FireChan Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The fact is that most Americans were in favor of the Iraq War, until it happened. Then they all got to B word and moan when it didn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 This was the war that no one wanted more than Bush and Hillary Clinton. Fixed again. You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The fact is that most Americans were in favor of the Iraq War, until it happened. Then they all got to B word and moan when it didn't work out. Because they've all been brought up on History Channel/Stephen Ambrose "Greatest Generation" nobility-of-conflict garbage and don't know the first thing about what war actually involves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 The fact is that most Americans were in favor of the Iraq War, until it happened. Then they all got to B word and moan when it didn't work out. sadly many of them didn't realize our government and media would be capable spilling such a line of BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 (edited) He can use a football analogy. You don't drive down the field in the fourth quarter and reach the 5 yard line with seconds to go in the game and on 1st and goal have the QB blow kisses to the fans, take the handoff and then run aimlessly around the backfield and get tackled for a loss at your own 20 yard line as time expires. This is Obama's blunder. He owns it. He's leaving a huge mess in his wake that others are going to have to deal with when he's out golfing, making speaking engagements, and living the high life. Oh wait, he's doing that now. So do you think the US should have stayed there indefinitely? Because that is the only way Iraq would be anything like stable. The moment the US entered and destabilized the region, people here were talking about how the the region would never be stable when the US left. Edited June 29, 2014 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 So do you think the US should have stayed there indefinitely? Because that is the only way Iraq would be anything like stable. No, it only would have taken 10-20 more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 We've got 30k troops in Korea and at least as many in Germany. We're still in Cuba. We only got out of the Philippines a couple of decades ago. Bash a mole and run? What's the percentage in that? We're seeing that play out now in Iraq thanks to B. O. and soon will in Afghanistan as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 We've got 30k troops in Korea and at least as many in Germany. We're still in Cuba. We only got out of the Philippines a couple of decades ago. Bash a mole and run? What's the percentage in that? We're seeing that play out now in Iraq thanks to B. O. and soon will in Afghanistan as well. Why do we still have troops in Germany? What's the strategic value of it? Is it merely to supplement NATO if needs be or is there another aspect I'm overlooking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Why do we still have troops in Germany? What's the strategic value of it? Is it merely to supplement NATO if needs be or is there another aspect I'm overlooking. Empire requires maintenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 No, it only would have taken 10-20 more years. But don't forget wolfowitz said Iraq oil revenues would make it a freebie for US .... he was only off by at least $2 trillion. NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE92D0PG20130314?irpc=932 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 But don't forget wolfowitz said Iraq oil revenues would make it a freebie for US .... he was only off by at least $2 trillion. NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said. http://mobile.reuter...130314?irpc=932 I really don't care what Wolfowitz said. I think for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 I really don't care what Wolfowitz said. I think for myself. And you "think" we could afford another 10-20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Why do we still have troops in Germany? What's the strategic value of it? Is it merely to supplement NATO if needs be or is there another aspect I'm overlooking. Most of the troops are support units (there's three combat brigades throughout Europe - one helo brigade, one airborne BCT, and one cavalry regiment. Two tactical fighter wings, as far as I can tell - that's not a lot.) Command and control (for all of NATO), intelligence, support for the mission in Kosovo (for which we're the prime contributor - everyone forgot about that, didn't they?), lots of medical support. Most of that ultimately supports Middle East deployments - most casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan went through Ramstein AFB and the nearby hospital, for example, and most airlift capacity stages through England or Germany. And you "think" we could afford another 10-20 years? Did I say that? No, I didn't. You have serious comprehension issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Most of the troops are support units (there's three combat brigades throughout Europe - one helo brigade, one airborne BCT, and one cavalry regiment. Two tactical fighter wings, as far as I can tell - that's not a lot.) Command and control (for all of NATO), intelligence, support for the mission in Kosovo (for which we're the prime contributor - everyone forgot about that, didn't they?), lots of medical support. Most of that ultimately supports Middle East deployments - most casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan went through Ramstein AFB and the nearby hospital, for example, and most airlift capacity stages through England or Germany. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Stupid turks, they'll lose part of their terriroty now for supporting anti-govt forces in syria. Other than US they have the most counter productive Mideast policy. Israeli leader calls for independent Kurdistan http://www.bostonglobe.com/2014/06/29/israeli-leader-calls-for-independent-kurdistan/bNcYNa4xWtQM1kOoTkl6eL/story.html Edited June 30, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Because they've all been brought up on History Channel/Stephen Ambrose "Greatest Generation" nobility-of-conflict garbage and don't know the first thing about what war actually involves. You mean some of these 20 year-old kids are gonna die over there? We've been lied to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 No, it only would have taken 10-20 more years. You're optimistic. There was no good answer. Not thrilled with withdrawal but prefer it to pouring more blood and money into a useless cause. What happens next in Iraq will be ugly. What was going on before we arrived was ugly. What happened in the middle cost the US lives and tons of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 lol what an arsehole McCain .... Remember when Senator John McCain went to Syria and met with factions of rebels fighting the Assad regime? As it turns out, the group that he was meeting with was a particular subset of rebels in Syria, who we now know as ISIS. http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/06/isis-post-pr-photos-they-took-with-john-mccain/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The fact is that most Americans were in favor of the Iraq War, until it happened. Then they all got to B word and moan when it didn't work out. Most Americans don't understand consequences. They're effectively indoctrinated and can be sold pretty much anything. Anyone with half a clue knew that going into the Middle East meant an enormous and long term commitment that would be expensive both politically and financially. Given our economic situation at the time, it was pure folly to think the benefits of war outweighed the negatives. Thanks, bipartisans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Still relevant today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts