[mike777]

hrothgar, on Apr 21 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 21 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Apr 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

Oy not this argument again. I'm getting deja vu, and not the good kind.

We marched in our troops in a matter of days or weeks, why does it take 20 months after jan 2009 to get them all out? I assume all includes the Navy offshore and the navy and airforce overhead. I swear the Democrats are starting to sound more and more like Bush everyday. Next they will be cutting taxes, loving guns, talking about God and staying in Iraq for 48 months.

They say the war is lost and stability a pipe dream so what takes 20 months or more? We marched them in we can march them out. Just more grief for service families.

As usual Mike, you have no clue what you're talking about...

It's true that the original invasion of Iraq went by fairly quickly: The formal date for the invasion is listed as March 9th. Baghdad fell on April 9th. However, this timeline ignores all the pre-positioning of troops and equipment. The US military spent years building up troops and munitions in and around the Persian Gulf preparing for the invasion. Most of the build up happened after 9-11, however, some of it took place well before then.

I don't know if you're completely blinded by some delusional agenda or if you are genuinely this ignorant. Either way your posts really get old after a while.

I worry about my brother and sister and uncles and other family members who keep having to repeat tours there. Your insults are really out of place.

Again if I knew the answer I would not ask the question. These are real questions I wish to know the answer to and are polite in nature and I try and be polite when I ask them. I ask them because I really do not know the answer.


None of that explains why it takes 20 months to march out. IF you want to get out, get out. If you are trying to achieve something say it. They want to leave not preposition troops and weapons for 20 months. They are not trying to stop a slaughter and they are not prepositioning weapons and troops for years to leave.

In any event please stop with the personal attacks, coming across like a big bully and insults. If you wish to go to IRaq for these 20 months man up and do it or be polite and have a discussion at least and stop with the personal attacks. I worry about my family members over there who keep having to repeat tours there. I am upset about my friends who have died or been wounded there.

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 20 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Apr 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

Oy not this argument again. I'm getting deja vu, and not the good kind.

We marched in our troops in a matter of days or weeks, why does it take 20 months after jan 2009 to get them all out? I assume all includes the Navy offshore and the navy and airforce overhead. I swear the Democrats are starting to sound more and more like Bush everyday. Next they will be cutting taxes, loving guns, talking about God and staying in Iraq for 48 months.

They say the war is lost and stability a pipe dream so what takes 20 months or more? We marched them in we can march them out. Just more grief for service families.

Besides hrothgar comments:

One simple example: It is a whole lot easier to mine
a certain area, than to remove mines from a the same
area.

Of course you could leave the mine fields, which were
created to protect the area the troops are living to an
non US military organisation, everyone would love this.

With kind regards
Marlowe

So we stay and die to remove mines for 20 months? At least this is an explanation.

Look, If there is something you want to do that takes 20 months say it as here, but they say we cannot win and we cannot stabilize the country in 20 months.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Apr 21 2008, 05:14 AM, said:

As usual Mike, you have no clue what you're talking about...

It's true that the original invasion of Iraq went by fairly quickly: The formal date for the invasion is listed as March 9th. Baghdad fell on April 9th. However, this timeline ignores all the pre-positioning of troops and equipment. The US military spent years building up troops and munitions in and around the Persian Gulf preparing for the invasion. Most of the build up happened after 9-11, however, some of it took place well before then.

I don't know if you're completely blinded by some delusional agenda or if you are genuinely this ignorant. Either way your posts really get old after a while.

At least when I talk about getting the troops out in a couple of months, I am not talking about getting them home in that time. We have large bases in

Kuwait
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Afghanistan
and Germany

You would have a very hard time indeed convincing me that we couldn't load up and get all of our men, ordnance, and vehicles out in a matter of a couple of days, if that's what we desired. Getting them all home could take as long as a year after that.

[Gerben42]

Just a question: What are the American troops DOING in Germany (except for complaining that their salary is in $ and the cost of living in €)?

[mike777]

Gerben42, on Apr 23 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Just a question: What are the American troops DOING in Germany (except for complaining that their salary is in $ and the cost of living in €)?

1) We wonder the same thing, I heard it is cheaper and more strategic in the long run to preposition troops overseas.
2) They acted as a trip wire during the cold war and I guess they still do?

AGain this is a geninue polite question, "what is the reason the German government gives all these years to its own people ?"

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

So we stay and die to remove mines for 20 months? At least this is an explanation.

Look, If there is something you want to do that takes 20 months say it as here, but they say we cannot win and we cannot stabilize the country in 20 months.

I dont believe that you cant stabilize the country
in 20 month, ... you can.
But maybe not the Americans, they usually dont look
into the past trying to detect errors they have done.
Sometimes this is a good strategy, it speeds up
the decision process, sometimes it is not, fast decisions
are not always the best decision.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the only way to solve
the issue is to hold course, permanently correcting errors,
because in the end, peoble become tired of fighting.

And maybe the financial problems the US household will
face in the near future or already faces will help that they
learn to spend the money they have better.
Something similar happened in Germany, after the wall
came down, Westgermans believed they were able to
pay anything, but time proved their pockets were finite.
Currently we are consolidating, and thanks to crisis in the
financial sector they will keep going, lets see how long they
will stay the course.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Apr 23 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Just a question: What are the American troops DOING in Germany (except for complaining that their salary is in $ and the cost of living in €)?

1) We wonder the same thing, I heard it is cheaper and more strategic in the long run to preposition troops overseas.
2) They acted as a trip wire during the cold war and I guess they still do?

AGain this is a geninue polite question, "what is the reason the German government gives all these years to its own people ?"

#1 The reason they stayed until 1990 are clear?
#2 The numbers are decreasing.
#3 If the Americans leave, unemployment in certain rural areas will
raise, i.e. large areas in Germany want that the soldiers stay (*).
And to prevent this, or at least to prevent an fast explosion of the
unemployment rate, you need time, lots of time.
I am pretty certain that German tax payer pays some of the
money needed for paying bill cause by the American soldiers.
One example would be German soldiers / members of police taking
over the responsibilty to guard what ever, I believe I remember
about this.

(*) Similar discussion arise, if it comes to reduction the number of
German soldiers / closing army bases.
This became necessary, because the total numbers of the armed forces
got reduce, as well as the length of the period male persons were
forced to be a soldier.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 02:31 PM, said:

So we stay and die to remove mines for 20 months? At least this is an explanation.

Look, If there is something you want to do that takes 20 months say it as here, but they say we cannot win and we cannot stabilize the country in 20 months.

I dont believe that you cant stabilize the country
in 20 month, ... you can.
But maybe not the Americans, they usually dont look
into the past trying to detect errors they have done.
Sometimes this is a good strategy, it speeds up
the decision process, sometimes it is not, fast decisions
are not always the best decision.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the only way to solve
the issue is to hold course, permanently correcting errors,
because in the end, peoble become tired of fighting.

And maybe the financial problems the US household will
face in the near future or already faces will help that they
learn to spend the money they have better.
Something similar happened in Germany, after the wall
came down, Westgermans believed they were able to
pay anything, but time proved their pockets were finite.
Currently we are consolidating, and thanks to crisis in the
financial sector they will keep going, lets see how long they
will stay the course.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Marlowe the Democrats say the war is lost and we cannot stabize the country in 20 months and maybe not in 20 years. The Republicans say we need to stay for as long as it takes.........to win or something.....you fill in the blank....




No one is saying we can stabilize( win) and go home in 20 months. But you may be correct, ty for polite reply.

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Apr 23 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Just a question: What are the American troops DOING in Germany (except for complaining that their salary is in $ and the cost of living in €)?

1) We wonder the same thing, I heard it is cheaper and more strategic in the long run to preposition troops overseas.
2) They acted as a trip wire during the cold war and I guess they still do?

AGain this is a geninue polite question, "what is the reason the German government gives all these years to its own people ?"

#1 The reason they stayed until 1990 are clear?
#2 The numbers are decreasing.
#3 If the Americans leave, unemployment in certain rural areas will
raise, i.e. large areas in Germany want that the soldiers stay.
And to prevent this, or at least to prevent an fast explosion of the
unemployment rate, you need time, lots of time.
I am pretty certain that German tax payer pays some of the
money needed for paying bill cause by the American soldiers.
One example would be German soldiers / members of police taking
over the responsibilty to guard what ever, I believe I remember
about this.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Marlowe, again this is a real question. Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio?

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Marlowe, again this is a real question. Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio?

Would western Europe stop what?

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Marlowe, again this is a real question.  Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio?

Would western Europe stop what?

Russia invading Europe. I asked this since Gerben brought up America having troops in Germany, today.

Are you concerned that Russia would use its military against parts of Europe, would western Europe send in its young men and women to stop it? Would you expect Americans to send in its young men and women to stop it?

Along other lines we have Mrs Clinton telling Iran she would wipe them off the map if they nuke Israel. Mrs. Clinton seems certain that Iran is 100% trying to get nukes and this is a terrible thing. I am not sure what evidence she has.


I ask this since the other day Mrs. Clinton stated if she was President and Iran nuked Israel she would wipe Iran off the map with nukes. Yet Congress has not approved this and we have no treaty with Israel.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 11:30 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Marlowe, again this is a real question.  Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio?

Would western Europe stop what?

Russia invading Europe.

Are you concerned that Russia would use its military against parts of Europe, would western Europe send in its young men and women to stop it? Would you expect Americans to send in its young men and women to stop it?

I think that the entire theme is ludicrous....

You haven't mentioned the word "NATO" in your hypothetical. I can't imagine a credible scenario in which the Russians would consider attacking a member of NATO. Russia is far too economically integrated with Western Europe to consider any kind of military conflict with a NATO member. On the one hand, Europe trade boycotts would harm Russia immensely. Equally significant, Russia's enormous natural resources gives it a much more cost effective weapon that its tank battalions. I suspect that the threat of a natural gas / oil boycotts will be Russia's main leverage over Western Europe for years to come.

Russia might very well use military force against a non NATO member in Europe. The Russians certainly intervened in Chechnya, though its hard to say whether this should be considered "invading Europe"...

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 03:30 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 23 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

Marlowe, again this is a real question.  Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio?

Would western Europe stop what?

Russia invading Europe.

Are you concerned that Russia would use its military against parts of Europe, would western Europe send in its young men and women to stop it? Would you expect Americans to send in its young men and women to stop it?

Along other lines we have Mrs Clinton telling Iran she would wipe them off the map if they nuke Israel.


I ask this since the other day Mrs. Clinton stated if she was President and Iran nuked Israel she would wipe Iran off the map with nukes. Yet Congress has not approved this and we have no treaty with Israel.

No, this wont happen, because their are other ways for
Russia to "conquer" (western) europe, one way is oil.

Regarding nuking the world / the star wars program (SDI)
(what do they currently calling it?):
What I find depressing is, that all the idots forget one basic
thing, we live in one world.
If Iran nukes Israel, America nukes Iran, nukes get fired
against the US and get destroyed by SDI, what do you think
the result wll be with regards to nuclear pollution of the
atmosphere?

And the water pollute will raise in europe to sky and fall down
in the US (and the other way round).

As it is, it is a futil / stupid discussion.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

"Russia might very well use military force against a non NATO member in Europe. The Russians certainly intervened in Chechnya,"


"No, this wont happen, because their are other ways for
Russia to "conquer" (western) europe, one way is oil."

Marlowe I spoke about eastern europe, far eastern europe please see my OP. ty.
I only brought it up because Gerben mentioned US troops in Germany and the German border is not that far from Eastern Europe.



This is exactly the theme I presented. I do not say attack a Nato member.....I pointed out far eastern europe on purpose..sigh.......and I asked if this was simply an impossible scenerio. I assume eastern europe part of europe....sigh.

[Al_U_Card]

Since we are more on the "Bomb" aspect of the thread......just ask "who benefits" from continued military presence around the world?

The american people? Too many spent taxes and dead soldiers for that.

The world? They would just as soon see the US leave, the quicker the better (except for the profiteers and sycophantic allies that benefit from the military presence.)

The defense contractors, oil companies etc. etc. ? BINGO!

[P_Marlowe]

hrothgar, on Apr 23 2008, 03:47 PM, said:

Russia might very well use military force against a non NATO member in Europe.  The Russians certainly intervened in Chechnya, though its hard to say whether this should be considered "invading Europe"...

And Russia may well got called for help by the goverment
in Chechnya, or they had soldiers already in the country for
historic reasons.
Or Russia may have said, that they wanted to stop terrorist
attacks from Chechnyas soil, taking certain US action as
a blueprint how to deal with certain things.
I dont have the history of the conflict available, and I am
well aware, that the goverment may be a russian marionette.

More general, one should keep one thing in mind:
Foreigners living in Russia will quite often tell you, that the news
coverage in the western press is heavily biased, and that lots
of thing will come across wrong.
One famous example is Michail Chodorkowskijs, according to
news coverage you may believe he is a hero fighting for liberal
ideas and so on.
The simple statement was: What he did, would have sent him to
jail even in Western Europe.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[luke warm]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 23 2008, 03:49 PM, said:

Regarding nuking the world / the star wars program (SDI)
(what do they currently calling it?):
What I find depressing is, that all the idots forget one basic
thing, we live in one world.
If Iran nukes Israel, America nukes Iran, nukes get fired
against the US and get destroyed by SDI, what do you think
the result wll be with regards to nuclear pollution of the
atmosphere?

And the water pollute will raise in europe to sky and fall down
in the US (and the other way round).

who are you calling "idiots" and why?

Quote

As it is, it is a futil / stupid discussion.

i find it amazing that you can say this, as if you've examined all aspects of a nuclear attack on the usa and have determined that one course of action is better than others... what is it you know about SDI that makes you dislike it so much?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Apr 24 2008, 01:18 PM, said:

what is it you know about SDI that makes you dislike it so much?

The words "Maginot Line" come to mind... Great defensive system, unless - of course - the Germans decide to walk around it. (Actually, this is probably unfair to the Maginot Line since it successfully resisted attack while the SDI system's test history is dubious at best)

The Strategic Defense Initiative is extremely expensive, its of very limited utility, and its inherently destabilizing.

1. The SDI system could never protect against any kind of "real" attack. It's orders of magnitude cheaper to deploy counter measures designed to spoof the SDI system than it is to shoot down incoming missiles. There are all sorts of ways to beat the SDI system (decoys being by far the most popular).

2. The SDI system also doesn't provide any kind of effective defense against rogue states or terrorist groups with a nuke. If the US suffers a deliberate nuclear attack the nuke won't be delivered by anythign as obvious as an ICBM. It will be smuggled in a cargo ship, concealed in a drug shipment, or come in on a small plane.

3. SDI might be able to defend against an accidental launch, assuming of course that you were lucky enough to have a guilded missile cruiser sitting in just the right location when said accidental took place. The problem with the accidental launch scenario is that this type of thing is inherently random. Its hard to predict and hard to defend against. Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell don't cherish the idea of losing a city to an accidental launch. However, I don't think that SDI is the most cost effective way to protect the US against nuclear threats. I'd prefer to see the money that is being wasted on the SDI invested in securing uranium and plutonium stores.

That enough for now? I can go on...

[Gerben42]

Quote

"No, this wont happen, because their are other ways for
Russia to "conquer" (western) europe, one way is oil."

And we're allowing them, at least the German government is as long as they don't want to build any power plants (no coal power plants, no nuclear power plants, let's just buy energy abroad). Russia must be laughing behind our back. The loser in the end is the consumer.

You know from other threads where I work so you can take it any way you like, but I can't help saying that shutting down nuclear power plants at this point in time is a BAD idea.

There may be a time where we can support all our needs with only wind, hydro and solar power and such things. But that's decades away. Maybe even more.

[Al_U_Card]

BUT, its greatest effect is to seriously enrich the hi-tech military-industrial complex. Methods and venues change but the people that exploit them remain, unfortunately, the same.