Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Boreal

Bring them home from Iraq

Recommended Posts

Why do I have the feeling that I would have to own at least one cardigan sweater to get the jokes being tossed my way?

 

Not really, just a tie died peace T-shirt!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was put in a tough place by Bush. .... I say we simply leave now and rightfully make sure that the blame for the ensuing chaos falls on Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfield, because they got us into this mess without giving us a legitimate way out.

That is exactly Kucinick's (sic) position. He has proposed offered resolutions to that effect and gets voted down, unanimously by......Democrats.

That is a misrepresentation of history.

Who needs facts when you have Fox?

 

Why don't you straighten us out on the facts?

 

Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was put in a tough place by Bush.  ....  I say we simply leave now and rightfully make sure that the blame for the ensuing chaos falls on Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfield, because they got us into this mess without giving us a legitimate way out. 

That is exactly Kucinick's (sic) position.  He has proposed offered  resolutions to that effect and gets voted down, unanimously by......Democrats. 

That is a misrepresentation of history. 

Who needs facts when you have Fox?

 

Why don't you straighten us out on the facts?

 

Much appreciated.

 

The vote on Kucinich's resolution re Afghanistan was 365-65, with 5 republicans joining Kucinich and 59 other members of the Democratic caucus in favor of the resolution.  It was not uninamous and definitely, in no way uninamous "by....... Democrats."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/03/house_defeats_kucinich_resolut.html

 

You're welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not forever, Tedolph.  The Iraqi government wants us out of their country and there is no UN resolution that we can use to justify staying.

 

And, to put a finer point on it, Obama is meeting his promise to get us out of Iraq.  I am impressed that he could prevail despite the huge challenges.

 

Sigh.  The Iraqi government likes all the money the bases bring in (lease fees, spending, taxes, etc. and the foriegn aid that comes with it) just as much as the govenments of Japan, Korea, Gremany, Guam, Phillipines, etc., etc. etc. do.  It does not matter what the Iraqi people think anymore than it matters what the Japanese people think. 

 

We will never leave. 

 

Face it.  Obama is a shill just like the Republicans. 

 

The footsoldiers of the Left are always played for fools. 

 

"Useful idiots" I think is what they call them.

 

Implicit in all of this is the assumption that we should leave--and not just Iraq, but Germany, Japan, and South Korea, too.

 

Why, exactly?  If Germany or Japan or South Korea really wanted to expel all U.S. forces from their territory, we would leave rather than fight them to be allowed to stay.  They hardly consider themselves "occupied."  In general, anti-Americanism is lower near American overseas bases, not higher, because rumors (and the occasional dramatic lowlights on TV) always paint a more negative picture of the American military than deserved.  In truth, most uniformed servicemen are pretty normal folks when they're not in combat.

 

Saying that the "Iraqi government" likes the money that the bases bring in but the Iraqi people don't is premature, at least as far as a potential consensual agreement to enable a presence in Iraq after 2011.  Again, making the parallel to the three other countries where we have large military presences: Do you really think that the German government allows us to stay on German soil against the will of the German people?  Likewise Japan and South Korea?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama was put in a tough place by Bush.  There's really no way to end our presence in the Middle East without having the place fall apart, whether it's now or in a decade.  It's not in our country's best interest to remain there (in fact it wasn't in our best interest to go there in the first place), but if we leave, we'll look really bad because it's clear that those people will rip each other to shreds fighting for power.  I'm not torn on this issue at all, as bad as this sounds, it's not our responsibility to nation-build or stop countries from having civil wars. I say we simply leave now and rightfully make sure that the blame for the ensuing chaos falls on Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfield, because they got us into this mess without giving us a legitimate way out. 

 

That is exactly Kucinick's position.  He has proposed offered  resolutions to that effect and gets voted down, unanimously by......Democrats. 

 

Because it's a bad move politically.  Doesn't mean it's the wrong move for the United States.

 

It's true that the two are not completely coextensive--but the number of things that are bad moves politically but nevertheless good for the country is small.  One should rightly be extremely skeptical of any policy that is accomplished by legislative maneuvering--or a naked assertion of executive power--without popular support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, making the parallel to the three other countries where we have large military presences: Do you really think that the German government allows us to stay on German soil against the will of the German people? Likewise Japan and South Korea?

 

Didn't Japan just see a PM step down because he failed to live up to a campaign promise to move a US base away from an unhappy populace in Okinawa?  This is not meant as a blanket refutation, but it strikes me as impossible to generalize about "the will of the people" in any one country let alone every country where the US has a major military presence.

 

In any case, it seems strange to compare the US military experience in Japan, Korean and Germany with that in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Cherry picked at the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not cherry picked; to my knowledge, those are our largest foreign deployments.  I will throw open the list for the Gulf States, where we also have large deployments, if you think that would be closer.  The populations of Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, all of which harbor substantial American military presences, are less friendly towards America than Germany or Japan, perhaps, but they are not clamoring to get us gone or viewing us as occupiers.  We pay for the space we use, and the governments there have decided that any military risk we pose is outweighed by the benefits we bring.  (After all, our bases might be targets--but they're targets that fight back.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't foget Bosnia (Bill Clinton's war) were we still have troops more that ten years after that war is over. 

 

I think many of you miss my point.  Military deployments overseas are not ultimately for military purposes.  The basic reason for the U.S. militray hemogeny is to make the world "safe for capitalism".  This goes back to Eisenhower.  If we have bases everywhere, those countries can't nationalize our investments their (a la the House of Saud in the 1950's) so wherever we can get our foot in the door (nevermind whether it is a Democrat foot or a Rebublican foot) we are going to stay.  There are just too many economic advantages in a global economy to having a military presence in a customer country to simply leave after the investment has been made.  That is why we never leave anywhere.  The only loser is the U.S. taxpayer.  Just imagine how things would be differnt if we had bases in Venezuela! Chavez would be at the ranch with G.W. barbequing steaks right now!  The military is simply an arm of our economic policy.

 

Also, the host countries think it is great becase i) we pay them off; and ii) they now don't have to pay for thier own military defense.  Saves a lot of money.  Of course, they give lip service to anti-American sentiments but it is, ultimately just lip service. 

 

Just like what Obama gives the Left.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, then why are there no U.S. military bases in China or India, given the volume of economic ties we have with those countries now?  Why are there no U.S. military bases in Canada or Mexico, despite the fact that we have deeper economic ties with them than any other country, even the U.K.?  Why do we have a larger U.S. military presence in Colombia than Brazil?

 

I don't disagree that we use our military might in service of our economic interests, because I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that our economic interests are an important component of our "national interest."  The "national interest" is a pretty broad and indefinite term unless it's given some more specific components, after all.  However, I don't think the facts back up the theory you're trying to advance: while we do have large troop presences in some economically strategically vital countries, it's not a strong enough correlation to be able to infer any kind of pattern or underlying motive.  After all, using the same example you did--how exactly does our continued presence in the Balkans make the world safer for capitalism?  And, alternatively, is there really nothing more that those troops could be doing to make the world safer for capitalism, assuming that were our exclusive or overriding goal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, then why are there no U.S. military bases in China or India, given the volume of economic ties we have with those countries now? Why are there no U.S. military bases in Canada or Mexico, despite the fact that we have deeper economic ties with them than any other country, even the U.K.? Why do we have a larger U.S. military presence in Colombia than Brazil?

 

I don't disagree that we use our military might in service of our economic interests, because I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that our economic interests are an important component of our "national interest." The "national interest" is a pretty broad and indefinite term unless it's given some more specific components, after all. However, I don't think the facts back up the theory you're trying to advance: while we do have large troop presences in some economically strategically vital countries, it's not a strong enough correlation to be able to infer any kind of pattern or underlying motive. After all, using the same example you did--how exactly does our continued presence in the Balkans make the world safer for capitalism? And, alternatively, is there really nothing more that those troops could be doing to make the world safer for capitalism, assuming that were our exclusive or overriding goal?

 

Why are there no bases in China or India?  Are you serious? Do you think the People's Republic of China is going to allow the U.S. to put a military base there? Last time I checked we had nuclear missles aimed at them and vice versa.  U.S. military bases in India might cause a problem with another U.S. ally, uh, mabe, uh Pakistan.  Hmmm, might be a problem.

 

I think I am going to let you revise and re-post your last response before commenting further.

 

I will say this though.  Our economic interest should end at our borders.  Go Pat Buchanan! Go Protectionism!  Down with Globalism! Go Fortress America! (wish I knew how to use one of those U.S. flag emoticons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this though.  Our economic interest should end at our borders.  Go Pat Buchanan! Go Protectionism!  Down with Globalism! Go Fortress America! (wish I knew how to use one of those U.S. flag emoticons)

Count me in! emoticon_americanFlag.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, then why are there no U.S. military bases in China or India, given the volume of economic ties we have with those countries now? Why are there no U.S. military bases in Canada or Mexico, despite the fact that we have deeper economic ties with them than any other country, even the U.K.? Why do we have a larger U.S. military presence in Colombia than Brazil?

 

I don't disagree that we use our military might in service of our economic interests, because I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that our economic interests are an important component of our "national interest." The "national interest" is a pretty broad and indefinite term unless it's given some more specific components, after all. However, I don't think the facts back up the theory you're trying to advance: while we do have large troop presences in some economically strategically vital countries, it's not a strong enough correlation to be able to infer any kind of pattern or underlying motive. After all, using the same example you did--how exactly does our continued presence in the Balkans make the world safer for capitalism? And, alternatively, is there really nothing more that those troops could be doing to make the world safer for capitalism, assuming that were our exclusive or overriding goal?

 

Why are there no bases in China or India? Are you serious? Do you think the People's Republic of China is going to allow the U.S. to put a military base there? Last time I checked we had nuclear missles aimed at them and vice versa. U.S. military bases in India might cause a problem with another U.S. ally, uh, mabe, uh Pakistan.   Hmmm, might be a problem.

 

I think I am going to let you revise and re-post your last response before commenting further.

 

No, the sheer absurdity of the notion was precisely my point.  That was why I can't give much credence to the notion that "The basic reason for the U.S. militray hemogeny is to make the world "safe for capitalism".  This goes back to Eisenhower.  If we have bases everywhere, those countries can't nationalize our investments their (a la the House of Saud in the 1950's) so wherever we can get our foot in the door (nevermind whether it is a Democrat foot or a Rebublican foot) we are going to stay.  There are just too many economic advantages in a global economy to having a military presence in a customer country to simply leave after the investment has been made."

 

We have no bases in China for obvious reasons, but we also have substantial economic investments in China.  In other words, China can nationalize our investments there, if they want--it would put a tremendous hurt on them to do so, of course, because they'd likely lose more than we would, but they could do it.

 

By contrast, our massive deployments in Germany, Japan, and South Korea might be in some sense making the world safe for capitalism, but only if those interests are framed globally, not locally--Germany and Japan are not under immediate military threat nor have they made direct threats against American-owned assets in their countries.

 

I will say this though. Our economic interest should end at our borders. Go Pat Buchanan! Go Protectionism! Down with Globalism! Go Fortress America! (wish I knew how to use one of those U.S. flag emoticons)

 

Sigh.

 

Our economic interests should extend to wherever there is money to be made, whether that is Akron, Canada, Germany, India, Afghanistan, or the ocean floor and outer space.  And our economic interests should *never* encompass protectionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, protectionism is an interesting beast....

 

And "our economic interest" is meant here to mean "the United States government's economic interest".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised to hear you equate those. Very surprised.

tedolph's quote is kinda awkward, looking back at it now. I got caught up in the flag emoticon I guess...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Akward? You mean absurd. 

 

Speaking of absurd: "We have no bases in China for obvious reasons, but we also have substantial economic investments in China.  In other words, China can nationalize our investments there, if they want--it would put a tremendous hurt on them to do so, of course, because they'd likely lose more than we would, but they could do it."

 

That is why we have no substantial investments in China. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, say what?  Are you seriously telling me that American businesses have no substantial investments in China?  Or are you simply denying that those interests are part of America's economic interests?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying the USA should waste money on an empire-sized network of bases in the name of "economic interests."  Why are do we have bases everywhere?  Is empire inevitable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying the USA should waste money on an empire-sized network of bases in the name of "economic interests." Why are do we have bases everywhere? Is empire inevitable?

 

Empire is inevitable, except in a Constitutional Republic.  See The People of Rome v. Imperialists, 1  F1 1001 (Italian Peninsula, 100 BC). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Empire" is a pretty loose term.  To the extent that we have anything resembling an empire, it doesn't resemble most previous empires--not even Britain, which would be the logical place to start looking for similarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Empire" is a pretty loose term. To the extent that we have anything resembling an empire, it doesn't resemble most previous empires--not even Britain, which would be the logical place to start looking for similarities.

 

Ok, let me rephase that, "tyrrany is inevitable, except in a Constitutional Republic", Supra. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somebody owes me a beer:

 

LONDON — The commander of Iraq's military is calling for U.S. forces to stay in the country for another decade, reinforcing his stance that his country's military won't be able to secure the nation on their own after U.S. troops leave.

 

"At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they are still here, but the problem will start after 2011," Gen. Babaker Shawkat Zebari said at a defense conference in Baghdad, according to the BBC.

 

"The politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011... If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians: the U.S. army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020," the BBC reported.

 

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38670873/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?GT1=43001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most Americans comprehend exactly how much the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds truly despise each other and exactly how loosely that nation was held together prior to our occupancy... even with an iron fist like Saddam Hussein.  There is going to be no solution where we leave Iraq and everybody will join hands and sing kum-bay-ya.  It's going to be ugly, no matter when we end combat operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not going to end combat operations so it is not going to get ugly.  Obama is not going to allow a helicopters on the emabasy roof scene to mar his 2012 run.  That would be political suicide for him and the Democrats.  We have been down this road before.  LBJ thought it best to let that happen on Nixon's watch. 

 

Peace with Honor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most Americans comprehend exactly how much the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds truly despise each other and exactly how loosely that nation was held together prior to our occupancy... even with an iron fist like Saddam Hussein. There is going to be no solution where we leave Iraq and everybody will join hands and sing kum-bay-ya. It's going to be ugly, no matter when we end combat operations.

 

Which is why I always liked Biden's three state solution.  I don't understand the point in empires then (Great Britain) and now (United States) in trying to force groups of people that hate each other into a single state entity.  Not only in Iraq, but this was epidemic in Africa and it's still a big problem in areas there.

 

Anyways, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure it's our responsibility to prevent them from going to civil war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um, say what? Are you seriously telling me that American businesses have no substantial investments in China? Or are you simply denying that those interests are part of America's economic interests?

 

 

Considering the size of the market, etc., etc. our investments there are paltry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most Americans comprehend exactly how much the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds truly despise each other and exactly how loosely that nation was held together prior to our occupancy... even with an iron fist like Saddam Hussein. There is going to be no solution where we leave Iraq and everybody will join hands and sing kum-bay-ya. It's going to be ugly, no matter when we end combat operations.

 

Which is why I always liked Biden's three state solution. I don't understand the point in empires then (Great Britain) and now (United States) in trying to force groups of people that hate each other into a single state entity. Not only in Iraq, but this was epidemic in Africa and it's still a big problem in areas there.

 

Anyways, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure it's our responsibility to prevent them from going to civil war.

 

Actually, Winston Churchill created Iraq prior to WWII for oil purposes.  He said it was one of his greatest mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most Americans comprehend exactly how much the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds truly despise each other and exactly how loosely that nation was held together prior to our occupancy... even with an iron fist like Saddam Hussein.  There is going to be no solution where we leave Iraq and everybody will join hands and sing kum-bay-ya.  It's going to be ugly, no matter when we end combat operations.

 

Which is why I always liked Biden's three state solution.  I don't understand the point in empires then (Great Britain) and now (United States) in trying to force groups of people that hate each other into a single state entity.  Not only in Iraq, but this was epidemic in Africa and it's still a big problem in areas there.

 

Anyways, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure it's our responsibility to prevent them from going to civil war. 

 

Actually, Winston Churchill created Iraq prior to WWII for oil purposes.  He said it was one of his greatest mistakes.

 

No, I know, but I mean why are we trying to force them to stay together?  If we're going to waste our time there nation-building, don't make the same mistakes that previous empires have made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think most Americans comprehend exactly how much the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds truly despise each other and exactly how loosely that nation was held together prior to our occupancy... even with an iron fist like Saddam Hussein. There is going to be no solution where we leave Iraq and everybody will join hands and sing kum-bay-ya. It's going to be ugly, no matter when we end combat operations.

 

Which is why I always liked Biden's three state solution. I don't understand the point in empires then (Great Britain) and now (United States) in trying to force groups of people that hate each other into a single state entity. Not only in Iraq, but this was epidemic in Africa and it's still a big problem in areas there.

 

Anyways, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure it's our responsibility to prevent them from going to civil war.

 

Actually, Winston Churchill created Iraq prior to WWII for oil purposes. He said it was one of his greatest mistakes.

 

No, I know, but I mean why are we trying to force them to stay together? If we're going to waste our time there nation-building, don't make the same mistakes that previous empires have made.

 

 

The answer to your question shoudl tell you something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the general that says we should stay another ten years is a Kurd.  Turkey may not show as much restraint for the kurdish separatists crossing the border from Iraq when we're gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the general that says we should stay another ten years is a Kurd. Turkey may not show as much restraint for the kurdish separatists crossing the border from Iraq when we're gone.

 

That is another reason why we arn't going to be gone.  A question for you Obama supporters.  Do you feel like chumps now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the general that says we should stay another ten years is a Kurd. Turkey may not show as much restraint for the kurdish separatists crossing the border from Iraq when we're gone.

 

That is another reason why we arn't going to be gone. A question for you Obama supporters. Do you feel like chumps now?

 

I'm having trouble following this train of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the general that says we should stay another ten years is a Kurd. Turkey may not show as much restraint for the kurdish separatists crossing the border from Iraq when we're gone.

 

That is another reason why we arn't going to be gone. A question for you Obama supporters. Do you feel like chumps now?

 

I'm having trouble following this train of thought.

 

Obama has wholesale adopted the Bush exit strategy (if you can call it an exit strategy) for Iraq and appears to be following the Bush surge doctrine in Afganistan.  No one is commng home. 

 

Obama said Bush was bad. 

 

If Obama is G.W. Junior in Iraq and Afganistan does that make Obama supporters feel like chumps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the general that says we should stay another ten years is a Kurd. Turkey may not show as much restraint for the kurdish separatists crossing the border from Iraq when we're gone.

 

That is another reason why we arn't going to be gone. A question for you Obama supporters. Do you feel like chumps now?

 

I'm having trouble following this train of thought.

 

Obama has wholesale adopted the Bush exit strategy (if you can call it an exit strategy) for Iraq and appears to be following the Bush surge doctrine in Afganistan. No one is commng home.

 

Obama said Bush was bad.

 

If Obama is G.W. Junior in Iraq and Afganistan does that make Obama supporters feel like chumps?

Yes, but they won't admit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Obama has wholesale adopted the Bush exit strategy (if you can call it an exit strategy) for Iraq and appears to be following the Bush surge doctrine in Afganistan.  No one is commng home.  ...

You will put "just anything" up on a message board, won't you, Tedolph? Pretty embarassing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...