Weren't the troops supposed to be coming home?

9 years ago

Wow, DON'T things sound PEACHY? ICSM! I wonder if the phrase "Don't change horses in midstream" will come up in the next year!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4966465].message }}

TimPhelan 9 years ago

Sounds pretty logical to me. Of course they were going to be relocated. They won't be in a war zone however.
- Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4966574].message }}
- Ragz 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  Sounds pretty logical to me. Of course they were going to be relocated. They won't be in a war zone however.
  
  I thought Obama's words were "home with their families"...
  Ok, maybe not.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4967699].message }}
  
  TimPhelan 9 years ago
  
  Many will be home for the holidays. That doesn't mean they will lose their jobs all of a sudden.
  
  Originally Posted by Ragz
  
  I thought Obama's words were "home with their families"...
  Ok, maybe not.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4967782].message }}
  
  Daniel Evans 9 years ago
  
  Clearly they are out there defending us against Tank Dog....
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4968867].message }}
- seasoned 9 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  Sounds pretty logical to me. Of course they were going to be relocated. They won't be in a war zone however.
  
  I don't know.... There HAVE been acts of war there before, and are reasons for it NOW! The reasons will increase if Americans show up.
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4967718].message }}

garyv

9 years ago

With U.S. forces leaving, then civil war is certain. It was basically a civil war anyway, but now with the U.S. forces leaving, it will create a giant vacuum there that will erupt into civil chaos.

And if you think that moving to Kuwait is "moving out of the warzone" then you're very much mistaken. Geographically they'll be moving to a very dangerous area. Not only is Kuwait surrounded by Iraq and Saudi-Arabia, but it's one of the main access ports for Iran to get to Iraq.

Moving out of Iraq and going to Kuwait so quickly will be the equivalent of whacking a hornets nest and closing your eyes in hopes of not being seen. I hope I'm wrong - but I'm predicting some of our highest casualty counts coming soon.

ps - Look up "Kuwait Highway of Death" - remember that? They don't have the capabilities to do that to us... but there is an ironic reversal of roles here.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971584].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Quickly? We've been there for eight years. The withdrawal started a couple years ago. I'm sure there will be continued fighting after we leave but the Iraqi government and people want us out. After a trillion dollars, over 4,000 US deaths and tens of thousands of casualties they still don't like us much.

By the way, Kuwait is not at war and just being near Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia doesn't make it a war zone. This withdrawal date was set by the previous US admin anyways.

Originally Posted by garyv

Moving out of Iraq and going to Kuwait so quickly...

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972012].message }}

garyv

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Quickly? We've been there for eight years. The withdrawal started a couple years ago. I'm sure there will be continued fighting after we leave but the Iraqi government and people want us out. After a trillion dollars, over 4,000 US deaths and tens of thousands of casualties they still don't like us much.

By the way, Kuwait is not at war and just being near Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia doesn't make it a war zone. This withdrawal date was set by the previous US admin anyways.

When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972247].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

I don't know why you are so worried about us leaving Gary. They aren't going to be shooting at us while we are leaving. They are more likely to now throw flowers at our feet like was supposed to happen when we started the war. They want us to leave.

Of course I know we still have troops in South Korea. We have troops deployed in over 150 countries. That isn't being pro-active. It ridiculous.

Originally Posted by garyv

When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.

Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972379].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.

Did you know we still have troops in Japan and Germany?
Plus around 140 other countries.
Our pro active national security as you call it is the major reason we're having the problems we have with other countries.
Why don't we allow other countries to station troops here for their 'national security'?

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972410].message }}

garyv

9 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Did you know we still have troops in Japan and Germany?
Plus around 140 other countries.
Our pro active national security as you call it is the major reason we're having the problems we have with other countries.
Why don't we allow other countries to station troops here for their 'national security'?

Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972809].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.

Like who?

Just the threat of us coming back over there ( where-ever ) would prohibit anyone from aggressing someone else - where we've already been.

No one's talking about sticking our heads in the sand but 170+ countries is silly cold war mentality and very wasteful at this time in our nation's history.

TL

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972843].message }}

Kurt

9 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.

Each situation is different. Like I said above, I'd keep troops in S. Korea. However, I'd take them out of Japan. We may have a treaty with them, but they don't want us there and it's a major political debate there, so we could easily leave if we wanted to.

As far as remembering history...What do the USSR, The Great Wall of China and William the Conqueror have in common?

In each case, so much was spent on the military that it bankrupted the Gov to the point where they couldn't effectively defend themselves any more.

The Great Wall cost so much, the Emperor couldn't field a decent army within a generation and was invaded by the Mongols.

William the Conqueror defeated the Brits at Hastings, but went on a castle building spree for "defense", and his control ended shortly after due to lack of funds.

And we know we simply spent the USSR into oblivion.

National defense isn't always as simple as spending money. History has shown us that spending too much money on national defense can also be very counter-productive.

IMO, the question is, why do we have to spend 10X as much as the next closest government in order for us to be safe? Can't we simply spend only 5x as much and still have military superiority, and if not, why not?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972853].message }}

M_Jones

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

IMO, the question is, why do we have to spend 10X as much as the next closest government in order for us to be safe? Can't we simply spend only 5x as much and still have military superiority, and if not, why not?

The reason why is because there is a conspiracy between the the military industrial complex, and the banksters. What this means is, no matter who is fighting who, they still profit off of it - rather its profit from bombs, missiles, bullets, or nation building, loans, etc.

These banksters and the military industrial complex are in charge of the highest offices of government, for example, the CIA: they knowingly ship and openly run the drug cartels in mexico, shipping drugs to the US. (search: head of Sinaloa says he works for CIA) They also knowingly arm these people (operation fast and furious) and then, the banks knowingly launder all the money (search: wells fargo drug cartels). So they work in concert like this but on all sorts of things - rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east (see video in above post) or rather it be fake carbon taxes..

This stuff is very hard to describe and articulate, so most people cannot explain it although they have a hunch that something is not right.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972901].message }}

Kurt

9 years ago

Originally Posted by M_Jones

The reason why is because there is a conspiracy between the the military industrial complex, and the banksters. What this means is, no matter who is fighting who, they still profit off of it - rather its profit from bombs, missiles, bullets, or nation building, loans, etc.

These banksters and the military industrial complex are in charge of the highest offices of government, for example, the CIA: they knowingly ship and openly run the drug cartels in mexico, shipping drugs to the US. (search: head of Sinaloa says he works for CIA) They also knowingly arm these people (operation fast and furious) and then, the banks knowingly launder all the money (search: wells fargo drug cartels). So they work in concert like this but on all sorts of things - rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east (see video in above post) or rather it be fake carbon taxes..

This stuff is very hard to describe and articulate, so most people cannot explain it although they have a hunch that something is not right.

I agree 100%. The only thing you left out is Big Oil. About half of our military budget is spent protecting Big Oil's interests overseas. If Big Oil had to pay for their own defense, green energy would start looking a whole lot better from an economic point of view.

I just think we need to start asking the question why spending 5x the next closest country does on their military isn't enough?

We already know the answer, we simply need to start holding people accountable and put them on the spot and let them try and explain why we need to spend so much mor than other countries to be safe.

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972947].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Fake revolutions? You think what is happening in Syria now is fake? You think the death of Gaddafi is fake? You think the people throwing out a dictator like Mubarak is fake? This is why I don't listen to Alex Jones, no matter who his guest is. I don't hate him, I just think he is a professional conspiracy theorist who makes a bundle off of his fans.

Originally Posted by M_Jones

rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973192].message }}

Kurt

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Fake revolutions? You think what is happening in Syria now is fake? You think the death of Gaddafi is fake? You think the people throwing out a dictator like Mubarak is fake? This is why I don't listen to Alex Jones, no matter who his guest is. I don't hate him, I just think he is a professional conspiracy theorist who makes a bundle off of his fans.

Above, I said I agree with M_Jones 100%...I missed the comment Tim quoted of M_Jones and agree with Tim's point...But do agree with the rest of M_'s points.

Originally Posted by M_Jones

rather it be fake revolutions in the middle east

Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973395].message }}

M_Jones

9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Fake revolutions? You think what is happening in Syria now is fake? You think the death of Gaddafi is fake? You think the people throwing out a dictator like Mubarak is fake? This is why I don't listen to Alex Jones, no matter who his guest is. I don't hate him, I just think he is a professional conspiracy theorist who makes a bundle off of his fans.

Allow me to clarify.

The CIA has admitted to stirring up and creating opposition parties in each of these countries, in an effort to over through their governments; including Libya, Sudan/South Sudan, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Somalia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and possibly in Malaysia.

Mubarak and Gaddafi were no longer useful puppets, just like Saddam was no longer useful.

I'm not saying Gaddafi is still alive, I'm saying that these people have a plan for a one world government - and 1 small part happens to be under the color of revolution. The same dangerous thing may happen in the US, if we are not careful - the recent Occupy protests are being funded by globalists with this same goal. It's almost like bait. The people attending do not even realize this - everybody is upset and not happy about things, but nobody (as I mentioned previously) is able to articulate exactly what it is they are upset at or upset about. The reason why, is because every one of these 'conspiracies' is interconnected, so its quiet a leap to go from 'fluoride in the water' to 'bail out the euro' without sounding ludicrous.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4973622].message }}

TimPhelan

9 years ago

Ridiculous. Please stop listening to Alex Jones. It's like watching Fox News.

Originally Posted by M_Jones

Allow me to clarify.

The CIA has admitted to stirring up and creating opposition parties in each of these countries, in an effort to over through their governments; including Libya, Sudan/South Sudan, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Somalia, Bahrain, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and possibly in Malaysia.

Mubarak and Gaddafi were no longer useful puppets, just like Saddam was no longer useful.

I'm not saying Gaddafi is still alive, I'm saying that these people have a plan for a one world government - and 1 small part happens to be under the color of revolution. The same dangerous thing may happen in the US, if we are not careful - the recent Occupy protests are being funded by globalists with this same goal. It's almost like bait. The people attending do not even realize this - everybody is upset and not happy about things, but nobody (as I mentioned previously) is able to articulate exactly what it is they are upset at or upset about. The reason why, is because every one of these 'conspiracies' is interconnected, so its quiet a leap to go from 'fluoride in the water' to 'bail out the euro' without sounding ludicrous.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4976875].message }}

M_Jones 9 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Ridiculous. Please stop listening to Alex Jones. It's like watching Fox News.

I don't think fox news would ever touch any of the things I'm talking about.

Besides, the Messenger doesn't change the facts of the matter :rolleyes:
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980493].message }}

ThomM

9 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

Many of those countries have agreements with us AND other countries (eg- NATO) for mutual protection. It's not just the United States going where-ever they please. There's a history behind the expansion of our troops into these areas, and a majority of the time it has to do with mutual protection.

Many people would prefer that we withdraw everywhere - come home - and stick our heads in the sand, as if history never happened. And we all (well most of us) know what happens when we ignore history.

There are several countries that would no longer be on the map if not for our troops being near by.

Nobody said anything about sticking our head in the sand.
I agree with Kurt. Maybe keep troops in South Korea. I think our presence there is the only thing keeping North Korea in check.
Everywhere else? Bring them home, they are doing nothing but draining the countries budget.
Now answer this. How would you feel if Japan or Germany or Pakistan had troops stationed in the U.S.?
Now how do you think those people feel about our troops stationed there?

Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972974].message }}

zumamoney 9 years ago

I agree with you, thanks for your thought.
- Thanks
Signature

[B][B]New To Internet Marketing And Still Paying For Information? Get It 100% FREE At Zuma Products
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4980840].message }}

Kurt

9 years ago

Bring them home and put them on the Mexico border.

It will cost us less to have them home, add security to the border war and create jobs in the US to help support the troops, like local bars, pizza joints, car dealers, laundry services, etc.

[ 7 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971671].message }}

garyv

9 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Bring them home and put them on the Mexico border.

It will cost us less to have them home, add security to the border war and create jobs in the US to help support the troops, like local bars, pizza joints, car dealers, laundry services, etc.

I like that idea.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971737].message }}

Kay King 9 years ago

There's another problem that makes ending this war a crisis for the US.

Unemployment.

Many of the troops in the wars are not regular military but national guard and reserves. These are folks who would go back to their lives if we leave Iraq - but where have their lives gone in the meantime?

Some could go back to their old jobs - but many of the jobs and companies they worked for may be gone. The length of time they have served may mean the jobs have moved on without them.

There have been programs to prevent foreclosure of homes while servicemen and women were deployed - those programs expire when they return. It's a big mess.

What do we do - bring home tens of thousands of troops and just dump them with a "good luck" in this economy? Yes, the words "home for Christmas" have been broadcast several times...but looks like the meaning is "and then back out for New Years".

I don't know the details of reintegrating those who dropped their lives and their one-weekend-a-month military duty and became full time warriors...but the potential is disturbing.

kay
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

I'm going to work on being less condescending
(Condescending means to talk down to people)
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4971880].message }}

TLTheLiberator

9 years ago

Kay,

Another great reason for some folks to stop playing games and do the things that will get this society back to at least the way it was in 1999.

TL

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972001].message }}

Rick B

9 years ago

The article actually says that the reassignment of troops from Iraq to other places in the Middle East is a PENTAGON proposal, not an OBAMA proposal so there's absolutely no conflict with the President's statement that the troops are coming home.

Even if a percentage of the number being pulled from Iraq is increased elsewhere, it doesn't mean that the same troops will be transferred from Iraq to Kuwait for example.

Plus, I'm sure that some of the troops in Iraq will actually request a transfer to another assignment within the Middle East.

In any case, the war that never should have been is ending. Thousands of young Americans dead. Estimates of Iraqi deaths as a result of the war vary from a low of 150,000 to a high of over a million. Over $700 billion dollars gone. Zero weapons of mass destruction found.

So if Obama slipped up by saying that absolutely every one of the troops in Iraq would be home by the end of the year it pales in comparison to the prior President's slip ups.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4972418].message }}

Kurt

9 years ago

Originally Posted by garyv

When I say quickly - I'm talking about the withdrawal of the last 43,000 troops in a matter of less than 2 months. - Plus "quickly" is a matter of perspective. Did you know that the U.S. still has troops in Korea? The war there has been over for a very long time.

National security sometimes requires us to be pro-active, and not just re-active. Some people naively call it "policing the world". But don't realize the symbiotic relationships we have. What some would call "policing the world" would better be defined as pro-active national security.

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

I don't know why you are so worried about us leaving Gary. They aren't going to be shooting at us while we are leaving. They are more likely to now throw flowers at our feet like was supposed to happen when we started the war. They want us to leave.

Of course I know we still have troops in South Korea. We have troops deployed in over 150 countries. That isn't being pro-active. It ridiculous.

Originally Posted by ThomM

Did you know we still have troops in Japan and Germany?
Plus around 140 other countries.
Our pro active national security as you call it is the major reason we're having the problems we have with other countries.
Why don't we allow other countries to station troops here for their 'national security'?

I support us having troops in South Korea. They have a legit nutcase in N. Korea who has nukes.

However, we need to withdraw from virtually every where else...We still using Cold War tactics when the Cold War ended 20 years ago.

We simply do not have any enemies with the capability of destroying or conquering the USA. Sure, groups like Al Quada can do some damage, but they aren't a threat to take over the US.

We now resemble Rome in many ways toward the end of Rome's Western civilization...Our military is spread all over and supporting it is costing us our ability to build and grow back home.

...And the Mexican drug lords now are the biggest threats to America and Americans.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.