How Do We Combat This?

[TheBlueVue 177]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

Being under the weather, I viewed a good deal more cable and network news today. As you can imagine, the ME was a primary topic. Military expert after military expert were paraded across the screen and each disagree with your views. Why?

Because that's how they make a living?

One thing is for certain if you know a thing about American history. Those generals would have been on the correct side of the argument the vast majority of times if they disagreed with the left, across the board, on matters of foreign policy. Everybody knows that.

[telling tiger 156]

Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Which is why the ME is in the magnificent shape it is now....

:-\

[homersapien 12,172]

What views? That we should simply pull out. That we should do nothing. That we should not concern ourselves with terrorists regimes. My agreement with with ICHY and Strychnine's statements?

Where did I say that?

You are making assumptions. To clarify, I don't think we should insert troops into any ME country that hasn't asked us to come, nor should we necessarily pull out if they want us to remain. Otherwise, I don't oppose providing help as long as it makes sense.

And I certainly don't think we should ignore terrorist regimes.

You misunderstood. I don't believe you did, but if you go back and read recent threads on the ME you will clearly see Itch and Strychnine support this approach. I am not advocating one approach over another, I simply asked why do military strategist disagree?

You really find it odd that military strategists would support a military response?

If you put so much faith in the military's opinion, try reading a little of Andrew Bacevich. He's a good military man, even if an exception to typical military thinking.

[TheBlueVue 177]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

[homersapien 12,172]

...... We are not the solution to their problem. We are a distraction from their problem. Perhaps if we take a step away from the region, they will be able to clearly see that their problem is themselves.

......The rest of the region seems to feel like no action is necessary on their part, and as long as they can successfully maintain that position and status quo, groups like this can never be truly defeated or contained.

Good points.

Being under the weather, I viewed a good deal more cable and network news today. As you can imagine, the ME was a primary topic. Military expert after military expert were paraded across the screen and each disagree with your views. Why?

Because that's how they make a living?

One thing is for certain if you know a thing about American history. Those generals would have been on the correct side of the argument the vast majority of times if they disagreed with the left, across the board, on matters of foreign policy. Everybody knows that.

Really. For instance...

[telling tiger 156]

Get back with some actual factual information when you can locate the last time the money shoveling clowns, known as the, military industrial complex, didn't get their way on something

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Get back with some actual factual information when you can locate the last time the money shoveling clowns, known as the, military industrial complex, didn't get their way on something

is this a joke?

[homersapien 12,172]

Get back with some actual factual information when you can locate the last time the money shoveling clowns, known as the, military industrial complex, didn't get their way on something

is this a joke?

Is that a response?

[TheBlueVue 177]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving. Presumably, you're defending the president unilateral withdrawal that leaves us in the precarious position of having no good option available that makes sense? I dont think going back in now makes any sense and I damn sure do not want to ally ourselves with Iran. Picking sides in a sectarian struggle is a no win situation, however, if Obama had not viewed ISIS as a JV squad in February and acknowledged the real threat they posed to the region, I doubt our diplomatic corp would have given up and gone home so quickly in their attempts to negotiate a status of forces to leave behind. Or maybe they would have since Obama clearly believes terrorism is not a problem for us.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Right on Blue.

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

Picking sides in a sectarian struggle is a no win situation....

Wouldn't that be exactly what we would be doing by propping up the existing Iraqi government (who wanted us out to begin with)?

[TheBlueVue 177]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

I doubt our diplomatic corp would have given up and gone home so quickly in their attempts to negotiate a status of forces to leave behind. Or maybe they would have since Obama clearly believes terrorism is not a problem for us.

If the Iraqi government wanted us out and was unwilling to sign a SOF agreement to keep us there, what exactly was there left to negotiate?

You think we should have left our forces there under Maliki's jurisdiction?

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

[TheBlueVue 177]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

Of course you'd take that position.It fits in nicely and simply reflects your super inflated opinion of yourself. Maliki is a shia and he wanted more power In fact one of the 1st things he did when we pulled out was have his sunni second in command thrown in jail.

BTW, in my view, leaving behind a status of forces would have been to MAINTAIN the PEACE, NOT TAKE SIDES. That is possible, you know?That peace had been won through tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure and Im not as eager to discount what our military men and women went through in Iraq for political expediency like you are.

Conversely, I think you'd argue with your mother and end up letting her know, as well, how much smarter you are than she is

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Do clones have Mothers?

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

Of course you'd take that position.It fits in nicely and simply reflects your super inflated opinion of yourself. Maliki is a shia and he wanted more power In fact one of the 1st things he did when we pulled out was have his sunni second in command thrown in jail.

BTW, in my view, leaving behind a status of forces would have been to MAINTAIN the PEACE, NOT TAKE SIDES. That is possible, you know?That peace had been won through tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure and Im not as eager to discount what our military men and women went through in Iraq for political expediency like you are.

Conversely, I think you'd argue with your mother and end up letting her know, as well, how much smarter you are than she is

How can we "maintain the peace" by propping up a sectarian government who doesn't want us there and has no interest in forming a coalition?

What good is a "peace" that has to maintained by force from an outsider? How long would we need to stay there? Decades or centuries? The very idea is absurd.

And really, was there ever "peace" even while we were there?

Finally, your personal insults aren't adding anything to the discussion. They just accentuate your lack of a serious argument.

[TheBlueVue 177]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

Of course you'd take that position.It fits in nicely and simply reflects your super inflated opinion of yourself. Maliki is a shia and he wanted more power In fact one of the 1st things he did when we pulled out was have his sunni second in command thrown in jail.

BTW, in my view, leaving behind a status of forces would have been to MAINTAIN the PEACE, NOT TAKE SIDES. That is possible, you know?That peace had been won through tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure and Im not as eager to discount what our military men and women went through in Iraq for political expediency like you are.

Conversely, I think you'd argue with your mother and end up letting her know, as well, how much smarter you are than she is

How can we "maintain the peace" by propping up a sectarian government who doesn't want us there and has no interest in forming a coalition?

What good is a "peace" that has to maintained by force from an outsider? How long would we need to stay there? Decades or centuries? The very idea is absurd.

And really, was there ever "peace" even while we were there?

Finally, your personal insults aren't adding anything to the discussion. They just accentuate your lack of a serious argument.

By continuing to do the same things we did that achieved the peace and the military sacrifices were great as were the financial commitments.

And yes, there was peace there, especially by contrast to whats going on now. There were no terrorist activities, no daily beheadings and no mass murders and certainly no overt actions of war.

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

Of course you'd take that position.It fits in nicely and simply reflects your super inflated opinion of yourself. Maliki is a shia and he wanted more power In fact one of the 1st things he did when we pulled out was have his sunni second in command thrown in jail.

BTW, in my view, leaving behind a status of forces would have been to MAINTAIN the PEACE, NOT TAKE SIDES. That is possible, you know?That peace had been won through tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure and Im not as eager to discount what our military men and women went through in Iraq for political expediency like you are.

Conversely, I think you'd argue with your mother and end up letting her know, as well, how much smarter you are than she is

How can we "maintain the peace" by propping up a sectarian government who doesn't want us there and has no interest in forming a coalition?

What good is a "peace" that has to maintained by force from an outsider? How long would we need to stay there? Decades or centuries? The very idea is absurd.

And really, was there ever "peace" even while we were there?

Finally, your personal insults aren't adding anything to the discussion. They just accentuate your lack of a serious argument.

By continuing to do the same things we did that achieved the peace and the military sacrifices were great as were the financial commitments.

And yes, there was peace there, especially by contrast to whats going on now. There were no terrorist activities, no daily beheadings and no mass murders and certainly no overt actions of war.

Our occupation of Iraq cost about 43 US soldiers killed /per month (not including wounded).

Setting financial costs aside, is that acceptable price for us to pay for Iraqi "peace"?

If our occupation is required for "peace" how could we ever leave without seeing said "peace" disappear?

Would there be a maximum time limit to your continued occupation?

I must admit, I find this willingness to piss away blood and treasure in the ME a rather remarkable position for self-proclaimed "conservatives" to take considering they are so against investing merely treasure alone for the betterment of our own people.

[TheBlueVue 177]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

Of course you'd take that position.It fits in nicely and simply reflects your super inflated opinion of yourself. Maliki is a shia and he wanted more power In fact one of the 1st things he did when we pulled out was have his sunni second in command thrown in jail.

BTW, in my view, leaving behind a status of forces would have been to MAINTAIN the PEACE, NOT TAKE SIDES. That is possible, you know?That peace had been won through tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure and Im not as eager to discount what our military men and women went through in Iraq for political expediency like you are.

Conversely, I think you'd argue with your mother and end up letting her know, as well, how much smarter you are than she is

How can we "maintain the peace" by propping up a sectarian government who doesn't want us there and has no interest in forming a coalition?

What good is a "peace" that has to maintained by force from an outsider? How long would we need to stay there? Decades or centuries? The very idea is absurd.

And really, was there ever "peace" even while we were there?

Finally, your personal insults aren't adding anything to the discussion. They just accentuate your lack of a serious argument.

By continuing to do the same things we did that achieved the peace and the military sacrifices were great as were the financial commitments.

And yes, there was peace there, especially by contrast to whats going on now. There were no terrorist activities, no daily beheadings and no mass murders and certainly no overt actions of war.

Our occupation of Iraq cost about 43 US soldiers killed /per month (not including wounded).

Setting financial costs aside, is that acceptable price for us to pay for Iraqi "peace"?

If our occupation is required for "peace" how could we ever leave without seeing said "peace" disappear?

Would there be a maximum time limit to your continued occupation?

I must admit, I find this willingness to piss away blood and treasure in the ME a rather remarkable position for self-proclaimed "conservatives" to take considering they are so against investing merely treasure alone for the betterment of our own people.

Im not going to put a value on the lives of american military personnel for the purpose of debating in a politics forum. Just seems kind of crass to me but that's just me. I may be wrong but it seems to me you're either unwilling or unable to recognize the attendant benefits in that region derived from keeping the peace. Oh I dont know, containing the spread of terrorism for example.

I know the president doesn't believe terorism is a problem. I mean, who trades 5 taliban leaders for one traitor, that is genuinely concerned about the expansjon of terrorism? Clealry, you also believe that America is somehow immune to terrorism expanding to inside OUR borders. I pray it does not but, seriously, when ISIS leaders start saying things like, "See you in New York" it doesn't exactly give me warm and fuzzy feelings of being immune to their jihadist activities. Maybe someone should get a memo to the president that these guys are real jihadists, not the kkind that simply want to negotiate the spending of tax payer money.

I really wish Obama treated real terrorists with the same heavy handed resolve he does the ones he sees in the republican party. :-\

[homersapien 12,172]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

Of course you'd take that position.It fits in nicely and simply reflects your super inflated opinion of yourself. Maliki is a shia and he wanted more power In fact one of the 1st things he did when we pulled out was have his sunni second in command thrown in jail.

BTW, in my view, leaving behind a status of forces would have been to MAINTAIN the PEACE, NOT TAKE SIDES. That is possible, you know?That peace had been won through tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure and Im not as eager to discount what our military men and women went through in Iraq for political expediency like you are.

Conversely, I think you'd argue with your mother and end up letting her know, as well, how much smarter you are than she is

How can we "maintain the peace" by propping up a sectarian government who doesn't want us there and has no interest in forming a coalition?

What good is a "peace" that has to maintained by force from an outsider? How long would we need to stay there? Decades or centuries? The very idea is absurd.

And really, was there ever "peace" even while we were there?

Finally, your personal insults aren't adding anything to the discussion. They just accentuate your lack of a serious argument.

By continuing to do the same things we did that achieved the peace and the military sacrifices were great as were the financial commitments.

And yes, there was peace there, especially by contrast to whats going on now. There were no terrorist activities, no daily beheadings and no mass murders and certainly no overt actions of war.

Our occupation of Iraq cost about 43 US soldiers killed /per month (not including wounded).

Setting financial costs aside, is that acceptable price for us to pay for Iraqi "peace"?

If our occupation is required for "peace" how could we ever leave without seeing said "peace" disappear?

Would there be a maximum time limit to your continued occupation?

I must admit, I find this willingness to piss away blood and treasure in the ME a rather remarkable position for self-proclaimed "conservatives" to take considering they are so against investing merely treasure alone for the betterment of our own people.

Im not going to put a value on the lives of american military personnel for the purpose of debating in a politics forum. Just seems kind of crass to me but that's just me.

Well that's highly irresponsible of you and is indicative of the sort of thinking that got us into Iraq to begin with.

While this may be a political forum, the options we are debating are very real. You can't avoid that reality if you want to seriously argue them.

It's interesting to see that in the final analysis, you are not "conservative" at all. You are willing to spend American lives on a half-baked idea that we will bring freedom and peace to the ME if only we commit enough blood and treasure. That's the sort of ridiculous idealism so many conservatives like to ascribe to liberals.

[homersapien 12,172]

Our occupation of Iraq cost about 43 US soldiers killed /per month (not including wounded).

Setting financial costs aside, is that acceptable price for us to pay for Iraqi "peace"?

If our occupation is required for "peace" how could we ever leave without seeing said "peace" disappear?

Would there be a maximum time limit to your continued occupation?

I must admit, I find this willingness to piss away blood and treasure in the ME a rather remarkable position for self-proclaimed "conservatives" to take considering they are so against investing merely treasure alone for the betterment of our own people.

...... I know the president doesn't believe terorism is a problem......

That would normally qualify as a lie but I can't give you credit for not really believing it.

You evaded my other questions. Does that mean we are done?

[TheBlueVue 177]

In either case you are comparing post WWII Europe to Iraq. You are presenting what we did in Europe as an appropriate example to what we should have done in Iraq. That's a comparison.

No actually what I am saying is there are vast resources already deployed abroad that could have easily been redeployed w/o enormous expense to the country to leave behind a sufficient number of troops to maintain the peace that had been won with tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure as opposed to simply packing our s*** and going home but i expect you to twist an interpretation out of my posts that best serve your arguments..no problem.

So you are suggesting we should have re-deployed our European military resources to the Middle East?

What I am suggesting is that there is no excuse, budgetary or otherwise, for simply packing our s*** and leaving.

So, in other words, you think we should still be in Iraq as occupiers regardless of whether or not the Iraqi government wanted us there. Correct?

Only with a sufficient status of forces to maintain the peace, not with 90,000 troops but, spin anyway you need to make the current mess look more desirable.

The current mess is more desirable if the option is to have us in the middle of it, which means we would necessarily be taking the sides of the Shia.

I don't think you really understand the politics of the situation.

Of course you'd take that position.It fits in nicely and simply reflects your super inflated opinion of yourself. Maliki is a shia and he wanted more power In fact one of the 1st things he did when we pulled out was have his sunni second in command thrown in jail.

BTW, in my view, leaving behind a status of forces would have been to MAINTAIN the PEACE, NOT TAKE SIDES. That is possible, you know?That peace had been won through tremendous sacrifice of blood and treasure and Im not as eager to discount what our military men and women went through in Iraq for political expediency like you are.

Conversely, I think you'd argue with your mother and end up letting her know, as well, how much smarter you are than she is

How can we "maintain the peace" by propping up a sectarian government who doesn't want us there and has no interest in forming a coalition?

What good is a "peace" that has to maintained by force from an outsider? How long would we need to stay there? Decades or centuries? The very idea is absurd.

And really, was there ever "peace" even while we were there?

Finally, your personal insults aren't adding anything to the discussion. They just accentuate your lack of a serious argument.

By continuing to do the same things we did that achieved the peace and the military sacrifices were great as were the financial commitments.

And yes, there was peace there, especially by contrast to whats going on now. There were no terrorist activities, no daily beheadings and no mass murders and certainly no overt actions of war.

Our occupation of Iraq cost about 43 US soldiers killed /per month (not including wounded).

Setting financial costs aside, is that acceptable price for us to pay for Iraqi "peace"?

If our occupation is required for "peace" how could we ever leave without seeing said "peace" disappear?

Would there be a maximum time limit to your continued occupation?

I must admit, I find this willingness to piss away blood and treasure in the ME a rather remarkable position for self-proclaimed "conservatives" to take considering they are so against investing merely treasure alone for the betterment of our own people.

Im not going to put a value on the lives of american military personnel for the purpose of debating in a politics forum. Just seems kind of crass to me but that's just me.

Well that's highly irresponsible of you and is indicative of the sort of thinking that got us into Iraq to begin with.

While this may be a political forum, the options we are debating are very real. You can't avoid that reality if you want to seriously argue them.

It's interesting to see that in the final analysis, you are not "conservative" at all. You are willing to spend American lives on a half-baked idea that we will bring freedom and peace to the ME if only we commit enough blood and treasure. That's the sort of ridiculous idealism so many conservatives like to ascribe to liberals.

Once again you can hope as hard as you wish that I embrace your version of what I believe but you'd end up looking foolish as you usually do. I figure only a leftist dilettante would qualify the containment of terrorism as "ridiculous idealism"