Bring the Troops Home...and then??
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, May 4, 2006 08:10
VIEWED: 6147
PAGE 5 of 5
"Allied troops are still stationed in Germany, after 60 years"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whenever I read a post by Piratenews I'm always "envious" that I never get to smoke the really good kronik weed that guy gets ahold of. The "ditch" weed around here is barely passable and only gives you a mild buzz. I just read the post and end up wishing to indulge in some weed strong enough to induce the kind of hallucinations and paranoid delusions this guy's enjoying 24/7/365. Rock on, Major Burnout! I salute you.
Jaytee
P.S. I've got "proof" that the CIA had Kennedy killed and that NASA faked the moon landings. Check it out here: http://www.youareaparanoidmoron.com/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They are STILL stationed in Germany, unless I was seeing things while I was working out of JHQ, but even playing by your rules we're looking at 34 years, so my point is still relevant.
So, how does 34 years not count as a long time to have one's troops propping up a country because it happened 27 years ago?
Or better still:
Germany only became reintegrated in 1990, Allied troops were stationed there and helped over see the integration, helped stabilise the new country of Germany that was the result of the merger of East and West Germany. So now Allied troops were still helping to stabilise Germany 16 years ago, a total time of 45 years.
My point was I don't see a successful withdrawal likely anytime soon, I backed this up by saying we were in Germany for a long time.
Why does a long-time stop being a long time because it happened a few years ago?
Further more whatever reasons there are for them being there, THEY ARE STILL THERE. In a region far more stable than the Middle East is likely to be given the same time frame. All the reasons we're still in Germany are just as pertinent to Iraq if not more so, so even there what I say is relevant.
I realise my point goes counter to what you want, troops out now by the sounds of your posts (just an interpretation, don't want to be fallaciously accused of telling you what you think again), but you're going to have to try a hell of a lot harder to dismiss what I say.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JayTee
Can you get me some? Cause I need some too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Can you get me some? Cause I need some too.
You're doing fine without.
So anyway, you want to talk about tactics or some such, you say I browbeat people to make them come round to my way of thinking.
Kind of like how you tried to browbeat me into silence earlier on (my point is irrelevant and I'm not allowed to defend it, don't know when to shut up, all that stuff) yeah?
Then that didn't work, oh dear, time to pull out the big guns. You know character assassination (where you said I was sexist or trying to browbeat despite having no point). Scroll up you'll find most of the posts here by me are me trying to defend myself and make my point, most by you are flagrant insults, character assassinations or just baselessly dismissing what I said because ‘it doesn’t count’.
Now you're insinuating I'm on drugs. Heh, and I'm the one who can't debate a point on merit, that's almost a joke right there
.So, anyway I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. If I don't have a point it will be exceedingly easy to answer, after-all. Maybe you missed it, I’ve only asked it about three times so far, so maybe you need it again:
How does 34 years not count as a long time for Germany to be occupied because it ended 27 years ago?
This is quite an important question, especially since it seems to be the basic premise underpinning your entire argument.
Or since you've decided that the Germany analogy has no merit, we can go for another analogy:
American troops were stationed in Japan for 10 years after the end of the Second World War. Japan had officially surrendered, the peoples and governments will to fight was broken, yet it still took 10 years for American troops to hand Japan over in full to the Japanese government.
This is not true of Iraq, where as the Japanese as a whole worked with the Americans, there was NO terrorism nor insurgency to counter, in Iraq the will of the Ba’ath regime to fight wasn't broken (their ability maybe, their will no) and no surrender received. There is an Insurgency and there is terrorism, all distractions from the rebuilding exercises that are the same as what was done in Japan without such things.
Maybe you can now tell me how it would be expedient for the UK and US to remove troops now, given historical precedent which indicates that the optimal time for the hand over won't be for at least seven or eight years.
Or we can look at the situation in Iraq itself. Rebuilding work isn't even half done, there's no viable Iraqi police or Military (sorry one fully operational Brigade and a few below full operational readiness doesn’t count), there's still an active insurgency and terrorist element that this non-existent Iraq military and slightly better off police force would have to counter.
You get what you want and our troops are withdrawn now, here's what happens:
The government and its fledgling infrastructure collapse, this takes maybe two weeks.
Then we get fun for all the family: Civil war to fill the power vacuum:
The Shiites want to rule because hell, they remember what life was like for them under Sunni Saddam Hussein.
The Sunnis want to rule because they know the Shiites will be itching for some post Saddam style revenge.
The Kurds want to split off into their own Kurdistan nation, because they don't want to get oppressed by neither a Shiite nor Sunni run Iraq.
So:
The Shiites kill the Sunnis,
The Sunnis kill the Shiites,
And everyone kills the Kurds.
So then Iran steps in, just to keep the peace mind, on behalf of the Shiites. Well Syria can't have Iran running Iraq, a country that borders Syria, so they step in on the side of the Sunnis, just to keep the peace, obviously.
So now we have a civil war, where the Iranian backed Shiites kill the Syrian backed Sunnis, the Syrian backed Sunnis kill the Iranian backed Shiites and everyone kills the Kurds. We get some of that ethnic cleansing that we all know and love, but eventually both sides tire themselves out and Ira
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME