dwccrew wrote: to compare the countries you have mentioned to mid east countries. First off, we are welcome in the nations you have listed. We are not welcome in many of the mid east nations. They do not want us there, simple as that. We set up puppet governments in those countries to allow us access to military bases, but many citizens do not want us there.

I agree we are not welcome in many middle east military bases. But we are also not welcome in all the countries I listed. There is strong civilian resistance to our bases in Japan and South Korea. To a lesser degree the nations of Europe.

I would say it is now time that some of these countries assume a greater responsibility for their own defense.

http://themoderatevoice.com/70355/100000-rally-against-u-s-marine-base-on-okinawa/
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1876&dat=19890119&id=W7QeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rs4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4583,647953

dwccrew wrote: I agree, our allegiance with Israel is a huge issue with many of the extremists. Which is why we should heed Thomas Jefferson's advice (possibly the most brilliant of the founding fathers) and have trade, commerce and relations with all nations; allegiance with none. Israel could take the entire middle east on if they wanted to, they don't need us as their backup.

In principle and in peace time, I agree with Jefferson. But in the realities of the world wars and the cold war it was necessary. Today I do not see the need for the entangling military alliances of NATO. Allegiances maybe but not military alliance to the affect that an attack on any in the alliance will bring our automatic military involvement. I understand the principle behind it that it may prevent war but it is a two edged sword and in many cases in history has also fueled war.

dwccrew wrote: You mention the former base in Riyadh. I stress former. They do not want our military presence there.

Yes, and good riddance.

dwccrew wrote: We are not allowed to use Turkish airbases anymore. They have kicked us out. When I was still enlisted Turkey was one of our rotations until they gave us the boot. They are another country that does not want our military presence in their territory.

True many of the civilians do not want us there. Just like Japan and South Korea. We are most definitely allowed to operate there. They have not kicked us out. Our use of the base is definitely restricted. Likely some of our nuclear arsenal still resides there.

dwccrew wrote: I agree that no nation has just cause to kill innocent Americans, but they don't feel they are unjustly doing anything. One thing I remember learning while I was in the military is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." They feel they are oppressed by the U.S. and that they are justified fighting. I don't agree at all with the death of any innocent civilians of any nation.

I will honor any man that is brave enough to meet me on the field of battle. Like you I cannot honor the beheadings and suicide bombings of market places and religious sites. Even the Iraqi fighters deserted this type of fight and many aligned with US forces to bring civil order.

dwccrew wrote: I think this is where the problem lies. What is a reasonable amount of time? Look at the trouble that is going on with the recent Iraqi elections. Now an Iranian friendly government is very possibly getting put into place. No matter what our intentions were, it is my opinion that they will be in vain. The people over there will always allow religion to be apart of government which will always lead to turmoil.

What is a reasonable time? It can't be defined strictly. I can however tell you what it is not. It is not 65 years in Japan and Germany. It is not 60 in Korea.

As for Iraq. Give them a little more time. They do have a functioning republic. Something they have not experienced. Our republic struggled as well through the years. Civil war, riots, lynchings, assassinations, political killings, and the like. Give them some time and they will be fine. Contrary to popular belief muslims would love to be free to govern themselves as well. They will get there. Regardless of what ones feelings of the Iraq war this is a great opportunity for the muslim world.

dwccrew wrote: Afghanistan is a whole other issue. That country has a corrupt government and is no where near a condition of the US allowing them to self goern completely, even after 9 years of us being there.

Given the history of Afghanistan we have a problem. This country will likely make Iraq look like a stroll through the park. We need to get serious yesterday or get the hell out. Likely our country is not willing to invest the blood and treasure to get this nation turned around. Since we will only pussyfoot we will need to leave.

This is the kind of thing that happens without a formal declaration of war. Pussyfooting, because the full force and political will of the federal government and the people it represents was never given.

^^^^Major, for the most part I think we agree with each other.

On South Korea and Japan, I had an interesting lunch with a Defense offocial who just came back from Japan and South Korea.

He said that South Korea and Japan have no recent history of large scale strategic thought or policy, and when the adminsitration started to discuss possible removal of the U.S. strategic umbrella, they freaked out.
During the process of including them into discussions on the QDR and the Nuclear Posture Review, both countries had no conceptual understanding of deterrence, strategic mobility, extending forces, and the delicate balance of strategic statescraft with China. Both countries simply do not have the infrastructure to combat a rising China, and fear a U.S. removal of the region will lead to a dominate China.

From this, the U.S. should maintain a presence in the region and after a period of 10-20 years when the U.S. has helped bring the two countries strategic maturity, like the U.S. did with Germany in NATO, we cut them loose.


On Turkey, yes we can use their airbases, in fact we have ~90 B61 tactical nuclear weapons, to keep Iran and Russia in check, for NATO stationed at Incirlik Air Base. Turkey is also a member of NATO, meaning we train with them regularly. Now, yes we cannot use their bases for operations in Iraq, but we do uses their bases for NATO and deterrence purposes.

NATO, is also vital and still serves a huge purpose in Afghanistan. NATO is coming out with a new Strategic Concept in December, an expert panel released a draft of findings. Pretty much NATO is vital to maintaining security in the 21st century as it has the means and capabilities to conduct operations. NATO also helps further integrate eastern Europe into greater Europe and maintain the credible umbrella over perceived Russian aggression.
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2010_05/20100517_100517_expertsreport.pdf

I'll completely agree on Saudi Arabia, which is why we have bases in Bahrain and Qatar. These are needed to maintain regional deterrence and maintain operations in the region. We also regularly train with these militates in the region to stop proliferation activities relating to Iran and Pakistan.

I'd also agree on the time factor. We are still early in these operations.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: On South Korea and Japan, I had an interesting lunch with a Defense offocial who just came back from Japan and South Korea.

come on now, you know the chatters here know better than the official you met.

Glory Days wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: On South Korea and Japan, I had an interesting lunch with a Defense offocial who just came back from Japan and South Korea.

come on now, you know the chatters here know better than the official you met.

lol. that and the lunch was a prep for my boss who is going to talk to senior Japanese officials next week to start a new dialogue on extended deterrence and the nuclear umbrella.

Glory Days wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: On South Korea and Japan, I had an interesting lunch with a Defense offocial who just came back from Japan and South Korea.

come on now, you know the chatters here know better than the official you met.

Government officials sentiments on the matter may differ than those of the citizens of the country.

We can't leave Japan, as they have no real military. This is due to a treaty from WW2 that we drafted with them, so I agree with what P-town said, we must bring them to defense strategy maturity. However, that does not negate the fact that SOME citizen groups may not want the US in their country anymore.

On the Turkish airbases, I supposed I should have been more clear about not being able to use them for bombing missions in Iraq. But that is a majority of what we used the bases for.

dwccrew wrote: ^^^^Major, for the most part I think we agree with each other.

I think so too.

I Wear Pants;359183 wrote:So we have the right to just run roughshod over anyone and they are automatically the bad guys for using gorilla/brutal tactics that are their only real way to fight. We are too large an enemy for almost any single country to fight. Is everyone just supposed to bow to our will then?

We begin the claim that America has asserted to a right to “treat anyone inconsiderately or harshly.” I am unaware we have made that claim. Do we run roughshod over all other nations. To we treat all other nations harshly and inconsiderately, I don’t think so. We have done some really fantastic things for other nations, we more than any other nation have contributed to the growth of freedom in this world. Gosh I guess we treated Europe and Asia harshly when we helped defend them against Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. Then I guess we treated those nations harshly by rebuilding them into rich, successful democracies. And then all the nations we saved from Soviet control by the sacrifice of our money and military. I guess we were very inconsiderate to South Korea by sacrificing 33,000 American lives to keep her from being overrun by Stalinist North Korea. Or trying to save South Vietnam, Or Saving Kuwait from Baathist aggression. Hell in Iraq we liberated the Shia and Kurds from Baathist oppression and genocide. In Afghanistan we saved the Shia and other non Sunni from slaughter, the non Pashtuns from continued oppression and the women from the most misogynistic government in the world.
Of course you have a different view. 70# afghan log thread,

I Wear Pants wrote: And we are the closest thing left to imperialists.

We are the evil imperialists. Not the Baathist expansionist, not Al Queda with its world wide Caliphate but us, in your view.
So according to you since we are this evil who rides roughshod over everyone then the Taliban, Al Queda, the Baathist are not necessarily bad for using snipers, IEDs and suicide bombers to kill Americans.
I must have missed the part where we demanded everyone bow down to us. I thought giving women some rights, stopping religious oppression and ethnic slaughter was a good thing, but I guess you see it as bowing down.

You just lost the game by basically saying I support the Nazis, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and North Korea. Also you insinuated that I'm against woman's rights, religious freedom (hilarious considering your views on Islam), and for ethnic slaughter.

Any other way you want to slander me?

What you do is ignore anything positive done by America in this blanket claim of imperialist intent and roughshod ways. No credit for a nation that has done more for freedom than any other nation in history.
what we do get though is an excuse for the tactics used by the taliban, and a rejection of us labelling the taliban as bad guys just for killing American soldiers.

You better get your email to LJ before he goes to sleep.

isadore;452672 wrote:What you do is ignore anything positive done by America in this blanket claim of imperialist intent and roughshod ways. No credit for a nation that has done more for freedom than any other nation in history.
what we do get though is an excuse for the tactics used by the taliban, and a rejection of us labelling the taliban as bad guys just for killing American soldiers.

You better get your email to LJ before he goes to sleep.

What you do is ignore anything.

isadore;452672 wrote:What you do is ignore anything positive done by America in this blanket claim of imperialist intent and roughshod ways. No credit for a nation that has done more for freedom than any other nation in history.
what we do get though is an excuse for the tactics used by the taliban, and a rejection of us labelling the taliban as bad guys just for killing American soldiers.

You better get your email to LJ before he goes to sleep.

I think the Taliban are bad guys for allowing Al-Qaeda to operate in their country and definitely for any involvement they may have had in 9/11 far more than for killing soldiers who, though I still hate to see them get hurt ever, do know the risks they take. Doesn't mean they deserve it anymore but they are at least somewhat prepared for it unlike those who were so unfortunate to be in the towers on 9/11.

You'll twist that into me saying "the soldiers deserve what they get" or something stupid though.

ts1227 wrote:What you do is ignore anything.

now there is a waste of space.

Because I think killing civilians is worse than killing soldiers? Pretty sure that's a popularly held sentiment.

I Wear Pants;452681 wrote:I think the Taliban are bad guys for allowing Al-Qaeda to operate in their country and definitely for any involvement they may have had in 9/11 far more than for killing soldiers who, though I still hate to see them get hurt ever, do know the risks they take. Doesn't mean they deserve it anymore but they are at least somewhat prepared for it unlike those who were so unfortunate to be in the towers on 9/11.

You'll twist that into me saying "the soldiers deserve what they get" or something stupid though.

Of course now you back off on your earlier statement that is sympathetic to those who kill Americans. But of course you can not do even that positive without devaluing the lives of our servicemembers. They chose to take a job that put their lives on the line for us. I see them as putting their lives on the line to save us. You of course see America as imperialist.

I Wear Pants;452684 wrote:Because I think killing civilians is worse than killing soldiers? Pretty sure that's a popularly held sentiment.

The civilians killed on 9/11 were innocents, making their killing bad.
The servicepeople to me are putting their lives on the line to defend us, that makes their sacrifice something special to me, if not to you.

ts1227;452674 wrote:What you do is ignore anything.

Sweet jebus...no shit. If this thread is any indication of the poster, Izzy's the master of the slippery slope. I don't care one bit about this forum, but read the previous few posts on this thread (was the most recent one on the main page). Taking a comment they disagree with and blowing it up to basically make any "YOU HATE EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR!!!!" argument they want is just sad.

I haven't seen anything in IWP's posts indicating this: "I thought giving women some rights, stopping religious oppression and ethnic slaughter was a good thing, but I guess you see it as bowing down." All you're doing is taking something I see as a "Why are we over there fighting for supremacy when it seems futile because it's essentially one ideology trying to beat another into submission?" sort of post (which, while I can't say I totally agree with, I can understand) into some complete "I HATE AMERICA AND PLAN TO START BLOWING UP SHIT TO PROVE IT!!!!" sort of crap.

You have this habit of taking a comment you disagree with and blowing it out of proportion to epic proportions to make some sort of "point". That's why your "da modz h8 me!!!" complaint thread isn't being taken seriously. Perhaps you should consider mature conversation as an alternate to repetitively attacking posters because you disagree with what they said.

I was completely accurate in my prediction that isadore would twist that into me thinking the soldiers are worthless.

I Wear Pants;452703 wrote:I was completely accurate in my prediction that isadore would twist that into me thinking the soldiers are worthless.

I am not the one who lowered their value, you did.

Heretic;452700 wrote:Sweet jebus...no shit. If this thread is any indication of the poster, Izzy's the master of the slippery slope. I don't care one bit about this forum, but read the previous few posts on this thread (was the most recent one on the main page). Taking a comment they disagree with and blowing it up to basically make any "YOU HATE EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY STANDS FOR!!!!" argument they want is just sad.
I haven't seen anything in IWP's posts indicating this: "I thought giving women some rights, stopping religious oppression and ethnic slaughter was a good thing, but I guess you see it as bowing down." All you're doing is taking something I see as a "Why are we over there fighting for supremacy when it seems futile because it's essentially one ideology trying to beat another into submission?" sort of post (which, while I can't say I totally agree with, I can understand) into some complete "I HATE AMERICA AND PLAN TO START BLOWING UP SHIT TO PROVE IT!!!!" sort of crap.
You have this habit of taking a comment you disagree with and blowing it out of proportion to epic proportions to make some sort of "point". That's why your "da modz h8 me!!!" complaint thread isn't being taken seriously. Perhaps you should consider mature conversation as an alternate to repetitively attacking posters because you disagree with what they said.

Thank you for your input. I am sorry you accept his claim that America is a imperialist nation and that those who try to kill Americans are justified in their actions. As to how people take the other thread that is their choice of course. I will say what I want right up until I get banned on IWPs instigation.

What did I say that was inaccurate?

Also, you skipped over the "though I still hate to see them get hurt ever" and "Doesn't mean they deserve it" parts didn't you?

Closest thing left != is

Well, there you go, IWP...hinting that you feel worse about the fate of people who had no clue ANYTHING was going down and got killed in a terrorist attack than about the fate of people who have been trained in combat and KNOW that injury/death is part of a job they are more than willing to take means you've lowered the value of a soldier.

I Wear Pants;452719 wrote:What did I say that was inaccurate?

Also, you skipped over the "though I still hate to see them get hurt ever" and "Doesn't mean they deserve it" parts didn't you?

Closest thing left != is

I see them because of their sacrifice for our nation to be of as great a value as the victims. You dont.

Heretic;452721 wrote:Well, there you go, IWP...hinting that you feel worse about the fate of people who had no clue ANYTHING was going down and got killed in a terrorist attack than about the fate of people who have been trained in combat and KNOW that injury/death is part of a job they are more than willing to take means you've lowered the value of a soldier.

You mean the people who go purposely in harms way to protect us. Who sacrifice for us.
There lives are of lesser value. Not to me.

I see them as completely different types of deaths. The 9/11 victims I feel incredibly sad for them and their families.

The soldiers I feel sad for their families but instead of as sad for the soldiers themselves (still feel sad) it's overruled by my gratitude for their service to our country.