Nude_IHB
New member
[quote author="T!m" date=1213399480]
Well, I am not convinced that Iraq would be the mess you describe if we left. However, I don't think we should just pull everyone out ASAP. I haven't heard either candidate propose that either. However, I get nervous because no one seems to have a good answer on when we should get "out." Yes, we have bases in those countries. But, I don't see us running a lot of military operations in England. I don't really want to argue this whole thing with you cuz I bet we aren't that far apart really. The whole thing boils down to speculation anyway. </blockquote>
Barack is on record in supporting immediate withdrawals. <blockquote><em>Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.</em> <strong>-taken from his website</strong></blockquote>
While we don't run military operations, we do run drills and exercises and train with the host country's military. My point was that we have a model for post-occupation that has been successful for more than 60 years and no one is screaming for us to get out of Germany. We may not be all that far apart, but I wouldn't define it as a speculation so much as a probability based on the current and recent actions being taken by the countries mentioned. Syrians cross the border to join the militias, Iran produced and exports the IEDs used for bombs, and Turkey has technically invaded Iraq more than once in an effort to capture or kill Kurdish militants.
<blockquote>Here is a bizarre mental exercise. We went into Iraq to free the people from the violent dictator. And supposedly to protect us from him. After doing this, of course, many more thousands have died than would have otherwise. So, what is to stop other countries from going in to Iraq to free the people from us? And to protect themselves from us?</blockquote>
Despite the internet meme that has spun it, Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech was accurate: we decimated Iraq's entire military and dismantled their government in <strong>less than 30 days</strong>. Had we placed a sufficient number of troops on the ground from that point forward (thanks a lot Rummy, you fucktard), we could have effectively quelled the violence that plagued the country until The Surge began last summer. Despite the rhetoric and sabre rattling, there are very few military forces that could resist the American military. We could decimate the entire region's armed forces if we had to, but we simply don't have the numbers to keep the peace once the military victory has been secured. Iran, Syria, Egypt, UAE, Turkey, Libya... we can beat them all tomorrow but it isn't logistically possible for one country to maintain effective peaceful control once the governments are removed. Knowing that, the countries surrounding Iraq are content to play provocateur but they won't invade as long as we are there.
Well, I am not convinced that Iraq would be the mess you describe if we left. However, I don't think we should just pull everyone out ASAP. I haven't heard either candidate propose that either. However, I get nervous because no one seems to have a good answer on when we should get "out." Yes, we have bases in those countries. But, I don't see us running a lot of military operations in England. I don't really want to argue this whole thing with you cuz I bet we aren't that far apart really. The whole thing boils down to speculation anyway. </blockquote>
Barack is on record in supporting immediate withdrawals. <blockquote><em>Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.</em> <strong>-taken from his website</strong></blockquote>
While we don't run military operations, we do run drills and exercises and train with the host country's military. My point was that we have a model for post-occupation that has been successful for more than 60 years and no one is screaming for us to get out of Germany. We may not be all that far apart, but I wouldn't define it as a speculation so much as a probability based on the current and recent actions being taken by the countries mentioned. Syrians cross the border to join the militias, Iran produced and exports the IEDs used for bombs, and Turkey has technically invaded Iraq more than once in an effort to capture or kill Kurdish militants.
<blockquote>Here is a bizarre mental exercise. We went into Iraq to free the people from the violent dictator. And supposedly to protect us from him. After doing this, of course, many more thousands have died than would have otherwise. So, what is to stop other countries from going in to Iraq to free the people from us? And to protect themselves from us?</blockquote>
Despite the internet meme that has spun it, Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech was accurate: we decimated Iraq's entire military and dismantled their government in <strong>less than 30 days</strong>. Had we placed a sufficient number of troops on the ground from that point forward (thanks a lot Rummy, you fucktard), we could have effectively quelled the violence that plagued the country until The Surge began last summer. Despite the rhetoric and sabre rattling, there are very few military forces that could resist the American military. We could decimate the entire region's armed forces if we had to, but we simply don't have the numbers to keep the peace once the military victory has been secured. Iran, Syria, Egypt, UAE, Turkey, Libya... we can beat them all tomorrow but it isn't logistically possible for one country to maintain effective peaceful control once the governments are removed. Knowing that, the countries surrounding Iraq are content to play provocateur but they won't invade as long as we are there.
