100 Years In Iraq

Seems like a lot has been made lately on here of the Republican Presidential Nominee's (RPN) statement about having our troops in Iraq for 100 years. So I thought I'd do a little research on it to see what was up...

Here's a link of the RPN discussing it on Larry King...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

So if he wants to keep us there similar to how we have bases in Japan, Turkey, Guam, Germany, and South Korea...I would think that there would be an outcry from some to bring our "boys & girls" home from those regions as well. After all, those places don't have near the fighting that Iraq does, so they shouldn't 'need' our troops there anymore, should they?

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Seems like a lot has been made lately on here of the Republican Presidential Nominee's (RPN) statement about having our troops in Iraq for 100 years. So I thought I'd do a little research on it to see what was up...

Here's a link of the RPN discussing it on Larry King...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

So if he wants to keep us there similar to how we have bases in Japan, Turkey, Guam, Germany, and South Korea...I would think that there would be an outcry from some to bring our "boys & girls" home from those regions as well. After all, those places don't have near the fighting that Iraq does, so they shouldn't 'need' our troops there anymore, should they?

Those zones are considered war zones any longer ... well, some will say the Korean war never was "officially" over but Iraq is a war zone with innocent americans being killed weekly even daily. This war zone called the Iraq War is still a combat zone ... those other spots are not. Iraq is costing us $10-12B a month (just heard that today) that we no longer have or EVER had and what is it getting us by spending that?

What, the non-Iraq regions don't cost us money at all? What do we get from them?

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:What, the non-Iraq regions don't cost us money at all? What do we get from them?

Not to the extent that major conflict does, they were discussing this exact point on the news yesterday. Iraq = MAJOR conflict, US military engaging in actions daily ....

If you want to stay the course in Iraq by all means, vote for McCain.

Bman, do you think the RPN wants to keep us in MAJOR conflict mode in Iraq for 100 years?

I don't know McCain's state of mind, but I know that area is always going to be at war, there is never peace in the middle east and we are the least favorite squatters over there right now, occupying a muslim land ... I think as long as we are over there that their will be conflict directed at our troops.

Bman wrote:I don't know McCain's state of mind, but I know that area is always going to be at war, there is never peace in the middle east and we are the least favorite squatters over there right now, occupying a muslim land ... I think as long as we are over there that their will be conflict directed at our troops.

Fair enough.

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Seems like a lot has been made lately on here of the Republican Presidential Nominee's (RPN) statement about having our troops in Iraq for 100 years. So I thought I'd do a little research on it to see what was up...

Here's a link of the RPN discussing it on Larry King...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

So if he wants to keep us there similar to how we have bases in Japan, Turkey, Guam, Germany, and South Korea...I would think that there would be an outcry from some to bring our "boys & girls" home from those regions as well. After all, those places don't have near the fighting that Iraq does, so they shouldn't 'need' our troops there anymore, should they?

This is what the Obama camp is counting on is that everyone will think McCain = Bush and that if we remain there, 5 or 10 or 20 years down the line the situation there will be the same as it is now. Just about all reports there are that things are definitely improving, but you won't hear that from Obama backers.

Bman wrote:I don't know McCain's state of mind, but I know that area is always going to be at war, there is never peace in the middle east and we are the least favorite squatters over there right now, occupying a muslim land ... I think as long as we are over there that their will be conflict directed at our troops.

Ahhh... so truth comes out.. we shouldn't do anything to help anyone.. well.. unless they are the poor in our nation.

This is an interesting thread though.. we have troops all over the world in many nations, where's the outcry to get them home? Considering that's what McCain is saying by keeping troops there, why aren't the Dem's screaming for us to get out of Korea.. as Bman admitted.. it's still technically a combat zone. The conflict was never officially ended.

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:I don't know McCain's state of mind, but I know that area is always going to be at war, there is never peace in the middle east and we are the least favorite squatters over there right now, occupying a muslim land ... I think as long as we are over there that their will be conflict directed at our troops.

Ahhh... so truth comes out.. we shouldn't do anything to help anyone.. well.. unless they are the poor in our nation.

This is an interesting thread though.. we have troops all over the world in many nations, where's the outcry to get them home? Considering that's what McCain is saying by keeping troops there, why aren't the Dem's screaming for us to get out of Korea.. as Bman admitted.. it's still technically a combat zone. The conflict was never officially ended.

I don't think Bman has stated here or anywhere else at any time that we should become more isolationist or imperialist, but we need to "come back home" with a some really important issues. Some nationalism is healthy and we need to shift back to homeland priorities instead of getting a foothold in a war zone. Some might say that Israel is encouraging our involvement for their future strength, and I think that's important... I'm just not sure we need another stepping stone to be Iraq. Maybe we could do OK with continued presence in Turkey and Afghanistan. The "pullout" is a sign that we're not going to pressurize the region with military action, but merely give it room to breathe so that they can organize a new and more stable system of government without the USA hovering over their shoulder, but merely standing close by.

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

Bman wrote:I don't know McCain's state of mind, but I know that area is always going to be at war, there is never peace in the middle east and we are the least favorite squatters over there right now, occupying a muslim land ... I think as long as we are over there that their will be conflict directed at our troops.

Ahhh... so truth comes out.. we shouldn't do anything to help anyone.. well.. unless they are the poor in our nation.

This is an interesting thread though.. we have troops all over the world in many nations, where's the outcry to get them home? Considering that's what McCain is saying by keeping troops there, why aren't the Dem's screaming for us to get out of Korea.. as Bman admitted.. it's still technically a combat zone. The conflict was never officially ended.

I don't think Bman has stated here or anywhere else at any time that we should become more isolationist or imperialist, but we need to "come back home" with a some really important issues. Some nationalism is healthy and we need to shift back to homeland priorities instead of getting a foothold in a war zone. Some might say that Israel is encouraging our involvement for their future strength, and I think that's important... I'm just not sure we need another stepping stone to be Iraq. Maybe we could do OK with continued presence in Turkey and Afghanistan. The "pullout" is a sign that we're not going to pressurize the region with military action, but merely give it room to breathe so that they can organize a new and more stable system of government without the USA hovering over their shoulder, but merely standing close by.

I guess it depends on how you believe we should strengthen our homeland. Pulling out of Iraq IMO will hurt us more in the future than most believe. Yes, I'd also like to see us get things in order at home, but the military won't help that, and I don't believe we need gov't help at home. I'd like to see higher margins set on speculators in the stock market to help reduce their ability to manipulate things. But I also believe if you buy a contract you should pay for it then, so I'd go for a 100% margin.. which isn't realistic, just what i'd "like" to see.

But I think the original post was a good point. There's a call for our troops to come home, why aren't they calling for them to leave all the other places as well?

The DMZ is still active. A friend of mine was stationed there, it doesn't make the news.

cardinal5150 wrote:I guess it depends on how you believe we should strengthen our homeland. Pulling out of Iraq IMO will hurt us more in the future than most believe. Yes, I'd also like to see us get things in order at home, but the military won't help that, and I don't believe we need gov't help at home. I'd like to see higher margins set on speculators in the stock market to help reduce their ability to manipulate things. But I also believe if you buy a contract you should pay for it then, so I'd go for a 100% margin.. which isn't realistic, just what i'd "like" to see.

But I think the original post was a good point. There's a call for our troops to come home, why aren't they calling for them to leave all the other places as well?

I'm interested to hear your thoughts about how pulling out will hurt us in the future. To me this has everything to do with the future... as Yoda said in Empire Strikes Back

[Luke has seen a vision of Han, Leia and Chewie being tortured in Cloud City]
Luke: I saw - I saw a city in the clouds.
Yoda: [nods] Friends you have there.
Luke: They were in pain...
Yoda: It is the future you see.
Luke: The future?
[pause]
Luke: Will they die?
Yoda: [closes his eyes for a moment] Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.
Luke: I've got to go to them.
Yoda: Decide you must, how to serve them best. If you leave now, help them you could; but you would destroy all for which they have fought, and suffered.

Ok, humorous, no? In the context of the movie, the quote supports your concerns about pulling out early. From the sounds of things, you're not very good at that eh pop? Seriously, what would you know about the effects of pulling out? Isn't it all a bit "difficult to see" even with "the force"?

I'm all for "speculator tax" and I think it would have a good effect on the market in general and in specific. The Hot stocks are usually always the ones in the news and the ones that are chiseling new details into American culture. I'll be the first to say that I'm market "stoopid" and quite frankly it scares the crap out of me to think that money can just evaporate... but it is what it is.

Jeez Card, I'm starting to think that when you're not beating your Glenn Beck drum you and I see more clearly on more things.

In regards to leaving early.. this is my main concern. We pull out of Iraq completely and leave an instant vacuum. Who fills that? Most likely it'll be people who hate us, and there will be a generation of kids who grow up blaming the US for their problems in life and then when they get into their 20's they'll want revenge for all the evils in their world and they'll make a plan to hijake some planes and fly them into buildings.

Ok.. so maybe they won't do exactly that, but you see the point. Pulling out our troops so they don't get shot at is a great idea. I'd be all for it if it were as simple as that. But it's not, and that's my problem with the Dem's yelling about bringing our "boys and girls" home. It's condescending to the troops first off, and it completely ignores our responsibilities there.

Look at Japan, we went in there and killed millions probably, then, we turned around and spent billions to help them rebuild their country. The result is a partner. Now, I think there's a HUGE difference because I believe the Japanese to be more intelligent and thus realized that hey, we killed them, they killed us, let's move forward. I don't see this happening very easily in the middle east because they are still hell bent on not allowing women to be seen or Mohamed be drawn and sorts of other acts that frankly I consider childish.

But, it's my opinion that that childish behavior is more or less what the US has a responsibility to curtail through education. By pulling out that's not possible and IMO, we have a responsibility to at the very least TRY to help them.

And I'm not for a speculator tax so much as forcing people to put the money where their mouth is. I don't truly understand how it all works other than that they can "buy" these investments without actually putting the money down, thus driving up the price. It's sort of like posting bond, you only have to post 10% to get out, same goes for these.. and that's my problem.

cardinal5150 wrote:In regards to leaving early.. this is my main concern. We pull out of Iraq completely and leave an instant vacuum. Who fills that? Most likely it'll be people who hate us, and there will be a generation of kids who grow up blaming the US for their problems in life and then when they get into their 20's they'll want revenge for all the evils in their world and they'll make a plan to hijake some planes and fly them into buildings.

Ok.. so maybe they won't do exactly that, but you see the point. Pulling out our troops so they don't get shot at is a great idea. I'd be all for it if it were as simple as that. But it's not, and that's my problem with the Dem's yelling about bringing our "boys and girls" home. It's condescending to the troops first off, and it completely ignores our responsibilities there.

Look at Japan, we went in there and killed millions probably, then, we turned around and spent billions to help them rebuild their country. The result is a partner. Now, I think there's a HUGE difference because I believe the Japanese to be more intelligent and thus realized that hey, we killed them, they killed us, let's move forward. I don't see this happening very easily in the middle east because they are still hell bent on not allowing women to be seen or Mohamed be drawn and sorts of other acts that frankly I consider childish.

But, it's my opinion that that childish behavior is more or less what the US has a responsibility to curtail through education. By pulling out that's not possible and IMO, we have a responsibility to at the very least TRY to help them.

And I'm not for a speculator tax so much as forcing people to put the money where their mouth is. I don't truly understand how it all works other than that they can "buy" these investments without actually putting the money down, thus driving up the price. It's sort of like posting bond, you only have to post 10% to get out, same goes for these.. and that's my problem.

Well, I hear ya Card. The problem I have is that we're nobody's daddy over there. We have a PRIMARY responsibility to protect the citizens of the US first. This military campaign to oust Saddam, find Bin Laden, and establish "a form of" democracy in Iraq is 2/3rds pipe dream. I really don't think we'll be able to accomplish the last 2/3rds part of this mess that we (as a nation) feel responsible to complete in order to say "Mission Accomplished".

IMHO, The damage is already done, like in your first paragraph where you characterize the progression of animosity giving birth to the next generation of terrorists. There's nothing we can do about it. Lets get out, offer some form of aid and make haste at making peace. There's one thing for sure, it cannot and will not get better by staying there, forcing this "plan" to happen from the receiving end of the barrel of a gun.

Seems like a lot can be accomplished if we would utter the phrase, "We f***** up. Sorry. How do we move forward?"

(And I'm not saying the troops f'ed up...the plan's architects (Rummy and Company) did.

I'm trying to remember Colin Luther Powell's statement during the first Gulf War about the reason for not going in and getting Saddam then. Other than it not being one of the objectives, didn't he say something like "If you break, you better be prepared to fix it."?

I don't think Rummy and Co. (including Powell himself) were quite prepared to fix it this time (either).

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Seems like a lot can be accomplished if we would utter the phrase, "We f***** up. Sorry. How do we move forward?"

(And I'm not saying the troops f'ed up...the plan's architects (Rummy and Company) did.

Seems too simple of a concept for some of the most savvy and intelligent men in our government to comprehend. "The next sound you hear will be the sound of my ball point pen arming itself to deploy some cash to let you know we really mean it" LOL

Childish even? Maybe, "chilld like" is a better phrase.