an agreement in principle to f-16 planes, and to buy tanks and abrams, M1, had been received Forty tanks out of a total package of 140 tanks.

http://www.nakhelnew...s.php?nid=10503

Read more:

U.S. Defense Chief Says No Decision Yet On Iraq Troops

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta

September 07, 2011

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has denied that the Obama administration has made a decision on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq beyond an end-of-the-year deadline for their withdrawal.

Speaking on a visit to New York, Panetta confirmed that no decision has yet been made.

He was speaking after news reports said that Panetta backs a plan to keep 3,000 to 4,000 U.S. troops in Iraq past the end of the year.

The White House on September 6 said it was still waiting for a possible request from the Iraqi government for a U.S. training mission.

Reacting to the reports, three prominent U.S. sentators -- John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham -- said in a joint statement that a force of 3,000 U.S. trainers was "dramatically lower" than what U.S. military leaders have said is needed to support Iraq's military and government.

Since becoming president, Obama has overseen a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, to around 46,000 currently.

http://www.rferl.org...a/24320394.html

Read more:

Boy, if Iraq spends 13 billion just on military equipment, I think that shows they have a lot of funds at their disposal. I don't think they have been upfront with all of their numbers. The minerals and mining meeting in London should show that Iraq is a much more wealthy nation than people think.

[cajunrescuemedic]

I would have to agree with Adam.....Iran is just waiting on the chance to pounce on Iraq.....even when I was in Iraq, Iran has tested the US Air Force many times by flying into Iraqi airspace. The US didn't want an international incident with them so they just escorted their planes out with our fighter jets. I would imagine our fighter jets had only the orders of to fire back in defense from some sort of provocative move from the jets from Iran. I can guarantee if our jets got into Iran's airspace, they'd fire at us in a heartbeat.

[librapeace]

I received this email too...and its always nice to hear from another member...but why is this in news and not in opinions forum?

[hoosier1470]

I agree that the US will not allow Iran to do anything...I understand Adams line of thought on all of this, but only in a perfect world would Iraq be able to wait for every single peice of the puzzle to be in place before an RV. As of right now, inflation is more of a concern than Iran! Shabbi cannot afford to wait until all conditions are perfect! If he waits, he takes a huge risk in totally destroying the Iraqi economy before it ever gets off the ground! God Bless!

[mojack]

No bite in Adam's letter.... Nothing new.... certainly shouldn't be in the news section.

Edited September 7, 2011 by mojack

[Gunnster4]

I disagree with Adam. The US isn't leaving Iraq for a long time. Sorry, but true. I'm going to go with the idea that greed will come before the US leaves.

This Breitlings link to an audio discussion states very clearly why. I would listen to it...very informative. It talks about the troops in iraq.

http://breitlingcurrency.blogspot.com/2011/09/breitlings-afternoon-comments-912011.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IraqInvestments+%28Iraq+Investments%29

As for the HCL...I'm having a difficult time understanding whether it's passed or not. This article claims it did last week. http://www.xe.com/news/2011/08/28/2119789.htm

As for Ch7...I'm not educated in this, but isn't this an all-or-nothing thing? It's either lifted...or not...am I correct on this?

Edited September 7, 2011 by Gunnster4

[DIAMOND]

They don't think like we do. They're idealists with religious fervent. They'll fight till the last man.

The 80's war between Iraq and Iran was sickening. Iran used thousands of children to walk through mine fields clearing the way for troops. They children died in droves. They are sick. They do not think like we do!

Well as my dad use to say the best lesson is a bought lesson sent them own we dont use mine fields these days, its called laser sighting, an I was around long before the I&I war

[gsxr600]

Combat brigades are also simply being renamed “advise and assist brigades.” Same soldiers, different title.

This is correct! On paper we may only have 3000 combat troops but there is no plan to truly reduce the troop level to that low of a level. The chess move being made is by the US not by Iraq.

[DrWuWei]

If that scenario does come true, I feel its a recipe for another disaster. If they DO lift the sanctions against Iraq having WMD's, who would sell them the WMD's? The USA? That would make us look like the biggest idiots on the block since we started a war with Iraq based on them having WMD's. How could we explain the loss of life and the more than $2T the US has wasted in the war with Iraq just to sell them WMD's 9 years later. If I were the family of a vet killed in Iraq, I would really be pissed. Believe me, if the Iraqi's wanted to buy WMD's, be sure the US would want a piece of that. We ARE the largest Arms Dealers on the planet.

Perhaps the only positive scenario I could see is that the Iraqi's could offer to buy all the US tanks, artillery and stuff we have in country and then hire US soldiers, as mercenaries, to fight off the Iranians if they are planning on invading. Of course, I DID see a Faux news clip with O'Reilly where another commentator (John Stoussel) explained to him what Keynesian economics meant, how Ron Paul was right about everything and how Iran has NOT invaded another country for 250 years. O'Reilly is such a maroon, as he showed that he did not even know how to pronounce Keynesian and did not know when this famous economist lived. I guess he doesn't know or care to use wikipedia.

[Ricksterman]

Sounds like a good reason to rv.

[Butifldrm]

Victoria Nuland

Spokesperson

Daily Press Briefing

Washington, DC

September 6, 2011

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS. NULAND: On Iraq. Yeah.

QUESTION: The third president, Masoud Barzani, has told the U.S. forces to stay in Iraq, and warning of a civil war if the American forces withdraw. What can you tell them?

MS. NULAND: I think our public position, our private position, hasn’t changed, that our plan is to withdraw by the end of the year. Were the Iraqi Government to come forward and make a request for some continued security assistance, we would be prepared to look at it.

QUESTION: Do you consider this call as a request from an Iraqi leader?

MS. NULAND: Well, we have heard many different views from individual Iraqi leaders, but they have a government, and we need to hear a united view from the government.

QUESTION: There was an article, a very lengthy article, by Ayad Allawi last week basically calling for that, so that’s the head of a major political Iraqi bloc. Now you have the Kurds calling for that. There are talks of some sort of behind the scene agreements between the Pentagon and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense for a rotation. And so, did you know of that?

MS. NULAND: I mean, it’s clear that a lot of Iraqis are thinking about this and talking about it. But obviously, we couldn’t get into a discussion on the basis of informal comments by individual Iraqis.

QUESTION: I guess the question is: Is the United States flexible enough to accept such a request when it happens?

MS. NULAND: Again, you’re taking me into hypotheticals as to when this might happen. Our view hasn’t changed, that if they have something that they would like us to do, we’re prepared to look at it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. NULAND: Please.

QUESTION: Is there any --

MS. NULAND: Oh, sorry. Still on Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is there any possibility to make a deal with north Iraq regarding the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq instead of waiting for a request from the Iraqi Government?

MS. NULAND: I think we have for many years operated on the basis of a single policy with regard to a unitary Iraq. I don’t see that changing.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2011/09/171717.htm#IRAQ

[DiNaR DoCtOr]

Honestly I think that Iran would not try to invade Iraq. They have more to gain from them in business transactions with all of the sanctions they face. Also, it would politically destroy what little credibility they have left. Iraq should not get WMDs anytime soon because of the unstable government at this point. That is why I asked earlier about the mechanisms chapter 7 could even have on an RV. Personally, and it is only a gut feeling, is the HCL is much more important and Iraq could RV without the remaining chapter 7.

[Francie26]

I agree with you completely! No way are we walking away from this country after the work we put in over the last several years. We have to stay or we start from scratch, nope I think Obama is just telling americans what they want to hear but I'm sure his tone will change.

Well, if it's a chess move, one of the generals thought it up. Or someone with both courage and brains. It's for sure O didn't think of it. Not only is he not smart enough, but he is a coward, afraid of his own skin, so he wouldn't think of something like this. It takes a "Cheney" to think of something like this.

[bigdog]

Does the article referring to the troop withdrawal make reference to "combat troops", or just troops in general?

[Rdy_Stdy_GO]

A full frontal attack on Iraq from Iran will never happen again.. never. The technology afforded us today will detect any massing of Iranian troops toward the border almost instantaneously, It's insane to believe were not already watching. Satellite imagery is a very cool tool. As soon as Iran starts pushing those forces forward to assembly areas we'll see it, without a doubt, well before any substantial numbers are available to push forward, giving us the needed time to posture. Iran does not posses the technological edge of the US or the weapons the Iraqis now have or will shortly have. As for the 3000 troops, as stated in earlier post only the names will change... I don't buy into the draw down, I think it's smoke. Combat ready troops are a phone call away. There is always a carrier in the gulf... always and when push comes to shove boots will be no more than 24 hrs away if that.

That's real, not Tom Clancy or a Movie..... Bayonet...! Always Forward, Hooah...!! Goo RV!!

[tyron]

Posturing aside, I don't believe Iran will or even wants to attack Iraq. Think about it - there is no real benefit to them engaging Iraq in war. They have their own oil. They lost a million good men in the last war with Iraq. Contrary to what Obama says they DON'T have nuclear weapons! They understand clearly that they will not be fighting Iraq but America, and their military might is nothing compared to America's. And most of all they have just had front row seats to NATO's show of 'humanitarian help' in Libya. A lot of what is said in the main-stream media is meant to keep us in fear and always mistrustful of the Muslim/Arab. Lets not fall for it.

[Realdinar]

I would hope Iran knows better. I would hope they dont want us driving our tanks and our hummers all over muhammads front yard again.

[MovieMaker]

thanks for sharing

[jakedog]

People i can tell you what you hear from our government here in the states is NOT what really happens in Iraq when it comes to military personal in the country of Iraq,, I know ,,i was in Iraq for 4 years and getting ready to go back !!!!! Our government will Never tell you anything about our military because of many reasons ,,, BUT they will tell you what YOU want to hear !!!!!! I am sure you all understand what i am saying !!!!!!

[Jaysonguru1]

3000 troops this is very good! I think we still have a bit of time though.

[ddyal]

I believe our government has already put out a statement saying that the Fox report saying we would only have 3000 troops in Iraq by years end was not true.

[Danan]

If that scenario does come true, I feel its a recipe for another disaster. If they DO lift the sanctions against Iraq having WMD's, who would sell them the WMD's? The USA? That would make us look like the biggest idiots on the block since we started a war with Iraq based on them having WMD's. How could we explain the loss of life and the more than $2T the US has wasted in the war with Iraq just to sell them WMD's 9 years later. If I were the family of a vet killed in Iraq, I would really be pissed. Believe me, if the Iraqi's wanted to buy WMD's, be sure the US would want a piece of that. We ARE the largest Arms Dealers on the planet.

Perhaps the only positive scenario I could see is that the Iraqi's could offer to buy all the US tanks, artillery and stuff we have in country and then hire US soldiers, as mercenaries, to fight off the Iranians if they are planning on invading. Of course, I DID see a Faux news clip with O'Reilly where another commentator (John Stoussel) explained to him what Keynesian economics meant, how Ron Paul was right about everything and how Iran has NOT invaded another country for 250 years. O'Reilly is such a maroon, as he showed that he did not even know how to pronounce Keynesian and did not know when this famous economist lived. I guess he doesn't know or care to use wikipedia.

Remember who trained the Afghanistan troops and Bin Laden.