On 11/25/2014 09:18 AM, 'Richard J. Williams' pundits...@gmail.com
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
On 11/25/2014 11:03 AM, Bhairitu wrote:
>
I would think that you as a conservative would wants the troops home,
bases closed and military spending reduced. After all that stuff is
"big government" which you disdain so much.;-)
>
/Almost everyone, liberal or conservative, wants to bring our troops
home, close the bases, and reduce the military spending. But, if the
U.S. did that, who would defend Europe from the Russians and defend
Japan and South Korea from the Chinese and North Koreans?
/
'Scuse me? Those countries can defend themselves. They've got plenty
of money. Why should Americans do it?
/
Sometimes you just don't make any sense, Barry2./
Apprently because I'm talking above your pay grade.
/What would happen if the U.S. didn't honor signed treaties with our
allies? I think you know the answer to this already, but I'd like to
see your response in writing. Thanks./
You mean the profit making military industrial complex would lose out on
a lot of their "blood money?"
>
On 11/25/2014 06:32 AM, Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com
[FairfieldLife] wrote:
Funny thing is... we had it won by 2008. We had an Iraqi army in
training... yes training and relative calm and order established
when our *Dear One* decided that He needed to fulfill his campaign
promise to bring the troops home, before the Iraqis were really
ready. Now we're in this current situation that Bush and everyone
else warned would happen if we left prematurely. How long would we
have needed to stay? Who knows? We still have troops in Duetschland
and Japan and they aren't seen as occupiers but as allies. Four
thousand lives, hundreds of thousands of minds and limbs, trillions
of dollars, and hopes for a stabilizing force for peace in a
region, flushed down the toilet for a campaign promise and now we
may be need to return and do it all again or face a worse situation.
Did you notice, barely mentioned in the news, that the troops are
not coming home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, as promised?
Yes, now they're staying... indefinitely. Surprise surprise!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* "fleetwood_macnche...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]"
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 25, 2014 2:15 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: US-Supplied Weapons End Up With IS
You know that sign in gift shops, "you break it, you buy it"? Same
thing applies here - We own the mess. I was a little naive about our
intentions in Iraq when we went in the first time, but after I saw
the deliberate sacking of their national museum, and have recognized
since that we were solely protecting our interests, their culture be
damned. This being the case, we will only attract those who need
work, into the Iraqi army, not those who truly want to defend their
country. Remember "Vietnamization", where we trained a similar army
in S. Vietnam, to fight their own battles? The country was overrun
in a couple of years. Same thing will happen in Iraq, if we don't
land troops again. What a mess.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote :
Entrenched corruption in the Iraqi military is undermining the fight
against the Islamic State. This is the downside in relying on a
questionable army to carry out the task of suppressing the
Islamists. If conditions get worse, US troops may end up fighting
in Iraq again.
In the meantime, Iran is secretly working on acquiring Iraq if
things fall apart.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/iraq-corrupt-government-weapons-reportedly-133416968.html
