McCain - Troops in Iraq for 100 years is "fine with me"

[bamacre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf7HYoh9YMM

WTF?

Did he not learn anything from 9/11?

Do they want this to become a similar problem like that of Israel and "palestine," where one side says, "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says "we occupy your lands because you attack us."

I don't want that. Fuck that. Leave them the hell alone and let's solve our own damn problems. Remove all the merit from their rationale, and THEN, if someone attacks us, go get 'em.

This preemptive war policy is dangerous, expensive, and a failure.

Troops in Iraq for 100 years? No, Mr. McCain, and this is the kinda shit that caused me to lose respect for you.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don?t want to sign onto that ideology either.

There is a clear distinction between working with (forcing) moderate Muslims to purge their community of radical elements and banish all preaching of hatred (as if we?d even call it that) and deciding that keeping our troops in a single foreign country for a century would achieve the same result.

There?s no f?ing way in hell that ?winning? in Iraq will achieve the desired result of defending our homeland. In fact, so long as we?re in Iraq NO ONE is even talking about or mentioning what we need to do to contain and impede our home grown Islamic Supremacists. It?s just ridiculous how stupid we are.

The target isn?t Iraq, it?s America, and waving a flag to distract us over there is only going to get us killed over here as we ignored the threat much closer to home.

 

[chucky2]

I don't think McCain said he'd defacto keep troops there for 100 years. What he was getting at was he'd be fine keeping troops - in a number or type not specified - in that region as long as they weren't dying or being maimed for 100 years if necessary to combat terrorism.

Having contigents of SF type units with the requiste transportation and support mechanisms in place, who are in a Korea type setting, doesn't sound like too bad of a tradeoff to me.

Chuck

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I don't think McCain said he'd defacto keep troops there for 100 years. What he was getting at was he'd be fine keeping troops - in a number or type not specified - in that region as long as they weren't dying or being maimed for 100 years if necessary to combat terrorism.

Having contigents of SF type units with the requiste transportation and support mechanisms in place, who are in a Korea type setting, doesn't sound like too bad of a tradeoff to me.

Chuck

Fat chance.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2
I don't think McCain said he'd defacto keep troops there for 100 years. What he was getting at was he'd be fine keeping troops - in a number or type not specified - in that region as long as they weren't dying or being maimed for 100 years if necessary to combat terrorism.

Having contigents of SF type units with the requiste transportation and support mechanisms in place, who are in a Korea type setting, doesn't sound like too bad of a tradeoff to me.

Chuck

Don't you think that would put us into a setting I spoke of in the OP, "like that of Israel and "palestine," where one side says, "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says "we occupy your lands because you attack us.""

Is that what America wants?

These people are not Japanese, nor German, nor South Korean. These people take their religion much more seriously.

 

[Ozoned]

Reality check time. Does anyone seriously think that the ME oil is going to last another 100 years?

 

[bugsysiegel]

I'm certainly no scholar on the history of the world, but the way I understand it, the Japanese were similar to the radical Muslims, and that was why the US dropped the bomb there, and then maintained a presence afterwards... in order to support the Japanese as they rebuilt their country.

Isn't this situation similar?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: chucky2
I don't think McCain said he'd defacto keep troops there for 100 years. What he was getting at was he'd be fine keeping troops - in a number or type not specified - in that region as long as they weren't dying or being maimed for 100 years if necessary to combat terrorism.

Having contigents of SF type units with the requiste transportation and support mechanisms in place, who are in a Korea type setting, doesn't sound like too bad of a tradeoff to me.

Chuck

Fat chance.

Look, I don't disagree that it'd be great to pull all our armed forces back completely to the US unless actually engaged in a declared war. I doubt there's too many that would argue against that dream. Reality though dictates one cannot sit by and not go on the offensive. Having Congress declare war on a group that is seemless with the populations of other countries - because they are part of those countries (albeit thankfully very minute part) - just isn't a reality. The Framers of our Constitution were never in the position we're in now, and I highly doubt they could have envisioned it.

Given that, we're going to be throughout the world, Period. Even if by some miracle RP gets elected, we'll still be throughout the world.

And as far as "Fat chance" and what you bolded, I have no doubt had you said the same thing back in the WWII era of our troops in Japan, or in the Korea era of our troops in Korea, you'd wouldn't have been called crazy for making such a statement. The luxury everyone anti-WoT/Iraq has is criticizing in the present when the potential benefits won't be realized until long term.

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: bugsysiegel
I'm certainly no scholar on the history of the world, but the way I understand it, the Japanese were similar to the radical Muslims, and that was why the US dropped the bomb there, and then maintained a presence afterwards... in order to support the Japanese as they rebuilt their country.

Isn't this situation similar?

Is it similar? Have Japanese come over here and attacked us since the end of WW2?

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2
I don't think McCain said he'd defacto keep troops there for 100 years. What he was getting at was he'd be fine keeping troops - in a number or type not specified - in that region as long as they weren't dying or being maimed for 100 years if necessary to combat terrorism.

Having contigents of SF type units with the requiste transportation and support mechanisms in place, who are in a Korea type setting, doesn't sound like too bad of a tradeoff to me.

Chuck

Don't you think that would put us into a setting I spoke of in the OP, "like that of Israel and "palestine," where one side says, "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says "we occupy your lands because you attack us.""

Is that what America wants?

These people are not Japanese, nor German, nor South Korean. These people take their religion much more seriously.

Yes, if the people choose to believe that, then it will. The people have to believe that though. The thing is, when you're talking about large scale, people are mostly sheep like...hence the sheeple term. The people rely on those above them to do their main thinking...to provide a lean one way or the other. So the long term and arduous task of the US/West is to not only behave in a way to the average Iraqi/Afghani/Pakistani that shows them we're not POS's there to take their oil/land/oppress them, but to also build relationships with their Leadership. That way, you don't have sheiks/clerics/mullahs/tribal leaders influencing their people against us, but at minimum to give us a chance.

(This is why Abu Gharib was such a clusterf*ck, why the incessant waterboarding debate is not helpful (the average ME already assumes we'd do it anyways, so debating it on their behalf is pointless), and why the CIA tape investigation is going to produce absolutely 0 benefit for our troops/mission over in the ME.)

Is that hard? Yes.
Is that a long process? Yes.
Is it frought with Risk? Yes.
Does it require sacrifice (including the ultimate)? Yes.
Is it long term worth it? To me, Yes.

And as far as these people not being like the Japanese, you need to go read some WWII documentary, the Japanese were so F'ing mind warped, they'd jump off cliffs to their death rather than surrendering...they were every bit as mind warped as the radicals in the ME.

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2
I don't think McCain said he'd defacto keep troops there for 100 years. What he was getting at was he'd be fine keeping troops - in a number or type not specified - in that region as long as they weren't dying or being maimed for 100 years if necessary to combat terrorism.

Having contigents of SF type units with the requiste transportation and support mechanisms in place, who are in a Korea type setting, doesn't sound like too bad of a tradeoff to me.

Chuck

Don't you think that would put us into a setting I spoke of in the OP, "like that of Israel and "palestine," where one side says, "we attack you because you occupy our lands," and the other side says "we occupy your lands because you attack us.""

Is that what America wants?

These people are not Japanese, nor German, nor South Korean. These people take their religion much more seriously.

Yes, if the people choose to believe that, then it will. The people have to believe that though. The thing is, when you're talking about large scale, people are mostly sheep like...hence the sheeple term. The people rely on those above them to do their main thinking...to provide a lean one way or the other. So the long term and arduous task of the US/West is to not only behave in a way to the average Iraqi/Afghani/Pakistani that shows them we're not POS's there to take their oil/land/oppress them, but to also build relationships with their Leadership. That way, you don't have sheiks/clerics/mullahs/tribal leaders influencing their people against us, but at minimum to give us a chance.

(This is why Abu Gharib was such a clusterf*ck, why the incessant waterboarding debate is not helpful (the average ME already assumes we'd do it anyways, so debating it on their behalf is pointless), and why the CIA tape investigation is going to produce absolutely 0 benefit for our troops/mission over in the ME.)

Is that hard? Yes.
Is that a long process? Yes.
Is it frought with Risk? Yes.
Does it require sacrifice (including the ultimate)? Yes.
Is it long term worth it? To me, Yes.

And as far as these people not being like the Japanese, you need to go read some WWII documentary, the Japanese were so F'ing mind warped, they'd jump off cliffs to their death rather than surrendering...they were every bit as mind warped as the radicals in the ME.

Chuck

They have to look only at Saudi Arabia to see what our intentions are. And that's not democracy. Japan and Germany didn't have oil we could get cheaply by supporting a brutal regime.

We can't be the world's police, and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

It is this ideology that results with attacks like 9/11, and a continuation of that ideology will only lead to more dead Americans, in and out of uniform.

So, is it worth it? Fuck no its not.

 

[nageov3t]

keeping special forces in the ME on a long-term basis for the purposes of intel and taking out targets on a small-scale basis seems reasonable to me.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: loki8481
keeping special forces in the ME on a long-term basis for the purposes of intel and taking out targets on a small-scale basis seems reasonable to me.

Obviously it doesn't sound reasonable to them. And it is their land, not ours'.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
keeping special forces in the ME on a long-term basis for the purposes of intel and taking out targets on a small-scale basis seems reasonable to me.

Obviously it doesn't sound reasonable to them. And it is their land, not ours'.

if the Iraqi government agrees to it, I don't see what the issue would be.

I wish we'd have had a team in Afghanistan in August '01.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
keeping special forces in the ME on a long-term basis for the purposes of intel and taking out targets on a small-scale basis seems reasonable to me.

Obviously it doesn't sound reasonable to them. And it is their land, not ours'.

if the Iraqi government agrees to it, I don't see what the issue would be.

It doesn't matter what the Iraqi government thinks. It's what the Iraqi people think, it's what the Iraqi people want.

You may think it's all the same, but if the Iraqi gov't only exists because he keep it in power, then it isn't representing the people.

The Saudi government wanted us to stay there, too. And we still saw 9/11.

I wish we'd have had a team in Afghanistan in August '01.

I wish we didn't have bases in SA, nor any of the other 130 countries where we have bases. I wish we had minded our own business, I wish we didn't give other countries billions of dollars for free.

You simply cannot and will not win this "war on terror" if you don't, or refuse to, understand the other side.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: bamacre

They have to look only at Saudi Arabia to see what our intentions are. And that's not democracy. Japan and Germany didn't have oil we could get cheaply by supporting a brutal regime.

We didn't elect the SA Leadership, they did. There's enough AK-47's there that if the people en masse get fed up, they can take back their country. That's exactly what RP would advocate - that we don't get involved there. We pay SA Billions of dollars in oil revenue, and their Leadership does with it what they want. If their Leadership wants to squander it, then the people need to take that up with their own Leadership, not us.

As far as Iraq, I don't see the US striking down Iraqi leaders from leading their people politically (unless you're talking about a known criminal like Sadr). The Iraqi's via US got to vote their own Leadership in, and can do so again in the future.

Like Japan, we'll leave Iraq to be it's own country when Iraq is ready to be its own country. The people of Japan largely didn't want turmoil by violence after WWII, they wanted to get on with life. It's taken the Iraqi's some turmoil time, but it looks like it's starting to calm down. This is the first time these groups have during a real calm period to actually start working with each other while not under the gun. They deserve a chance, and the US should be there to help them along...not up and abandon them.

We can't be the world's police, and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

I don't think we should be either, but neither should we bury our heads in the sand and pretend all is well. This isn't the age of muskets and sailing ships...this is the age of intercontinental jet airliners and WMD's...laissez-faire only works when you are either prepared to accept losses, and/or you live in utopia. Most in the US don't want another 9/11, and most recognize we don't live in an utopian world...so we have what we have...

EDIT: I was wrong, misread what you wrote about the gun to the head.

It is this ideology that results with attacks like 9/11, and a continuation of that ideology will only lead to more dead Americans, in and out of uniform.

So, is it worth it? Fuck no its not.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree entirely with it. But taking a we won't bother you so we know you won't bother us approach is just not feasible.

Chuck

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
keeping special forces in the ME on a long-term basis for the purposes of intel and taking out targets on a small-scale basis seems reasonable to me.

Obviously it doesn't sound reasonable to them. And it is their land, not ours'.

if the Iraqi government agrees to it, I don't see what the issue would be.

I wish we'd have had a team in Afghanistan in August '01.

If it's a government elected for and by the Iraqi people you'd have a fat chance in hell doing so. If it's just another puppet regime that breeds resentment and hatred toward themselves and the US then I can see why they would be okay with it because it would also be in their interest to protect their own necks from the masses.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Chucky, I didnt read your whole post but your first line:

We didn't elect the SA Leadership, they did. There's enough AK-47's there that if the people en masse get fed up, they can take back their country.

First of all the government has the military and has them severely out gunned. Also, do you think with our interests in oil that we would allow an unknown leadership to reign? Not even a chance.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2
And where are you getting this gun to the head view?

What I said was...

and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

And I stand by it. Don't believe me? Don't pay your taxes and see what happens.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Chucky, I didnt read your whole post but your first line:

We didn't elect the SA Leadership, they did. There's enough AK-47's there that if the people en masse get fed up, they can take back their country.

First of all the government has the military and has them severely out gunned. Also, do you think with our interests in oil that we would allow an unknown leadership to reign? Not even a chance.

But that's exactly what you are signing up for if RP gets elected.

If the SA people - driven by those that control and influence them - try and overthrow the current SA Leadership, then from what I understand of RP's views, he would be totally hands off on that.

And I don't disagree with that.

However...

...you accept the good with the bad, or the bad with the good. If at that time the new SA Leadership decided no more oil for the US, then RP better have a good F'ing backup plan in place for getting sh1tloads of crude to the US on a sustainable basis.

You can't have it both ways...

Chuck

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: bamacre

They have to look only at Saudi Arabia to see what our intentions are. And that's not democracy. Japan and Germany didn't have oil we could get cheaply by supporting a brutal regime.

We didn't elect the SA Leadership, they did. There's enough AK-47's there that if the people en masse get fed up, they can take back their country. That's exactly what RP would advocate - that we don't get involved there. We pay SA Billions of dollars in oil revenue, and their Leadership does with it what they want. If their Leadership wants to squander it, then the people need to take that up with their own Leadership, not us.

As far as Iraq, I don't see the US striking down Iraqi leaders from leading their people politically (unless you're talking about a known criminal like Sadr). The Iraqi's via US got to vote their own Leadership in, and can do so again in the future.

Like Japan, we'll leave Iraq to be it's own country when Iraq is ready to be its own country. The people of Japan largely didn't want turmoil by violence after WWII, they wanted to get on with life. It's taken the Iraqi's some turmoil time, but it looks like it's starting to calm down. This is the first time these groups have during a real calm period to actually start working with each other while not under the gun. They deserve a chance, and the US should be there to help them along...not up and abandon them.

We can't be the world's police, and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

I don't think we should be either, but neither should we bury our heads in the sand and pretend all is well. This isn't the age of muskets and sailing ships...this is the age of intercontinental jet airliners and WMD's...laissez-faire only works when you are either prepared to accept losses, and/or you live in utopia. Most in the US don't want another 9/11, and most recognize we don't live in an utopian world...so we have what we have...

And where are you getting this gun to the head view? We're not forcing any guns to any heads, unless you're talking about getting the Iraqi's to have elections instead of a dictator, peace instead of insurgents, etc.

It is this ideology that results with attacks like 9/11, and a continuation of that ideology will only lead to more dead Americans, in and out of uniform.

So, is it worth it? Fuck no its not.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree entirely with it. But taking a we won't bother you so we know you won't bother us approach is just not feasible.

Chuck

No one elected the Saudi regime period. They are a monarchy that put themselves in power and maintain their power through force. Also just because there are plenty of rifles floating around does not mean a civilian force could overthrow a well equipped and properly trained army with the newest high tech military toys which they could use to bomb people into oblivion. This isn't the 1700's and warfare isn't a matter of just picking up a rifle and high jacking a few old school canons anymore.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2
And where are you getting this gun to the head view?

What I said was...

and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

And I stand by it. Don't believe me? Don't pay your taxes and see what happens.

Sorry, I misread your post...I'll edit my above after posting this.

The American people are obligated to pay for the decisions of their elected Leadership. If they don't like this, then the next time they elect Leaders, then they need to make sure the ones they elect are the ones they want.

You don't want to pay taxes? Fine. Don't use electricity, water, sewer, gas, communications lines, highways, etc.

All of those are in some part subsidized by Federal, State, County, and/or Local governments, which means taxes. Basically to do that you'd be a bum...which means you would be tax exempt...I don't think the tradeoff would be worth it though.

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Chucky, I didnt read your whole post but your first line:

We didn't elect the SA Leadership, they did. There's enough AK-47's there that if the people en masse get fed up, they can take back their country.

First of all the government has the military and has them severely out gunned. Also, do you think with our interests in oil that we would allow an unknown leadership to reign? Not even a chance.

But that's exactly what you are signing up for if RP gets elected.

If the SA people - driven by those that control and influence them - try and overthrow the current SA Leadership, then from what I understand of RP's views, he would be totally hands off on that.

And I don't disagree with that.

However...

...you accept the good with the bad, or the bad with the good. If at that time the new SA Leadership decided no more oil for the US, then RP better have a good F'ing backup plan in place for getting sh1tloads of crude to the US on a sustainable basis.

You can't have it both ways...

Chuck

Yeah, you're right. It won't be easy under a Paul-led country. But I'll take his plan over a never-ending cycle of war any day. I'd rather give up some oil, than see blood spill in our streets. We have some oil of our own anyway, and we should be working on other technologies for energy.

We don't need to be a tyrant to the rest of the world to be a great country.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

No one elected the Saudi regime period. They are a monarchy that put themselves in power and maintain their power through force. Also just because there are plenty of rifles floating around does not mean a civilian force could overthrow a well equipped and properly trained army with the newest high tech military toys which they could use to bomb people into oblivion. This isn't the 1700's and warfare isn't a matter of just picking up a rifle and high jacking a few old school canons anymore.

Nobody "puts" themselves into power without having the backing - or at minimum ambivalence - of a substantial majority of the people. I don't disagree that sending Billions of dollars in military hardware to SA isn't a good idea, but the fact is that if the people wanted to overthrow the current Leadership, they could.

It would be bloody, it would be chaos, but they could do it if they got to that point as a people.

Chuck

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: chucky2
And where are you getting this gun to the head view?

What I said was...

and the American people shouldn't have a gun to their heads forcing them to pay for such a ridiculous foreign policy that they don't want.

And I stand by it. Don't believe me? Don't pay your taxes and see what happens.

Sorry, I misread your post...I'll edit my above after posting this.

The American people are obligated to pay for the decisions of their elected Leadership. If they don't like this, then the next time they elect Leaders, then they need to make sure the ones they elect are the ones they want.

You don't want to pay taxes? Fine. Don't use electricity, water, sewer, gas, communications lines, highways, etc.

All of those are in some part subsidized by Federal, State, County, and/or Local governments, which means taxes. Basically to do that you'd be a bum...which means you would be tax exempt...I don't think the tradeoff would be worth it though.

Chuck

Oh come on, that's not what I meant, and you know it. :roll:

I'm happy to pay my share of the taxes needed for those things.

"But when you want money for people with minds that hate All I can tell is brother you have to wait."