Staying in Iraq

Of all the arguments regarding the Iraq War and the Bush administration none have addressed the strategic military plan. The U.S. occupied Japan, forced a new constitution on them and has since been there for over 50 years. After the cold-war we still have military bases in Germany that have been there yet again for over 50 years.

Our Okinawa, Japan base gives us strategic strike and intelligence gathering capability against Russia and China. The bases in Iraq will be used to launch intelligence operations as well as strike missions when required. And most importantly, it gives us the power to move into Iran and Syria when the time comes. Yes, when the time comes (if you can’t see Iran as a problem in the future if they don’t stop pursuing nuclear weapons you should have stopped reading long ago.) we will be able to launch air strikes into Iran from Iraq in under 10 minutes time, not to mention we always have a naval presence in the Persian gulf and can have tomahawk strikes in Iran from launch to strike in under 5minutes).

I know that there are those on the Left who don’t believe military reasons are justifiable for U.S. strategic power projection throughout the world. But someone has to lead and it may as well be the U.S.

By invading Japan we brought peace and democracy. By invading Germany we brought peace and democracy and ultimately reunification. Bu invading Iraq we have come one step closer to pacifying the most dangerous region in the world, the Middle East.

Thanks to the position taken by President Ahmadinejad in regard to Iran’s nuclear ambition Russia has had to slow their dealings with Iran (infrastructure contracts, military hardware transfer contracts, etc). Russia does not want to fuel Iran’s war machine as it did in the 70’s and 80’s with the U.S. poised to invade Iran.

During Operation Nobel Anvil (Kosovo 1998-1999), Russia AND China sent military and intelligence personnel to Milosevic. Russia used a naval asset and China used the embassy (Which if you recall China’s embassy there was accidentally bombed by U.S. F-14’s launched from the Theodore Roosevelt Aircraft Carrier CVN-71). Russia and China would not dare risk putting themselves in such a position to support Iran. Thanks to certain ROE (rules of engagement) established during the Kosovo military action the U.S. will pursue any military asset used against it to it’s final point of origin. So that means if a surface-to-air missile site launches against our fighter jets, the jet’s will kill not only the SAM sight, but the radar installation used to guide it regardless of its location (which could be up to hundred miles or more).

Our occupation of Iraq is a strategic move that secures a safer future for the rest of the world.

-AA

This won't end well

Yeah, and we have military bases in Vietnam, too.

Oh, wait, we don't. That was a horribly wrong and wasted war.

Yep, one that left me minus one biological father.

Just as the Iraq war is doing to others, Iraqi, American, et al.

It's a good thing that our civility has advanced in step with our technology...

Japan and Germany declared WAR on us. Iraq didn't.

see how that works?

Bollocks.

I know the media hasn't been showcasing the American body count since 1000, but for those who don't know, it's above 2300 now.

2319 to be exact.
685 for Afghanistan.

Great... so let's go take over Australia so that we can strike at Indonesia, we can invade Brazil to strike at Venezuela, and we can invade Switzerland to strike at those bastard French.

</sarcasm>

Yes, it was clear from the start of the build-up to war that this was the goal. All the talk of WMD, stopping Saddam from hurting ethnic minorities, connections to al-Qaeda etc. were all just part of a marketing campaign to get the American public behind the invasion. Most of the rest of the world saw the real goal. As a military strategy it was a sound one, but the real question is: Should this approach be the policy of the U.S.? Do the ends justify the means? Is lying about our motives a sound international policy?

I would have much rather had this debate before the invasion, but everyone knows that its easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission. I tried to alert everyone I knew that this sort of thing was the real reason they were pushing for war, but everyone seemed to be too busy waving their flags to listen.

We have gained a staging location, at least for now, provided we can maintain control. And as such we are well positioned in the region. The costs are a couple thousand soldiers and many Iraqi civilians, which are probably acceptable losses. But it has also cost us a large chunk of political capital and that is tough to earn back.

Here's the big flaw in your reasoning.

Wrong on so many levels, think about it.

Did anyone see Bush's news conference a little while ago? Helen Thomas totally pwned Bush! I can't find any links yet to her question and his response, but I totally died laughing watching Bush squirm.

Thanks, Taco. I knew I could count on you

I think I'll leave this one to Stephen Colbert:
"We won. Rebuilding is for losers. Time to party. And then it's off to Syria for the next invasion."

according to today's Press Conference from Bushie, he finds it hard to imagine the minds of people who would kill innocents in the name of spreading freedom.

Granted he was talking about the Iraqi insurgents but I find the irony absolutely scary The man's in total disconnect.

The doves can coo and flutter all they want. The strategy is set. This is how it's gonna be.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Here's the plan:

------
We cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
--------

Welcome to The New American Century. How do you like it so far? SHUT UP! It doesn't MATTER how you like it! History has shown that the masses are feminine, they need strong male leadership to guide them. This leadership is being provided.

Looking at the long term, i think the ends outweigh the means. The loss of life is for now at acceptable numbers.

I did not expect the Bush administration to layout a plan for strategic domination of the Middle East. But anyone that has studied American military history should have seen the obvious 'fringe benefit' of occupying Iraq.

It does not matter that Iraq did not attack us directly like Japan or Germany - what I was pointing out was our propensity of occupying countries for the long term regardless of who struck first. There are several countries that did not attack us but yet allows our military bases to occupy their soil.

And yes some country does HAVE to lead the world. It can't be the United Nations. The U.N. is a joke. The U.N. is a conglomerate of 3rd world countries who do nothing but leech off 1st world countries. Have any of you ever seen how the U.N. works? I doubt it. Can anyone tell me who chaired the commission of human rights during 2002? Or which country was put in charge of the non-proliferation committee?

Why should the most powerful country in history allow itself to be led by a group of 3rd world countries asking for handouts? Right now the United States of America is the 800LB gorilla in the worlds play ground. Much better than it being Russia, France, China or India.

-AA

You are exactly right Paulie.

-AA

No, I don't. But I tend to not see points made by radical liberal's such as yourself who thinks anyone who supports Bush is a terrorist. Go troll elsewhere Libby.

-AA

I think anyone who supports Bush is a "traitor". Bush is a "terrorist.

As far as your request goes? Nope. I live in America. Where do YOU live?

See --there's this whole sticky thing about unprovoked attacking of other sovereign nations being a WAR CRIME.

That's fine if you're a Fascist Empire, but I'm American and I hold my country to higher standards than that.

scratches head...
remembers something from high school history and dad's stories about odd event called, uh, let me see if I remember it...





WORLD WAR II

This is the last time I will reply to you since conversations with you are in general worthless.

Bush is a terrorist *is* a radical view point.
People who support Bush are traitors *is* a radical view point.

You don't have a single leg to stand on. And your rantings are so far left and often blindly partisan adhering your own ideology.

Kendra, do you have any support base besides this forum? Is there a website sponsored by some political action committee supporting your radical ideology? Do you have a circle of friends who think like you? Birds of a feather do flock together. What I don't understand is how you convince yourself that your radical bullshit is right.

-AA