100 years in Iraq- well we are still in

[88Comrade2000]

John Mccain getting a little grief for his statement: 100 years in a IRaq.

World War 2 ended in 1945, 63 years ago. We still have troops in Germany and Japan. Korean War reached a truce, they are still technically at war, in 1953. That was 55 years ago. We still have troops there. Only in Vietman, a war we lost do we have no troops.

There will always be some troops in Iraq. I don't see that changing. Hopefully, it gets to a minimal amount asap!

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This thread has really opened my eyes. Thanks!!!

[footballhenry]

As if its okay to keep MILITARY TROOPS in foreign countries for decades on end with no exit planning :doh:

What in the hell has this country and its citizens come to? I think we need a thorough history lesson.

All empires fall, and this one is no different.....precisely bc of the insane foreign policy we've carried for 60+ years.

Its actually quite simple to understand....when you base your policies around fear and power mongering, you will naturally attract a negative and fear-based conclusion which is where this country may sadly be headed.

[ATV]

Yea. If our troops weren't in Germany and Japan holding down the fort, I'm sure those people would overthrow their government and declare war on us.

While our presence there does have to to do with an overextending empire, it has nothing to do with the occupation of Iraq.

[Burgold]

I think GITMO is the oddest example at that, especially since we are not even on speaking terms with Cuba. The question isn't whether we are there for 100 years, but how things will look in ten. If we're still there and the government is unstable and a farse like it is now, then much of our investment into the area will have been wasted. If the people are safe and happy and the government finds its footing, then our presence there will be fine.

No one refers to our presence in Germany etc as an occupying force today and that's the difference. If things go well. We will have a presence in Iraq in 2102, but its nature will be radically different. Maybe a few Marines at an embassy. Maybe a Vulcan-Human millitary think tank? :geek:

[TrumanB]

As if its okay to keep MILITARY TROOPS in foreign countries for decades on end with no exit planning :doh:

What in the hell has this country and its citizens come to? I think we need a thorough history lesson.

All empires fall, and this one is no different.....precisely bc of the insane foreign policy we've carried for 60+ years.

Its actually quite simple to understand....when you base your policies around fear and power mongering, you will naturally attract a negative and fear-based conclusion which is where this country may sadly be headed.

Exit planning? :doh: Dude, the only exit planning needed is in Iraq. And the guy to do that effectively just won South Carolina and possibly the Republican nomination - John McCain.

Troops in other countries, like South Korea, are there as support forces, not occupying forces. So, please save the drama about the American empire. Get off the Ron Paul talking points and think for yourself for a change. :doh:

[footballhenry]

Exit planning? :doh: Dude, the only exit planning needed is in Iraq. And the guy to do that effectively just won South Carolina and possibly the Republican nomination - John McCain.

Troops in other countries, like South Korea, are there as support forces, not occupying forces. So, please save the drama about the American empire. Get off the Ron Paul talking points and think for yourself for a change. :doh:

Why do you think its okay for us to maintain our military in other countries, often times in the face of prevailing public sentiment?

How come we don't have a country 'supporting' us IN our country (yes in the same way we occupy other countries)?

Would you be okay with a foreign country occupying our lands??

You wouldn't be the least bit enflamed if China had some bases setup across the coastlines?

Point is Truman, we need to look at what we do from the perspective of the countries and citizens we occupy in addition to our own.

It brings to mind a quote in which Oscar Wilde exclaims that many people are the sum of other peoples thoughts, opinions, and feelings and not their own.

And yes I do think for myself, I strive to every moment of every day. But I do appreciate the advice. (actually the wisest advice i've probably received in my short time-span here on Earth is to be 'in the moment', when your in the now your mind slows down and you can have clear, intentioned thoughts)

*meditation works wonders as well, I highly recommend it

[/img]

"There is no path to peace. Peace is the path."

-Mahatma Ghandi

[GibbsFactor]

So in 2108 when we pull out, after spending ALL this money and losing thousands of our best men and women, the violence continues; what have we accomplished?

Why are we worried more about a foreign country then our own?

Do none of us love our country anymore?

[TrumanB]

How come we don't have a country 'supporting' us IN our country (yes in the same way we occupy other countries)

Why to you continue to say we occupy other countries? That is simply not true. Yes, we occupy a single country (Iraq) at the moment and I wish we would get out as soon as logically possible. But, to say our forces in Asia or Europe or wherever are "occupying" forces is simply a lie.

[TrumanB]

So in 2108 when we pull out, after spending ALL this money and losing thousands of our best men and women, the violence continues; what have we accomplished?

Why are we worried more about a foreign country then our own?

Do none of us love our country anymore?

If the high levels of violence start back up and continue into the end of the year, we will not be in Iraq in 2009. McCain's comment about being there for 100 years was meant to be taken literally. His point was that American resolve will prevail in that situation. He does not talk in defeatist terms.

We have been in Korea for over 50 years and there hasn't been a single combat fatality since the war ended in 1953. We are down to 35,000 troops in Korea and are simply providing forces for support and security for our friends. The South Koreans are our friends, by the way.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

WOW,

Obviously footballhenry knows nothing about the military or it's strategy it employs and before you doubt my credibility, let's just say I've served probably unlike you.

Our forces are in various countrys (england, south america, guam, japan, you name it we are probably there). From a strategic stand point it makes a lot of sense to have troop stationed around the world to respond to all kind of events (humanitarian, peace and diplomatic roles, and yes of course war-like conditions or violent threats).

The worse possible case scenario is to have all our troops state-side, it's kind of like keeping all your eggs in one basket type of deal. Having our troops abroad also kind of keeps the little guys in check (when the cat's away the mice will play). Not to say intimidate them by starring them down at their borders, but just to have them know in the back of their heads "oh ****, we better not start ****, because they can be ready to strike at any moment". Being able to respond in less than an hour is a hell of a lot better than 1 to 3 days.

Also to the OP, we technically DIDN'T LOSE the war in Vietnam.

[GibbsFactor]

If the high levels of violence start back up and continue into the end of the year, we will not be in Iraq in 2009. McCain's comment about being there for 100 years was meant to be taken literally. His point was that American resolve will prevail in that situation. He does not talk in defeatist terms.

We have been in Korea for over 50 years and there hasn't been a single combat fatality since the war ended in 1953. We are down to 35,000 troops in Korea and are simply providing forces for support and security for our friends. The South Koreans are our friends, by the way.

I know, I understand what McCain meant and don't hold him to those words, but they are good sound bites to sway votes from him.

I see one difference between pulling out now and pulling out in 50 years. The amount it costs me. If there was some benefit to the war, I'd be for it. Just one benefit. What good has come of it?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We have troops in those countries for OUR benefit because they are allies of ours and LET us use some of their territory for our own military strategies, against countries that we are not occupying, e.g. North Korea.

In contrast, McCain is talking about staying in Iraq for 100 years so that we can prevent Sunni's and Shia from killing each other.

Not even REMOTELY the same thing.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

We have been in Korea for over 50 years and there hasn't been a single combat fatality since the war ended in 1953. We are down to 35,000 troops in Korea and are simply providing forces for support and security for our friends. The South Koreans are our friends, by the way.

I'm on your side and see your view points, but I would like to correct something about combat fatalities in Korea. There has at least been two and they happened at the same time http://www.imjinscout.com/Paul_Bunyan.html

[CurseReversed]

Why do you think its okay for us to maintain our military in other countries, often times in the face of prevailing public sentiment?

How come we don't have a country 'supporting' us IN our country (yes in the same way we occupy other countries)?

Would you be okay with a foreign country occupying our lands??

You wouldn't be the least bit enflamed if China had some bases setup across the coastlines?

Point is Truman, we need to look at what we do from the perspective of the countries and citizens we occupy in addition to our own.

It brings to mind a quote in which Oscar Wilde exclaims that many people are the sum of other peoples thoughts, opinions, and feelings and not their own.

And yes I do think for myself, I strive to every moment of every day. But I do appreciate the advice. (actually the wisest advice i've probably received in my short time-span here on Earth is to be 'in the moment', when your in the now your mind slows down and you can have clear, intentioned thoughts)

In the face of prevailing public sentiment??

Most of the countries we "occupy" wouldnt let us leave if we wanted too.

The best thing that ever happened to this world is global U.S. military presence. Why do you think the past 60 years has been so damn peaceful, relative the 60 years prior?

[Loxley]

The reason America still has troops abroad is due to it's alliances with its diplomatic neighbours. You guys have troops stationed here (England) and moreso Germany for the same reason that we (UK) have a base in Cyprus. Geographically it makes sense if you need to react rapidly to a threat somewhere in the world.

With the current political climate it makes sense to do this. The Cold War has only just ended a generation ago, we now have the Middle East problems and from a purely military point of view generally as a political ideal we (the West) need to stand united in the face of adversity. America needs her allies just as much as any other country involved in NATO. It was set up for this kind of thing.

On the Iraq discussion, I do not believe we (anyone from Western powers) should have ever been there. Afghanistan is a different situation entirely but my views on it would probably incite some pretty radical responses considering the subject matter and the nationalities involved in that discussion. Suffice to say I think you guys, along with Britain and the other European nations should all pack up and leave the whole affair. Its one thing to look after other people in another part of the world but if that "help" is rejected and indeed costs lives then its not worth it imo. I am fiercely nationalistic, I am proud of my country but I think the whole affair is just a big waste of time.

To call the American positioning of forces abroad an empire however is daft guys tbh, its not an empire in the slightest. That implies military or political control over the nations occupied. America isnt doing that, you're looking after what's yours. That's different. The British Empire was a different thing but anyway it was a whole different era and not one to split hairs over.

P.s a question to Mikeinalexandria - if you didn't technically lose the Vietnam War (your opinion) but you could never say you won (if such a thing were possible) how would you describe the ending of it?

The reason I ask is because I think that along with a certain amount of pride swallowing (there is bound to be some) that the allied forces need to adopt the same strategy with Iraq. That is, put simply, to GTFO of there.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

P.s a question to Mikeinalexandria - if you didn't technically lose the Vietnam War (your opinion) but you could never say you won (if such a thing were possible) how would you describe the ending of it?

The reason I ask is because I think that along with a certain amount of pride swallowing (there is bound to be some) that the allied forces need to adopt the same strategy with Iraq. That is, put simply, to GTFO of there.

It's a very dicey situation. We definitely could have decisively won if more time, man power, weapons and equipment was put into the war effort. I believe we were so distracted about the political dealings back here in D.C. (aka Nixon, Watergate, and so many hippie protestors) that even the pro-war minded people got tired of the whole situation and said "**** it we are out".

I know that Vietnam still fell to communism, but one of our (JFK's) key objective was to stop what they termed as the "Domino Effect", meaning to stop the spread of communism from surrounding countries (Laos, Cambodia, etc.), which I believe was accomplished as a whole.

Hopefully that better explains my theory of we never lost the Vietnam war.

Also take in to account the casualtie ratio: Close to 60,000 U.S. military personnel to over 1 million Viet-Cong.