DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Cable on October 21, 2011, 11:15:06 AM
-
https://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-to-speak-on-iraq-at-1245-pm/1 (https://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/10/obama-to-speak-on-iraq-at-1245-pm/1)
-
So glad those negotiations broke down and Iraq told us to get the fuck out. How many contractors are staying?
-
Great news! It's about time the US stops trying to police the world. We should also withdraw our troops from places like Germany and France. They can pay for their own defense.
-
Some funny comments on that site! :lol
This is, of course, good news. I think we've borrowed more than enough money from China to fund this idiotic Nation Building stupidity. Time to start building our OWN nation for a change.
-
This was good news to hear. It was also pretty shocking. I never thought I'd be seeing this happen this soon. Here is step one to getting back onto the right track. Now it's time to wrap it up in Afghanistan.
-
Are we still going to have thousands upon thousands of "contractors" in the country?
-
[political noob question]What does this potentially mean for our country and for Iraq?[/noob]
-
Thank Ziltoid. Now we can be out of that hell hole, for once, I completely agree with praXis.
-
Just in time for The 2012 election.
-
I really wonder how Republicans are going to go after him for foreign policy, or if they'll actually ignore that issue. Hard to call Obama "weak on defense," can't call him much of a liar about getting us out of Iraq (though still need to find out about those contractors), killed Osama, killed al-Awlaki, helped depose of a dictator in Libya, and now we have a thankful population there for what we helped them do. Personally, I don't care much for his foreign policy, but he's still been behind quite a lot, and has done some of it quite skillfully (compare Iraq to Libya).
-
I really wonder how Republicans are going to go after him for foreign policy, or if they'll actually ignore that issue. Hard to call Obama "weak on defense," can't call him much of a liar about getting us out of Iraq (though still need to find out about those contractors), killed Osama, killed al-Awlaki, helped depose of a dictator in Libya, and now we have a thankful population there for what we helped them do. Personally, I don't care much for his foreign policy, but he's still been behind quite a lot, and has done some of it quite skillfully (compare Iraq to Libya).
Actually, it remains to be seen what will happen to Iraq. It could really go to hell. Either way, they'll credit Bush if it's successful, and blame Obama if it crashes and burns.
-
I really wonder how Republicans are going to go after him for foreign policy, or if they'll actually ignore that issue. Hard to call Obama "weak on defense," can't call him much of a liar about getting us out of Iraq (though still need to find out about those contractors), killed Osama, killed al-Awlaki, helped depose of a dictator in Libya, and now we have a thankful population there for what we helped them do. Personally, I don't care much for his foreign policy, but he's still been behind quite a lot, and has done some of it quite skillfully (compare Iraq to Libya).
Seriously. I don't support any of it, but he's like Captain Bad Ass out there. A neocon's wet dream.
-
Great news! It's about time the US stops trying to police the world. We should also withdraw our troops from places like Germany and France. They can pay for their own defense.
Dude, what kind of material do you read?
The US army would never be allowed to do any operation in Europe as a defense force. Germany and France are doing the US a favor by letting it use our countries as a base for its remote operations.
Where do you think wounded American soldiers get flown to out of Afghanistan or Iraq? To Rammstein Air Force Base, because many of them wouldn't survive the flight to the US.
rumborak
-
Great news! It's about time the US stops trying to police the world. We should also withdraw our troops from places like Germany and France. They can pay for their own defense.
Dude, what kind of material do you read?
The US army would never be allowed to do any operation in Europe as a defense force. Germany and France are doing the US a favor by letting it use our countries as a base for its remote operations.
Where do you think wounded American soldiers get flown to out of Afghanistan or Iraq? To Rammstein Air Force Base, because many of them wouldn't survive the flight to the US.
rumborak
Not only that, but who are we supposed to be defending them from? Luxembourg?
-
I really wonder how Republicans are going to go after him for foreign policy, or if they'll actually ignore that issue. Hard to call Obama "weak on defense," can't call him much of a liar about getting us out of Iraq (though still need to find out about those contractors), killed Osama, killed al-Awlaki, helped depose of a dictator in Libya, and now we have a thankful population there for what we helped them do. Personally, I don't care much for his foreign policy, but he's still been behind quite a lot, and has done some of it quite skillfully (compare Iraq to Libya).
Seriously. I don't support any of it, but he's like Captain Bad Ass out there. A neocon's wet dream.
A near-universal maxim of U.S. presidency: if domestic policies are bringing you down, you can always compensate by becoming a foreign policy president.
-
Great news! It's about time the US stops trying to police the world. We should also withdraw our troops from places like Germany and France. They can pay for their own defense.
Dude, what kind of material do you read?
The US army would never be allowed to do any operation in Europe as a defense force. Germany and France are doing the US a favor by letting it use our countries as a base for its remote operations.
Where do you think wounded American soldiers get flown to out of Afghanistan or Iraq? To Rammstein Air Force Base, because many of them wouldn't survive the flight to the US.
rumborak
Not only that, but who are we supposed to be defending them from? Luxembourg?
This is actually not the first time this notion has popped up in this forum, that the US is stationed in Europe to defend it. I can not fathom the political and historical ignorance it takes to even remotely entertain that notion.
rumborak
-
Great news! It's about time the US stops trying to police the world. We should also withdraw our troops from places like Germany and France. They can pay for their own defense.
Dude, what kind of material do you read?
The US army would never be allowed to do any operation in Europe as a defense force. Germany and France are doing the US a favor by letting it use our countries as a base for its remote operations.
Where do you think wounded American soldiers get flown to out of Afghanistan or Iraq? To Rammstein Air Force Base, because many of them wouldn't survive the flight to the US.
rumborak
Not only that, but who are we supposed to be defending them from? Luxembourg?
The Soviets, duh!
-
I'd like to point out that I am aware the US is not in Europe to defend it. However, I still don't think we should have troops stationed there.
-
I'd like to point out that I am aware the US is not in Europe to defend it. However, I still don't think we should have troops stationed there.
It's not that we are extremely excited to have loads of US troups in our backyard, either... Especially when they come with nuclear subarines to stay in proximity of our cities for 50+ years.
-
Not only that, but who are we supposed to be defending them from? Luxembourg?
Sorry for not writing anything serious but I don't remember when was the last time a post on DTF cracked me up this much. :rollin
-
Great news! It's about time the US stops trying to police the world. We should also withdraw our troops from places like Germany and France. They can pay for their own defense.
Dude, what kind of material do you read?
The US army would never be allowed to do any operation in Europe as a defense force. Germany and France are doing the US a favor by letting it use our countries as a base for its remote operations.
Where do you think wounded American soldiers get flown to out of Afghanistan or Iraq? To Rammstein Air Force Base, because many of them wouldn't survive the flight to the US.
rumborak
Not only that, but who are we supposed to be defending them from? Luxembourg?
This is actually not the first time this notion has popped up in this forum, that the US is stationed in Europe to defend it. I can not fathom the political and historical ignorance it takes to even remotely entertain that notion.
rumborak
In Robert Cooper's The Breaking of Nations, I read that that military deployment helped to sorta keep Europe chill during the Cold War, and that it facilitated the development of the EU? I'm not saying like others that we were defending Europe, but he seems to suggest the presence itself facilitated the formation of a national security system based on post-modern notions such as knowing exactly how many nuclear weapons your neighbor has and exactly how many troops his ally has.
-
We're leaving Iraq this soon because Obama could not reach an agreement with the Iraqis to provide 100% immunity for American troops in the Iraqi court system. Is it any wonder that after our troops were caught, red handed, abusing prisoners that the Iraqis didn't think it was appropriate to provide 100% immunity for our soldiers in their court system? I can't say I blame them one bit for that.
Iraq remains the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States of America. It's either that, or the biggest case of outright malfeasance by any administration in mondern history. In either case, it's a disgusting stain on the reputation of this country, brought to you by a president who repeatedly promised that he'd never use our troops as "nation builders"
-
We're leaving Iraq this soon because Obama could not reach an agreement with the Iraqis to provide 100% immunity for American troops in the Iraqi court system. Is it any wonder that after our troops were caught, red handed, abusing prisoners that the Iraqis didn't think it was appropriate to provide 100% immunity for our soldiers in their court system? I can't say I blame them one bit for that.
Iraq remains the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States of America. It's either that, or the biggest case of outright malfeasance by any administration in mondern history. In either case, it's a disgusting stain on the reputation of this country, brought to you by a president who repeatedly promised that he'd never use our troops as "nation builders"
What about not ending the Korean War? Our failure in Vietnam? Somalia in the 90s? Our non-involvement in Rwanda?
-
Great news! It's about time the US stops trying to police the world. We should also withdraw our troops from places like Germany and France. They can pay for their own defense.
Dude, what kind of material do you read?
The US army would never be allowed to do any operation in Europe as a defense force. Germany and France are doing the US a favor by letting it use our countries as a base for its remote operations.
Where do you think wounded American soldiers get flown to out of Afghanistan or Iraq? To Rammstein Air Force Base, because many of them wouldn't survive the flight to the US.
rumborak
Not only that, but who are we supposed to be defending them from? Luxembourg?
This is actually not the first time this notion has popped up in this forum, that the US is stationed in Europe to defend it. I can not fathom the political and historical ignorance it takes to even remotely entertain that notion.
rumborak
In Robert Cooper's The Breaking of Nations, I read that that military deployment helped to sorta keep Europe chill during the Cold War, and that it facilitated the development of the EU? I'm not saying like others that we were defending Europe, but he seems to suggest the presence itself facilitated the formation of a national security system based on post-modern notions such as knowing exactly how many nuclear weapons your neighbor has and exactly how many troops his ally has.
The military deployment in Europe was because the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Guards Tank Armies and the 2nd and 3rd Shock Armies were waving at you from across the border in East Germany.
-
Now more seriously... One thing that I'm wondering about:
Yes I know it definitely is time to withdraw, and I know the actions of US Army there were far from perfect, but I just wonder... If the fundamentalists managed to be such a threat for several organised, highly modern armies, and after staying there for eight years the western armies still haven't even come close to dealing with the problem, will the Iraqi government hold on its own? Especially that, with the whole world knowing now when the US will be withdrawing, they'll have more than enough time to prepare an attack to take over the government... And I think nobody wants any country to be ruled by fundamentalists.
A bit of a conspiracy theory maybe, but I'm just unsure about this... I don't have any information to find out if this is possible.
-
In Robert Cooper's The Breaking of Nations, I read that that military deployment helped to sorta keep Europe chill during the Cold War, and that it facilitated the development of the EU? I'm not saying like others that we were defending Europe, but he seems to suggest the presence itself facilitated the formation of a national security system based on post-modern notions such as knowing exactly how many nuclear weapons your neighbor has and exactly how many troops his ally has.
Well, of course Europe (and Germany) in particular was one of the many theaters in which to wage the Cold War with the USSR, and thus deployments were of strategic value fo the US in Europe. But, nobody in Germany wanted that, and there were massive protests for example against stationint the Pershing missiles in Germany. One can twist that notion into "defending" Europe against the USSR, but even that only held up until the Cold War was over. Since then, the sole reason why the US is in Europe is so it can wage wars overseas more efficiently.
rumborak
-
Have you ever read it, btw? You should check it out: The Breaking of Nations.
-
Now more seriously... One thing that I'm wondering about:
Yes I know it definitely is time to withdraw, and I know the actions of US Army there were far from perfect, but I just wonder... If the fundamentalists managed to be such a threat for several organised, highly modern armies, and after staying there for eight years the western armies still haven't even come close to dealing with the problem, will the Iraqi government hold on its own? Especially that, with the whole world knowing now when the US will be withdrawing, they'll have more than enough time to prepare an attack to take over the government... And I think nobody wants any country to be ruled by fundamentalists.
A bit of a conspiracy theory maybe, but I'm just unsure about this... I don't have any information to find out if this is possible.
Well for the most part the fundamentalists' primary motive was due to our presence in the ME in the first place.
-
Yeah, but... it's not much difference if it's what they'll probably see as puppet government? They've already shown they don't care if they kill their own people or Americans as long as it's for "their cause"...
-
We're leaving Iraq this soon because Obama could not reach an agreement with the Iraqis to provide 100% immunity for American troops in the Iraqi court system. Is it any wonder that after our troops were caught, red handed, abusing prisoners that the Iraqis didn't think it was appropriate to provide 100% immunity for our soldiers in their court system? I can't say I blame them one bit for that.
Iraq remains the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States of America. It's either that, or the biggest case of outright malfeasance by any administration in mondern history. In either case, it's a disgusting stain on the reputation of this country, brought to you by a president who repeatedly promised that he'd never use our troops as "nation builders"
What about not ending the Korean War? Our failure in Vietnam? Somalia in the 90s? Our non-involvement in Rwanda?
I'd say Vietnam and Korea were definitely worse blunders on our part.
However, I'd say that had we been involve in Rwanda, it'd of turned out much worse for us and them than it ended up turning out. The way it did turn out, it was (obviously) horrendous for the Rwandans, but really not awful for us, while Iraq has been rather bad for us and Iraq. So, I'd say that on the basis of having a negative effect on us, invading Iraq was the worse of the two blunders.
-
It was really awful for us, and for the UN as well. Not in a tangible sense, but Rwanda did threaten the idea of collective security, the traditional Just War statutes, our international clout, things like that. That's why we decided to bomb Bosnia a couple years later.
-
Iraq remains the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States of America. It's either that, or the biggest case of outright malfeasance by any administration in mondern history. In either case, it's a disgusting stain on the reputation of this country, brought to you by a president who repeatedly promised that he'd never use our troops as "nation builders"
It certainly ranks up there, but the CIA backed operation Ajax in the Iranian coup d'état and subsequent installation of the Shah would give it a run for its money. I would say that this single event was the genesis of the current situation where we find ourselves in the middle east.
-
We're leaving Iraq this soon because Obama could not reach an agreement with the Iraqis to provide 100% immunity for American troops in the Iraqi court system. Is it any wonder that after our troops were caught, red handed, abusing prisoners that the Iraqis didn't think it was appropriate to provide 100% immunity for our soldiers in their court system? I can't say I blame them one bit for that.
Iraq remains the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States of America. It's either that, or the biggest case of outright malfeasance by any administration in mondern history. In either case, it's a disgusting stain on the reputation of this country, brought to you by a president who repeatedly promised that he'd never use our troops as "nation builders"
What about not ending the Korean War? Our failure in Vietnam? Somalia in the 90s? Our non-involvement in Rwanda?
I've got three letters for you: WMD
-
We're leaving Iraq this soon because Obama could not reach an agreement with the Iraqis to provide 100% immunity for American troops in the Iraqi court system. Is it any wonder that after our troops were caught, red handed, abusing prisoners that the Iraqis didn't think it was appropriate to provide 100% immunity for our soldiers in their court system? I can't say I blame them one bit for that.
Iraq remains the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States of America. It's either that, or the biggest case of outright malfeasance by any administration in mondern history. In either case, it's a disgusting stain on the reputation of this country, brought to you by a president who repeatedly promised that he'd never use our troops as "nation builders"
What about not ending the Korean War? Our failure in Vietnam? Somalia in the 90s? Our non-involvement in Rwanda?
I'd say Vietnam and Korea were definitely worse blunders on our part.
I'd have to disagree because in BOTH cases there was, in fact, a legitimate cause. In the case of Iraq it was a fake, manufactured cause, likely borderline criminal behavior by the Bush administration. It's not like we arrived in Vietnam and there were no communists advancing, same goes for Korea, there were actual tangible threats in both of those places. Saddam Huessein had, a machine gun and a sword. And talked a lot of shit, but he did NOT have WMDs, nor did he have a nuclear program. Let's face it, we looked like complete idiots.
I do agree, however, that the outcomes in Vietnam and Korea were less than desirable, I just don't think either one of those reek of overwhelming and massive incompetence the way Iraq does.
-
In terms of tangible losses, we lost more troops in Vietnam.
Not to mention that it resulted in massive civilian losses on both sides' parts.
In addition, during the war, we also attacked Cambodia, resulting in the deaths of 500,000-1,000,000, and also paving the way for the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
I will agree wholeheartedly with you regarding our horrendous decision in invading Iraq; it was humiliating. However, I do not agree that it was necessary to take on Vietnam. With our without our forces, the South would have most likely fallen. What we did manage to do was prolong the fight, as well as provide the North even greater motivation in their efforts, resulting in a horrendous quagmire, in which both sides were left to wage assault against one another with little ultimate gain. Finally, when the US withdrew, the North hastily proceeded to take over the South, much as they probably would have done if the US had not been involved, though with much greater destruction and loss, as a result of such grizzly warfare over such a long period of time.
-
Im really happy that by 2013 we will only be spending around $5billion per year over there (at least thats the plan).
-
Yep, we'll finally be cutting spending in the places we actually need to.
-
In Robert Cooper's The Breaking of Nations, I read that that military deployment helped to sorta keep Europe chill during the Cold War, and that it facilitated the development of the EU? I'm not saying like others that we were defending Europe, but he seems to suggest the presence itself facilitated the formation of a national security system based on post-modern notions such as knowing exactly how many nuclear weapons your neighbor has and exactly how many troops his ally has.
Well, of course Europe (and Germany) in particular was one of the many theaters in which to wage the Cold War with the USSR, and thus deployments were of strategic value fo the US in Europe. But, nobody in Germany wanted that, and there were massive protests for example against stationint the Pershing missiles in Germany. One can twist that notion into "defending" Europe against the USSR, but even that only held up until the Cold War was over. Since then, the sole reason why the US is in Europe is so it can wage wars overseas more efficiently.
rumborak
I think even Germans were grateful for the Berlin airlift.
-
Does anyone have an answer to my question?... I'm really uncertain about this and I'm not quite sure where to look for information on the matter either.
-
In Robert Cooper's The Breaking of Nations, I read that that military deployment helped to sorta keep Europe chill during the Cold War, and that it facilitated the development of the EU? I'm not saying like others that we were defending Europe, but he seems to suggest the presence itself facilitated the formation of a national security system based on post-modern notions such as knowing exactly how many nuclear weapons your neighbor has and exactly how many troops his ally has.
Well, of course Europe (and Germany) in particular was one of the many theaters in which to wage the Cold War with the USSR, and thus deployments were of strategic value fo the US in Europe. But, nobody in Germany wanted that, and there were massive protests for example against stationint the Pershing missiles in Germany. One can twist that notion into "defending" Europe against the USSR, but even that only held up until the Cold War was over. Since then, the sole reason why the US is in Europe is so it can wage wars overseas more efficiently.
rumborak
I think even Germans were grateful for the Berlin airlift.
The Berlin blockade was right after the war, and it wasn't defense. We are of course eternally grateful for the US in that time of trial, but you can't use it to say the US is stationed for defending Europe.
rumborak
-
What was it if not defending against Soviet expansion?
-
I think there's several types of defense we're talking about here. Praxis clearly meant defense in the sense of a standing army that protects a certain patch of land. What the US did during a Cold War was an arms race, and while one *can* use the term defense for that, it's not the use of "defense" I'm talking about.
Also, again, the Cold War is long over, 3 decades at this point. US troops in Europe aren't there to protect Europe against Russia. They are there to facilitate remote operations in the ME.
rumborak
-
Do you think russia would have invaded Georgia had they been in NATO?
-
Now more seriously... One thing that I'm wondering about:
Yes I know it definitely is time to withdraw, and I know the actions of US Army there were far from perfect, but I just wonder... If the fundamentalists managed to be such a threat for several organised, highly modern armies, and after staying there for eight years the western armies still haven't even come close to dealing with the problem, will the Iraqi government hold on its own? Especially that, with the whole world knowing now when the US will be withdrawing, they'll have more than enough time to prepare an attack to take over the government... And I think nobody wants any country to be ruled by fundamentalists.
A bit of a conspiracy theory maybe, but I'm just unsure about this... I don't have any information to find out if this is possible.
We have propped up a very weak western-style "democracy" in Iraq at tremendous expense in both raw dollars [borrowed from China] spent [/borrowed from China] and lives of soldiers, literally, in my view, wasted.
Will this "democracy" last? Well, no one can predict the future, but my guess is that within 5 years Iraq will, most likely, have a similar government to that of Iran. Once the US has withdrawn, there will be very little stopping Iran from strengthening its position in the region and Iran has made no secret of their desire to spread the "Islamic Revolution" far and wide. They, and many of the Muslims in Iraq see western democracy as a poisonous, immoral plague on society. And they surely have plenty of agreement from many people who are highly placed within the current Iraqi regime.
Time will tell, but I believe history will cast the George W. Bush's invasion, occupation, and attempt at nation building in Iraq as a monumentally stupid decision.
-
Vets ask: Time for an Iraq war parade? (https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/07/us/new-york-veterans/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn)
(CNN) -- On a day when New York City threw a parade to celebrate the New York Giants for their Super Bowl victory, at least one veterans' group is using the occasion to ask: What about a parade to honor the soldiers who fought in Iraq?
"If the Giants deserve a Super Bowl [parade], so do the 1 million Iraq veterans who have served," says Paul Reickhoff, an Iraq war veteran who now heads Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "The American people want a chance to say thank you, and want a chance to respect and remember those who served."
Say hello to America's next political football. Since this is actually kind of a delicate issue, I can see it fostering a great deal of partisan bullshit and ill conceived rhetoric.
Personally, I vote hell no. The one person who's most deserving, being the one most responsible for the war's end, is Bradly Manning, and I doubt they'll put his court martial on hold long enough to lob tickertape at him.
-
He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe if he wins they'll let his fellow Nobel Laureate Barack present his award :lol
-
Still those 17K contractors.