Reply With Quote
Just a failure on Obama's part since he promised we wouldn't keep soldiers based there.
I'd prefer that the national defense of the United States be that, instead of the super incredible self-appointed arsenal of democracy and liberator of the world.
Just a failure on Obama's part since he promised we wouldn't keep soldiers based there.
true
I am not for all soldiers leaving but the ones that stay should have no iraq mission.We should at least wait until US soldiers are out of there to see how the local populace reacts.
I don't think the strategy was as ineffective as it is perceived now due to our monday morning qb'ing. Although even bush will admit it was wrong to shut out the iraqi army with a small footprint. I think the success of the surge was a perfect stormAnd that still wouldn't excuse Bush for his lack of planning after the ground war, or for not changing his ineffective strategy until three years later.
No, a failure on pretty much every level for Bush's nation building experiment.
As stupid as Rumsfeld was in his handling of the invasion and its aftermath, he at least had the good initial sense to want to get out as soon as possible. Unfortunately, his inep ude prevented that from happening.
Keeping a large military presence in a theoretically peaceful Iraq simply confirms Arab claims of permanent imperial occupation. Great idea!
It's hilarious that you cheer the Oath Keepers in one thread that steadfastly refuses the fantasy of foreign troops keeping the peace on US soil, yet here you actively want the people of Iraq to submit to the same, even if there is no emergency.
You're a hypocrite.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 03-07-2010 at 07:27 PM.
That's just your bigotted responce.
Remember, Clinton signed legislation to make regime change in Iraq, law! To bad the truthers don't run with that and say that's why we were attacked on 911. That could be fun to debate!
Bologna.While you're at it Marcus, you should wish for a magic poop-to-ice-cream converter.
In all honesty Marcus, I'm curious what you think about this question. Obviously, in order to satisfy a rapid worldwide response time, America needs bases in other countries. These are also used for refueling and supply.
So, do you think a low number of foreign bases are acceptable? Or do you think America should relinquish the idea of rapid worldwide response?
While I admire your attempt to explain away a worldwide military presence with logistics at the center of your argument, our worldwide military presence is nothing more than a constant, ever-present display of prowess.
Like in a troop of gorillas, the silverback must beat someone down every now and then to remind every other primate of its dominant role in their lives.
No different with America.
I would have given your argument more merit if you had brought up the treaties our government, and military by extension, must abide.
But then, it still wouldnt be an honest argument on either of our behalfs.
Honesty would say; America's military is everywhere because it can be. By proxy, it also protects American interests (that is, resource, money, geography, business, etc).
America projects its power in many ways, culture, television, politics, money, etc.
But the most important, and by far the most expensive, is our military. No one country... , no coalition of countries could ever get off their own ground to even mount resistance to American military might. We know it, but most importantly, they know it.
Marcus, IMO, simply wants to end that projection...for whatever his reasons may be.
I, for one, am similarly interested to see what the world would do without America policing its every move. Surely one or more of the major corporations in our country would go belly-up in no time...those businesses which operate in (for example) South America wherein the exploit the cheap land and labor there under the policies crafted by elected leadership between our country and theirs.
The moment our military stops (ergo, so deos the money in "aid"), I am quite sure the natives (and their leadership) would oust them from their country the very next day.
So, beyond a handful of major corps going down the tubes in a reeeeal hurry (and the subsequent banana shortage), what really changed?
For one, Europe would have to (once again) spend some significant portion of their GDP on defense, instead of hiding behind big brother. Lets see how long they can afford universal healthcare when their sovereignty is one conflict away from a distant history.
India and Pakistan would probably declare war in the first year, and it wouldnt end well.
China...I have no idea. I dont know the country, but I do know they hate Japan and Taiwan (Taiwan especially). I am quite sure there are more than a few Chinese diplomats old enough to remember WW2 and Japan's actions to them at the time.
Regardless, I wouldnt mind seeing the worldwide military presence brought to an end. It is my belief that a few portions of the globe would descend into war and chaos, but such is the cycle of humanity. I know one thing for sure...we'd have a uva lot more money and FAR less taxes.
The world would burn, but we would have never lived better as Americans.
I fail to see a downside.
It's pretty clear who the bigot is in this thread. You want to keep the Muslims under the boot of America, well, just because.
So now you are trying to change the subject from permanent military presence in Iraq.Remember, Clinton signed legislation to make regime change in Iraq, law!
More hypocrisy.
I honestly think it is more military and strategic than jingoism.
As far as south america, us battling cuban and russian funded armies makes us exploiting them then I guess it depends how you perceive foreign policy affairs.us battling cuban and russian funded armies makes us exploiting them
DR, that was my whole point.
America's military is everywhere because it CAN BE. It CAN BE due to foriegn bases.
Either we keep these foriegn bases and the "be everywhere" capability, or we get rid fo those bases and the ability to be everywhere. I was wondering which Marcus would prefer.
Since you're in on the question DR, what do you think would be acceptable? Bases in a few foriegn areas? None at all?
How about acceptable response time? If, say, North Korea decides to attack us, should we have bases to supply and refuel along the way? Or should we just try to garner allies and request usage of their resources?
Excellent work as always, DR.
A military of that magnitude places the nation on a permanent war footing. It makes it easier for politicians to drag the nation into foolish wars. And, yes, it's freaking expensive. It also serves to increase the centralization of governance and national life. It invites corruption. How can $700 billion+ spent annually, with a large chunk going to private contractors not?Marcus, IMO, simply wants to end that projection...for whatever his reasons may be.
Conservatives worry about the nationalization of health care and the permanent state bureaucracy it would create, yet are content with the nationalization wrought by the permanent military bureaucracy. We're essentially continuing the Cold War, two decades past its end.
How can you have any notion of a cons utional Republic when the federal state spends $700 billion per annum, with a sizable portion of that allocated through the political process to favored states and congressional districts? Localism is killed by the power of the purse.
Liar.
That was my opinionated response to your question. Take it or leave it.
Are you really so stupid that I must spell out everything?
Plus I don't think Americans should be heavily taxed to provide for logistical support for theoretical future wars to be created by politicians, outside of what is needed to maintain a national defense. Want to reduce the national debt? Want a tax cut? Start with the Pentagon.
maintaining the military personnel and posts are not where the money is lost in. it's overpaying on all the equipment and planes and R&D.
And it had nothing to do with a permanemt military presence in Iraq.
No, you are really so stupid that you fail to realize just how astounding a level of hypocrisy you have achieved.Are you really so stupid that I must spell out everything?
We make money off of those?
I agree that our military is larger than it should be, and take on missions that other nations would take on, if it were not for our willingness to do so.
What I'm wondering, Marcus, is where do you think we should draw the line at? A few foreign bases? None at all?
Are you really so stupid as to think I know that answer with any level of certanty?
My God man.
Go the away.
And, yes, I'm aware that would make it more difficult for the nation to go to war.
We all look to Rom...er, Washington for our lead. All hail the Empe.....er, President and his legio....er, military.
IF those countries want our bases there, then i don't see why the "F" we care.
ChumpDumper at it again. Guys, don't even bother responding to this got, he only seeks to disrupt and get under your skin.
Just quit posting, you sexual sycophant
Marcus,
Thanks for the response! I am not willing to pare things down as much as you are: I would like to keep a presence in a few foriegn countries, as I think it helps deter some countries from doing wrong, as well as gives us the modern day capability to attack anywhere that is needed.
I wouldn't mind closing a good deal of bases though, as well as limiting the amount of missions we perform.
If it makes you feel any better, I heard that Obama has proposed only a 1.5% increase for the military in 2011, which is quite lower than the annual 3.5% or so we've been getting. I expect though that he will be blasted for not caring about the troops, and be forced to raise it.
I'd like to think that my goal of closing a few bases/performing fewer missions is more realistic than yours Marcus, but at this point, they might BOTH be pipedreams.
I can answer with a decent level of certainty.
They really don't want us there on a permanent basis.
Really.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
