So, did anyone honestly think we were ever leaving Iraq? Once we send in the military, we are there forever. I won't be surprised when it's 2020 and we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya and possibly more middle east countries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13722786

Your title is misleading. The possibility is there, however, it has not yet been determined. That said, I do think they will extend the duration of the troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal date.

What I don't get is why these idiot insurgents would continue to attack US targets with the withdrawal date nearing. They are just giving the US more reason to stay in Iraq. If they attacked less or not at all, the US would believe that they accomplished the mission and eradicated AQ fighters and have more reason to leave. Fools.

We're building military bases there, even bigger than the ones we have in Germany and that was 60+ years ago.

We'll be there until year 3000.

sleeper;804040 wrote:We're building military bases there, even bigger than the ones we have in Germany and that was 60+ years ago.

We'll be there until year 3000.

If oil is still the most valuable commodity in the world and the middle east is still an oil abundant region. Otherwise, we will have been long gone from the mid east once we dry it up of all its oil.

dwccrew;804025 wrote:Your title is misleading. The possibility is there, however, it has not yet been determined. That said, I do think they will extend the duration of the troops in Iraq beyond the withdrawal date.

What I don't get is why these idiot insurgents would continue to attack US targets with the withdrawal date nearing. They are just giving the US more reason to stay in Iraq. If they attacked less or not at all, the US would believe that they accomplished the mission and eradicated AQ fighters and have more reason to leave. Fools.

Because if their goal is to hurt the US they do that most effectively by keeping us in costly and unending wars.

dwccrew;804257 wrote:If oil is still the most valuable commodity in the world and the middle east is still an oil abundant region. Otherwise, we will have been long gone from the mid east once we dry it up of all its oil.

Or, we will/can leave when Washington grows some balls, and drills for our own oil, in our own country.

coyotes22;812485 wrote:Or, we will/can leave when Washington grows some balls, and drills for our own oil, in our own country.

So basically we'll still be in the middle east.

dwccrew;812544 wrote:So basically we'll still be in the middle east.

Sad, but prolly true.

coyotes22;812485 wrote:Or, we will/can leave when Washington grows some balls, and drills for our own oil, in our own country.

Naw...that would make too much sense.

when you look at how much money we spend militarily to keep oil cheap, it would probably be cheaper to just to subsidize alternative energy sources.

HitsRus;813445 wrote:when you look at how much money we spend militarily to keep oil cheap, it would probably be cheaper to just to subsidize alternative energy sources.

Right, because the Ethanol Industry has not had ANY negative impact on our Economy, right?

My feeling is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. What the fuck are we still doing there, looking for WMD's?

What a fucking lie we were told. How horrible must it be for those families who lost a son, daughter, father or mother over there for a fucking LIE. We didn't accomplish one goddamn thing over there but kill a lot of people, including our own. Anyone who tells you differently is nothing more than a fucking liar.

stlouiedipalma;814078 wrote:What a fucking lie we were told.

The same lie being told to us and believed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and a host of other leftist loons when "W" was still governor of the great state of Texas.

stlouiedipalma;814078 wrote:My feeling is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. What the **** are we still doing there, looking for WMD's?

Why are we still there? Pottery Barn analogy as Colin Powell said. You break it, you buy it. We destroyed the country, it is out responsibility to ensure it does not completely fall apart. Oh and if it does, it seriously screws over the region. Just want the region needs, an unstable, ethnic powderkeg.

What a ****ing lie we were told. How horrible must it be for those families who lost a son, daughter, father or mother over there for a ****ing LIE. We didn't accomplish one goddamn thing over there but kill a lot of people, including our own. Anyone who tells you differently is nothing more than a ****ing liar.

Sure, the reason turned out to be wrong, but after 2004 that was never the reason to be there. The reason to be there was to rebuild the country and stop it from being a civil war. What did we accomplish? 1. COIN. 2. New military vehicles and tactics. 3. New technologies, especially drones. 4. New medical tools and trade, especially as it relates to quick medicine. 5. New understandings of head trauma that will be felt in all aspects of society to better serve humanity in the long term. 6. New tools and limbs for amputees that has grown leaps and bounds from pre-2003.

That doesn't start to justify the thousands lost, but we, as a country, did gain from our Iraq experience. Those brave men did not die in vain in my view as their deaths have led to many benefits for us now.

stlouiedipalma;814078 wrote:My feeling is that we shouldn't have been there in the first place. What the **** are we still doing there, looking for WMD's?

What a ****ing lie we were told. How horrible must it be for those families who lost a son, daughter, father or mother over there for a ****ing LIE. We didn't accomplish one goddamn thing over there but kill a lot of people, including our own. Anyone who tells you differently is nothing more than a ****ing liar.

I volunteered after the war started and I didnt go there to find WMDs.

believer;814113 wrote:The same lie being told to us and believed by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and a host of other leftist loons when "W" was still governor of the great state of Texas.

While what you state is true, only one person had the authority to send troops in to the country to invade and that was "W".

Glory Days;814437 wrote:I volunteered after the war started and I didnt go there to find WMDs.

I also volunteered to go over to Iraq (although I enlisted pre 9-11) and I was not looking for WMDs either. Although I don't like how the reason for being in Iraq changed multiple times. There should have been one reason, one strategy.

dwccrew;814448 wrote:While what you state is true, only one person had the authority to send troops in to the country to invade and that was "W".

9-11 didn't happen until "W" was in office. Now whether or not obviously faulty intelligence reports on WMD's were sufficient reason to invade Iraq to somehow get to Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan is certainly open to some head scratching. Trust me as a veteran and a conservative...I had those thoughts since the first day of the invasion myself.

I just grow tired of the "Bush lied, people died" crap. Many reasonably intelligent people on both sides of the political fence believed the American and British intelligence reports on Saddam Hussein's access to WMD's.

believer;814493 wrote:9-11 didn't happen until "W" was in office. Now whether or not obviously faulty intelligence reports on WMD's were sufficient reason to invade Iraq to somehow get to Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan is certainly open to some head scratching. Trust me as a veteran and a conservative...I had those thoughts since the first day of the invasion myself.

I just grow tired of the "Bush lied, people died" crap. Many reasonably intelligent people on both sides of the political fence believed the American and British intelligence reports on Saddam Hussein's access to WMD's.

I don't think Bush lied (I think he believed Saddam had WMDs), however, I hold him accountable for going into Iraq without good cause. Afghanistan should have been his focus the entire time. Perhaps OBL wouldn't have had an extra decade to live had Bush kept his focus where it should have been IMO.

dwccrew;814749 wrote:I don't think Bush lied (I think he believed Saddam had WMDs), however, I hold him accountable for going into Iraq without good cause. Afghanistan should have been his focus the entire time. Perhaps OBL wouldn't have had an extra decade to live had Bush kept his focus where it should have been IMO.

You won't get any argument from me on these points. Hence my "head scratching" comment.

Right, because the Ethanol Industry has not had ANY negative impact on our Economy, right

Did I say anything about ethanol?...and are you implying that high gas prices has not had any negative impact on our economy either?

You have to wonder if the Arab Spring would not be happening were it not for a free Iraq...

but I found this interesting. $20 billion on Air Conditioning?

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning

ccrunner609;815001 wrote:EVERYONE thought they had WMD's....matter of fact it is proof that he used them against towns in the north for many years. Now was he stockpiling them? Maybe not but when he kicked NATO out and declined to acknowledge 19 NATO sanctions......Iraq did everything to tell the world that they were making and having WMD's

Come one guys, lets not have selective memory about this. The press, congress, white house, NATO......we went into Iraq because EVERYONE thought they were up to no good.

It is you that has selective memory. Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, wanted more time to investigate because he was not positive Iraq had WMDs. The UN did not back an invasion and NATO was not involved. IT was a US led coalition, not NATO. NATO was involved with Afghanistan and after much pressure from the US, NATO was involved AFTER THE IRAQ INVASION with training security forces in Iraq, but not combat operations. So I am not sure where you came up with NATO being involved with the invasion.

Of course Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMDs, that was his only leverage. If the truth came out, IRan would have attacked along with half the arab world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Operations_in_Afghanistan

In August 2004, following U.S. pressure, NATO formed the NATO Training Mission – Iraq, a training mission to assist the Iraqi security forces in conjunction with the U.S. led MNF-I.[47] The NATO Training Mission-Iraq (NTM-I) was established at the request of the Iraqi Interim Government under the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. The aim of NTM-I is to assist in the development of Iraqi security forces training structures and institutions so that Iraq can build an effective and sustainable capability that addresses the needs of the nation. NTM-I is not a combat mission but is a distinct mission, under the political control of NATO's North Atlantic Council. Its operational emphasis is on training and mentoring. The activities of the mission are coordinated with Iraqi authorities and the U.S.-led Deputy Commanding General Advising and Training, who is also dual-hatted as the Commander of NTM-I.

HitsRus;815015 wrote:Did I say anything about ethanol?...and are you implying that high gas prices has not had any negative impact on our economy either?

HitsRus wrote:it would probably be cheaper to just to subsidize alternative energy sources.

Is not Ethanol an "alternative energy source"?

Im not going to argue that high gas prices have taken a toll on our economy. But what leads to high gas prices?

Not drilling our own
High gas taxes
Alternative fuel sources

Drilling- We have just as much, IF not more, oil under our feet here in the US. But, the EPA has Washington's nuts in such a vice, that we cant drill for it. Cuse we might harm a few birds or other animals.

Taxes- America taxes the "big bad oil" companies so much, they have to charge what they do, just to make,,,,,,, oh my goodness, that dirty word,,,,,, PROFIT!! God freakin forbid, an American company, make a profit. Chicago gas prices right now, are still about $4.10-$4.15/gallon. They also charge $.78/gallon TAX!! Why is not the Government going after big cable/ cell phone and their profits? I bet they "make" more per year, than the Oil industry. But we want to demonize the oil companies bc we dont think we should pay $3-$4 for a galllon of gas.

Alternative fuel sources- Are not and will not drive Gas (oil) prices down. Supply and demand. Aside from that, the Government makes money off the oil companies, by charging tax, less gas being bought= less money for the Government. So, with the uprising in electric cars, what does the US Government do? If you own an electric car, you get charged $100 a year as a "tax', to make up for the loss of gas tax. Sound fair? How about charging people based on how much they drive? Still want alternative fuel sources?

Look, I dont want to get into a pissing match. This is why I have stayed away from the politics forum this long. I dont want to make enemies based on political views. The main thing is we are all Americans, and our Country needs help. And we need to make sure we vote for the best candidate that we think is going to lead our Country the best. Dem, GOP, TeaParty, Independant,,,,, whatever. As long as they do what we ask. I think politicians and the American people forget, that our country is like a fortune 500 company. And President's and congress are like CEO's and board members. They need to be reminded that this is their job to run our "buisness" to the share holders likeing, and keep making a profit. And if they cant do their job, they will get "fired". We all need to work together, and stratagize together instead of always fighting and never getting anything accomplished.

/rant

BoatShoes;815037 wrote:You have to wonder if the Arab Spring would not be happening were it not for a free Iraq...

Interesting thought. One could reason that it would be less likely. Pictures of free Arabs in Iraq voting surely had some affect. They may hate us because we support Israel, but they covet our freedom.

BoatShoes;815037 wrote:but I found this interesting. $20 billion on Air Conditioning?

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-war-20b-in-air-conditioning

It makes one wonder how we ever drove the Germans from North Africa without AC? Or the Japanese from all those Pacific Islands? Or wrestled Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines from the Spaniards? Or defeated the Mexicans and took the American Southwest? How did Sherman make his march to the sea during the brutal Southern summer without each soldiers tent containing a block of ice?

ccrunner609;815463 wrote:I typed that wrong, it was 19 UN sanctions....not NATO.

Gotcha', that makes more sense.