[SimeyTheLimey]

Most U.S. Forces, including my old division, the First Armored Division, which recently returned from Baghdad, and the other heavy division, the First Infantry Division, which is currently deployed in Iraq, are going to be withdrawn from Germany. This is according to the Financial Times.

This is the withdrawal of almost all US ground troops from Europe. I can't say I am surprised, as there is no strategic reason to keep them there. The Soviet threat is history. Most U.S. forces have already left, the British Army of the Rhine closed down years ago, and the Canadians left Europe altogether. So it seems long overdue.

I'm a little sad that once again the places I served in are being shut down. But this makes sense. On the other hand, I am a little surprised that Grafenwoehr is being revamped. Graf is where the army goes for target practice in Europe. It was becoming a bit obsolete when I was there because the Bavarian government restricted the range hours because of noise pollution. It seems kind of dumb to put money there.

Of course, I am sure that there will be those on both sides of the Atlantic who will interpret this as a snub to Schroeder. That's probably not the case. But what I think this will do is change the character of NATO somewhat. It will be more of a paper alliance, and less of a military one. But I think that is simply a recognition of reality.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Most U.S. Forces, including my old division, the First Armored Division, which recently returned from Baghdad, and the other heavy division, the First Infantry Division, which is currently deployed in Iraq, are going to be withdrawn from Germany. This is according to the Financial Times.

This is the withdrawal of almost all US ground troops from Europe. I can't say I am surprised, as there is no strategic reason to keep them there. The Soviet threat is history. Most U.S. forces have already left, the British Army of the Rhine closed down years ago, and the Canadians left Europe altogether. So it seems long overdue.

I'm a little sad that once again the places I served in are being shut down. But this makes sense. On the other hand, I am a little surprised that Grafenwoehr is being revamped. Graf is where the army goes for target practice in Europe. It was becoming a bit obsolete when I was there because the Bavarian government restricted the range hours because of noise pollution. It seems kind of dumb to put money there.

Of course, I am sure that there will be those on both sides of the Atlantic who will interpret this as a snub to Schroeder. That's probably not the case. But what I think this will do is change the character of NATO somewhat. It will be more of a paper alliance, and less of a military one. But I think that is simply a recognition of reality.

My understanding is that bases will multiply, with expansion in Africa, but of a smaller size. The term used, IIRC, is "Lilly pounds".

[macvillage.net]

I'm in particular curious as to what the numbers are for:

... German officials expressed wariness at the prospect of big withdrawals, saying they were likely to be hard on small communities that relied on the US presence for economic activity. But US officials said they did not believe there would be a significant political reaction in Germany because of the diplomatic efforts made over the past six months.

I'm positive both Germany and the United States have very good statistics on the economic aspects of the base (as they have been discussed in excess)... but never any numbers.

I was hoping this article would perhaps say.

[djohnson]

Good job Bush! You are bringing our soldiers back to American soil.

[Zimphire]

Smart move.

[CreepingDeth]

Yeah!
Regroup and kick some more terrorist ass! Iran or Korea? Or maybe we can let Israel give Iran a push.

What do you do over in Germany? They'd probably be pretty bored.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
What do you do over in Germany? They'd probably be pretty bored.

We did in Germany exactly what we did when I was stationed in the US -- train to fight. That's what troops do when they aren't deployed. It doesn't matter where you are, the job itself is identical except the weather was cooler in Germany, and the beer better.

On the economic impact: I think it will vary from place to place. The troops are spread about in quite a large swath of Germany -- mosly in small bases with a few thousand troops and their families. Some of the bases are in largeish cities. For example, Wiesbaden, Mainz, or Heidelberg. In those I doubt the impact would really be noticed. Some of the bases are in small towns like Baumholder. Those towns will lose their major employer and no doubt that will hurt.

However, this isn't new, and really not important in the scheme of things. The purpose of having US troops in Germany isn't to subsidize German towns. I'm sure that the people of those towns understand that. They have also been dealing with this for a while now. While I was in Germany Giessen, Fulda and Wildflecken all closed. And the base in the town where I spent 2 years (Bad Kreuznach) closed a couple of years ago. That town gave the troops a nice parade and a fond sendoff. I imagine there will be similar scenes. After all, in some cases there have been US troops in these places since 1945.

[CreepingDeth]

I meant like for entertainment. Oh well, stupid question.
I also used to live by Alexandria.

[PacHead]

Excellent ! About time ! Bring the US troops home from Europe and Asia, should have been done a long time ago, but nevertheless a good move.

[Dr.HermanG.]

That'll show those Europeans not to oppose us

[PacHead]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'm in particular curious as to what the numbers are for:

Who cares about the numbers. We're pulling out of Germany, and they'll lose some revenue, good for them. Let 'em take care of themselves.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Most U.S. Forces, including my old division, the First Armored Division, which recently returned from Baghdad, and the other heavy division, the First Infantry Division, which is currently deployed in Iraq, are going to be withdrawn from Germany. This is according to the Financial Times.

This is the withdrawal of almost all US ground troops from Europe. I can't say I am surprised, as there is no strategic reason to keep them there. The Soviet threat is history. Most U.S. forces have already left, the British Army of the Rhine closed down years ago, and the Canadians left Europe altogether. So it seems long overdue.

I'm a little sad that once again the places I served in are being shut down. But this makes sense. On the other hand, I am a little surprised that Grafenwoehr is being revamped. Graf is where the army goes for target practice in Europe. It was becoming a bit obsolete when I was there because the Bavarian government restricted the range hours because of noise pollution. It seems kind of dumb to put money there.

Of course, I am sure that there will be those on both sides of the Atlantic who will interpret this as a snub to Schroeder. That's probably not the case. But what I think this will do is change the character of NATO somewhat. It will be more of a paper alliance, and less of a military one. But I think that is simply a recognition of reality.

As the underwhelming reaction from us EU citizens reflects this is neither a surprise nor unwanted. This is a good thing. U.S. troops have no business to be in Germany or elsewhere in Europe for that matter. They may have before the fall of the U.S.S.R., but today no. This will have little impact on the total economy of Germany let alone Europe. Insignificant is the word de hora. It's a long time ago since Rummy decalred that this would happen, not only in Germany but in most places in the world where U.S. bases are located and no longer needed strategically. Even the base in Iceland is scheduled for dissolvement in the near immediate future despite the prime minister's long time ass licking of Bush and spinelessly selling out his nation for something 99% are against - namely the Iraq crappo campaign. So it's hardly snubbing Schröder - that is way to presumtious. It is simply Pentagon policy and the interests of the current U.S. administrations. I wouldn't bet on that these guys just get to back home though, but rather will find themselves in new bases 'round the Middle East and possibly Africa.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I meant like for entertainment. Oh well, stupid question.
I also used to live by Alexandria.

No doubt about it, there are more fun things to do stationed in Germany than in a typical U.S. base. U.S. Army bases in the U.S. tend to be in fairly isolated rural places. For example, before I was in Germany I was at Fort Polk, Louisiana. It's the original Camp Swampy, and the nearest crappy mall is 60 miles. After that I went to Mannheim, Germany, which was fun.

But not all the bases that are being closed are as fun as Mannheim. Troops will be leaving Baumholder and Vilseck and they aren't much more than villages in the middle of a bunch of fields. No fun there.

Also, a lot of the troops hate being overseas because it separates them from their families for years at a time. It's much easier and usually cheaper to hop on a 3 hour flight in the US than a 7 hour flight from Germany.

So some of the troops will be sad, while others will no doubt be happy to leave.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I wouldn't bet on that these guys just get to back home though, but rather will find themselves in new bases 'round the Middle East and possibly Africa.

They will be based in the US. They will no doubt see frequent deployments to the Middle East. But they won't be overseas for three year extended tours along with their dependents the way we did with Europe.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They will be based in the US. They will no doubt see frequent deployments to the Middle East. But they won't be overseas for three year extended tours along with their dependents the way we did with Europe.

Whatever. I'm predicting I'm right though. You'll need pretty much everyone in your quagamire soon enough.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Whatever. I'm predicting I'm right though. You'll need pretty much everyone in your quagamire soon enough.

You mean those European quagmires, Bosnia and Kosovo? No, I'm hoping at long last we will leave it to you to deal with the crises on your own continent. But that isn't directly the reason for this redeployment. The reason for the deployment is simply that there isn't any need to be in Germany, and it is cheaper to base troops and their dependents in the continental U.S.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Who cares about the numbers. We're pulling out of Germany, and they'll lose some revenue, good for them. Let 'em take care of themselves.

In free markets, the benefit goes to both sides.

A decrease in German revenue due to a loss of US customers means a drop in Germans who will buy American products (Both due to less revenue=less spending as well as people being bitter).

Considering the trade deficit. It's very relevent. Especially with a country like Germany. Germany is part of the EU. Making it even more relevent.

To brush it off as something that doesn't effect us is about as ignorant and stupid as it gets. This will ultimately have an impact on our economy. What I would like to know is what that impact will be... and how the US plans to minimize that impact.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You mean those European quagmires, Bosnia and Kosovo? No, I'm hoping at long last we will leave it to you to deal with the crises on your own continent. But that isn't directly the reason for this redeployment. The reason for the deployment is simply that there isn't any need to be in Germany, and it is cheaper to base troops and their dependents in the continental U.S.

LOL those are quite well under control thankyouverymuch. No I'm talking about the Iraq campaign that the U.S. spearheaded year and a half ago. You'll need to replace the 1000+ dead soldiers and add more to prevent Iraq from slipping through your fingers. Even if it will probably inevitably do so. Look at it this way: I'd have no problems to tour through every single former Yugoslavia republic - they are not dangerous quagamires full of people that hate my guts. That is Iraq for you however. Would you like to take a stroll with the U.S. or U.K. flag down downtown Baghdad? Didn't think so. I'll bear the Spanish, Norwegian and Icelandic one down any street in former Yugoslavia and unlike you in Iraq I'd survive the act.

[entrox]

What Voodoo said. I just returned from Bosnia two weeks ago (I've got family there) and was neither shot at nor hassled by Bosnian or Croatian police forces (I'm Serbian). There are still ruins everywhere and the occasional graffiti on some houses, but it's far far away from being a quagmire like Iraq currently is.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by entrox:
What Voodoo said. I just returned from Bosnia two weeks ago (I've got family there) and was neither shot at nor hassled by Bosnian or Croatian police forces (I'm Serbian). There are still ruins everywhere and the occasional graffiti on some houses, but it's far far away from being a quagmire like Iraq currently is.

Good, then there is no need for US troops there. So we can redeploy them where they are needed from a US strategic point of view.

See, everybody is happy.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
In free markets, the benefit goes to both sides.

A decrease in German revenue due to a loss of US customers means a drop in Germans who will buy American products (Both due to less revenue=less spending as well as people being bitter).

70,000 troops don't impact the German economy that much. Some local economies (i.e some small towns) will be measurably affected, but not the overall German economy.

Nor do I think there is much bitterness. This is a strategic divorce that is long overdue and which has been expected more or less for over a decade. Germans are no more likely to be embittered to Americans for removing their forces than they were when the British or Canadians pulled out.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
70,000 troops don't impact the German economy that much. Some local economies (i.e some small towns) will be measurably affected, but not the overall German economy.

Nor do I think there is much bitterness. This is a strategic divorce that is long overdue and which has been expected more or less for over a decade. Germans are no more likely to be embittered to Americans for removing their forces than they were when the British or Canadians pulled out.

Towns like that are very dependant on such customers.

We see that here in the US as well. They are really on the level of 'college towns'. Very profitable suprisingly (you'd think both students and soldiers wouldn't be big spenders... but it ends up they buy lots of little stuff).

As far as Bitterness... that's really hard to say. The fall of such microeconomies in times of some tension (Iraq) could be hyped up by the media to create such bitterness. That's a very real possiblity. Take some merchants with 40%+ decline in revenue, some resturaunts, etc. put them on TV and see what happens.

British and Canada left on a bit better terms.

Montgomery bus boycott started quite small (and really little economic impact). But the ripple effect had a rather large impact on the southern economy overall. (it more importantly reshaped society for an entire nation). But there were many other little boycotts done to mirror this minor event. There were quite a few communities along the Mason-dixson line where community boycotts of segreated establishments or even communities where there was segregation led to their fall (and in some communities that turned a once prosperious neighborhood into a poor community).


This is 'power to the people'. The economy can be used to make a point. The African American community did a really revolutionary thing. What seemed to not have much of an impact economically (and being recorded as a symbolic movement) actually changed the shape of some communities around the nation using economic means.

Boycotts can be effective, and can be dangerious. It's something most large companies spend a very signifigant amount of time preventing. For good reason.


It won't send us into a depression... but the US really needs all the trade with the EU we could get (especially as the EU is growing and unifying).

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Good, then there is no need for US troops there. So we can redeploy them where they are needed from a US strategic point of view.

See, everybody is happy.

Yes and no.

The movement of U.S. troops out of any country that isn't U.S.A. makes everyone happy.

Movement of said troops *into* other countries that aren't the U.S.A. don't make everybody happy.

Keep 'em at home. Everybody's happy

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Towns like that are very dependant on such customers.

We see that here in the US as well. They are really on the level of 'college towns'. Very profitable suprisingly (you'd think both students and soldiers wouldn't be big spenders... but it ends up they buy lots of little stuff).

I have already explained that the US forces in Germany are mostly spread out quite thin. It's not like the communities that surround the enormous bases in the US. It's mostly quite large towns with a small military facility with maybe 3000 troops somewhere in it. The impact when the base (called a Kaserne) closes is negligible.

The places that I mentioned that will feel it -- Baumholder and Vilseck and places like that -- aren't towns. They are really villages. They will feel an impact. But the wider German economy will not.

At the end of the day, removing 70,000 troops from a country with a population of 82.4 million is negligible.

[SimeyTheLimey]

This is really bizarre. According to CNN, Democrats are criticizing the redeployments as "significantly undermin[ing] U.S. national security." I'm darned if I can see how troops is the Rhineland or Bavaria are in any way critically placed for US national security in 2004. What's the continuing strategic rationale for them there?

I have said before that the Democrats are stuck in a pre September 11 world. Now it seems they are stuck in a pre-1989 world! This is the party for Ichabod Crane!

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yes and no.

The movement of U.S. troops out of any country that isn't U.S.A. makes everyone happy.

Movement of said troops *into* other countries that aren't the U.S.A. don't make everybody happy.

Keep 'em at home. Everybody's happy

Yeah, tell that to Iceland.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, tell that to Iceland.

What *are* you talking about??

[voodoo]

...continued from Lerks thread http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...46#post2132346

- it was apparently too similar to this one even if it wasn't. <shrug> This is a reply to Lerkfish's last post in that thread.

Given the trend in polls and in Bush's continued abuse of power I have to agree with you that if he and his administration are desperate enough to hold the reigns for another 4 years the only thing they can do is invade. Iran probably.. Bush is already beginning to smell like the loser and certainly acts like one. The constant snipes at Kerry both by the Bush campaign and 'independant' entities such as the Swiftboat liars, FOX News etc is already backfiring. It is creating sympathy for Kerry instead of painting him as whatever the Bush campaign wants to paint him as.

Remember that only little over a year ago the Dems were utterly spineless, leaderless, hopeless and had already given up on putting up a fight against a slam dunk like George Bush. Things sure have changed - not least due to Howard Dean. Kerry just managed to ride the wave through and he's certainly a man I would like to see as the U.S. president. Apparently so would the majority of people in the U.S. according to polls all summer. The reason I'm saying this is to put the fear (I've got a thread about this somewhere) that practically shines from the Bush campaign into perspective. They know they've lost but won't accept it. Perhaps the Bush administration has given them hope - an invasion right before the election might just be the light at the end of the tunnel for the Bush campaign. Then again, perhaps - just perhaps the voters in the U.S. might see through such an obvious and callous political stunt. Even if the campaign itself falls withing PNAC policies the timing would be way suspicious.

The golden child of the neocons is losing the country to some nobody from Massachusetts! Inconceivable. Truth is stranger than fiction eh?

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by voodoo:
What *are* you talking about??

They practically begged for a US base there, to boost their economy. Ask Logic.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
They practically begged for a US base there, to boost their economy. Ask Logic.

True, now that you mention it I remember that debate.

[Lerkfish]

I"ll provide the antecedent to your reply:

The republicans are sweating. That's why the Swift boat attacks, attacking Theresa heinz-kerry, etc, and the full court press. they have access to more accurate polls and they realize they are losing the youth vote quickly, and that vets aren't firmly in their pocket like they'd want. There are many veterans issues they have trampled on, and even though right wing vets may blindly support them to a point, they've reached that point with overextension of the guard units in hostile Iraq, not addressing vet benefits domestically, and any vet worth his salt knows that Iraq is a quagmire that is rapidly producing bodies instead of results. That's why they're hitting kerry hard on his war record, playing to the vet's outrage, hoping that will push them over.
In order to see where they're hurting, you have to see where they're hitting: Veterans, safety issues, terrorism alerts, it all adds up to one thing: embroiling us in a major conflict right before the election, so that people (they think) will be relunctant to switch horses midapocalypse. It might work for them, after all, but I think they've squandered what little credibility they might have had, and the swift boat liars are so easily debunked.

The neocons have failed in Iraq to be on the schedule they wanted, so they know the paleoconservatives will need some sort of standard to rally on...it can't be Iraq, because that's not working.

Also, they can't afford to mount a ground war in Iran, there's not enough time to get in place, I imagine the beginning will be massive "shock and awe" bombings of high yield munition bombs -- MOABS, and even "tactical" nukes....bunker busters.

Its going to be a really hot time and no fun for Tehran....
I think the original plan was to defrost Osama, but I think even they realize that would fall flat.

I'm thinking that THEY are thinking the only sure option they have to hold onto power is full tilt assualt on Iran. The rhetoric underpinnings are already in place, they've already whispered about "terra" connections

Originally posted by voodoo:
...continued from Lerks thread http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...46#post2132346

- it was apparently too similar to this one even if it wasn't. <shrug> This is a reply to Lerkfish's last post in that thread.

Given the trend in polls and in Bush's continued abuse of power I have to agree with you that if he and his administration are desperate enough to hold the reigns for another 4 years the only thing they can do is invade. Iran probably.. Bush is already beginning to smell like the loser and certainly acts like one. The constant snipes at Kerry both by the Bush campaign and 'independant' entities such as the Swiftboat liars, FOX News etc is already backfiring. It is creating sympathy for Kerry instead of painting him as whatever the Bush campaign wants to paint him as.

Remember that only little over a year ago the Dems were utterly spineless, leaderless, hopeless and had already given up on putting up a fight against a slam dunk like George Bush. Things sure have changed - not least due to Howard Dean. Kerry just managed to ride the wave through and he's certainly a man I would like to see as the U.S. president. Apparently so would the majority of people in the U.S. according to polls all summer. The reason I'm saying this is to put the fear (I've got a thread about this somewhere) that practically shines from the Bush campaign into perspective. They know they've lost but won't accept it. Perhaps the Bush administration has given them hope - an invasion right before the election might just be the light at the end of the tunnel for the Bush campaign. Then again, perhaps - just perhaps the voters in the U.S. might see through such an obvious and callous political stunt. Even if the campaign itself falls withing PNAC policies the timing would be way suspicious.

The golden child of the neocons is losing the country to some nobody from Massachusetts! Inconceivable. Truth is stranger than fiction eh?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm thinking that THEY are thinking the only sure option they have to hold onto power is full tilt assualt on Iran. The rhetoric underpinnings are already in place, they've already whispered about "terra" connections

Not gonna happen. As far as I know the president can't declare war against another country without letting congress decide for it. And even though the congress is dominated by the republicans, they won't be able to get the majority for it (yes, republicans will vote against it), without a major terroristic act upon the US that is financed and guided by Iran.

Besides, Iran is not a country like Iraq that got bogged down by 12 years of embargo, and Iran also has a good-developed air-force, and eventhough Iran is only a half-democracy, at least it is a democracy and as such the iranians are much more willing to fight for their country than the iraqis under the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Syria on the other hand is much more likely to be the next victim for liberation, though I don't think it will happen this year.

Taliesin

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
And even though the congress is dominated by the republicans, they won't be able to get the majority for it (yes, republicans will vote against it), without a major terroristic act upon the US that is financed and guided by Iran.

Some of the terrorists/foreign jihadists in Iraq are being financed and supplied by Iran I've read. Sounds like a good enough reason to me.

[CreepingDeth]

Yes. Congress declares war. President can use troops.
Lerk, this might help.
You are so paranoid. You forget "They'll assassinate Kerry and eat your babies."

I think Iran would come before N Korea.

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Some of the terrorists/foreign jihadists in Iraq are being financed and supplied by Iran I've read. Sounds like a good enough reason to me.

yeah rrrrright, fat chance.

this would be NOTHING like marching into iraq. the little support the us got worldwide, was because saddam was one of the worst and inhumane dictators of all time.

iran is something completely different...

[CreepingDeth]

Like what? Dictatorship? Theocracy?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:

iran is something completely different...

That's just getting technical. They're both evil. I'm sure there are many different shades/variations of "evil".

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Like what? Dictatorship? Theocracy?

i said iran, not usa...

[CreepingDeth]

You're clever. Not really. See, in your messed up mind, the US is worse than the ****ing Middle Eastern murderers. Right?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
That's just getting technical. They're both evil. I'm sure there are many different shades/variations of "evil".

"evil"?...ehrmmm...this is not 390 a.d. and we're not talking about invading the visigoths...

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
See, in your messed up mind, the US is worse than the ****ing Middle Eastern murderers. Right?

do know anybody from iran? have you ever met any iranians?

you don't know what the fu<k you are talking about.

yes, i do believe that bush and especially cheney are "basically" the same kind of slime as those "middle eastern murderers". the only difference is their technological superiority.

they're both a bunch of misguided, imperialist, religio-fascist theocrats.

the people of iran is a different story. most of them aren't too keen on their current islamic govt., but the last thing they want is ANY US INVOLVEMENT.

the us would be well advised to heed this request.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
You're clever. Not really. See, in your messed up mind, the US is worse than the ****ing Middle Eastern murderers. Right?

Off course the US is worse than the middle-eastern-regimes, because most of these murderous regimes were installed, trained and financed by the US for decades. These murderous regimes should control and suppress the arabic populations while the US and the west in general benefit from the ressources from there.

Taliesin

[PacHead]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
"evil"?...ehrmmm...this is not 390 a.d. and we're not talking about invading the visigoths...

Actually, you are spot on. Many of those middle eastern dictatorship run, fascist religious states act like it is 390 A.D.

[djohnson]

What do yall want? A President that does nothing but turn this into a socialist country?

[phoenixboy70]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Actually, you are spot on. Many of those middle eastern dictatorship run, fascist religious states act like it is 390 A.D.

actually now that you mention it, the only country that's really acting like it was 2000 years ago is the us.

nobody wants a pax americana. nobody wants imperialism...and the more i think about it, if people like you actually represent what a majority (or even many americans) believe, i think it's a damn good thing that you're getting out of europe...and stay out!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Not gonna happen. As far as I know the president can't declare war against another country without letting congress decide for it. And even though the congress is dominated by the republicans, they won't be able to get the majority for it (yes, republicans will vote against it), without a major terroristic act upon the US that is financed and guided by Iran.

Besides, Iran is not a country like Iraq that got bogged down by 12 years of embargo, and Iran also has a good-developed air-force, and eventhough Iran is only a half-democracy, at least it is a democracy and as such the iranians are much more willing to fight for their country than the iraqis under the dictator Saddam Hussein.

Syria on the other hand is much more likely to be the next victim for liberation, though I don't think it will happen this year.

Taliesin

The president can attack or invade any country at will for a limited time, but he risks not receiving funding from congress. The loophole is to not call it a war ("incursion" was one of my favorite euphemisms), or to get a carte blanche for a war on a concept (the war on terror), which means you can redefine the enemy as it suits you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Some of the terrorists/foreign jihadists in Iraq are being financed and supplied by Iran I've read. Sounds like a good enough reason to me.

somehow, I get the impression "good enough reason" for you isn't that strict a requirement.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
"evil"?...ehrmmm...this is not 390 a.d. and we're not talking about invading the visigoths...

Almost...

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
actually now that you mention it, the only country that's really acting like it was 2000 years ago is the us.

nobody wants a pax americana. nobody wants imperialism...and the more i think about it, if people like you actually represent what a majority (or even many americans) believe, i think it's a damn good thing that you're getting out of europe...and stay out!

Someone needs to smack you. Go get a job and live in the real world.
The US is the most powerful country in the world for good reason.
The Middle East is a damn hellhole run my theocratic dictators that murder their people. They live like they have for hundreds of years, with few exceptions.

You can keep EUrope. It'll be the next Russia in 30 years, and you'll remember why we destroyed the USSR. The way your continent of tiny little countries have acted toward us, you don't deserve military help. Once you realize what your line of thought brings, then we'll talk.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by phoenixboy70:
actually now that you mention it, the only country that's really acting like it was 2000 years ago is the us.

nobody wants a pax americana. nobody wants imperialism...and the more i think about it, if people like you actually represent what a majority (or even many americans) believe, i think it's a damn good thing that you're getting out of europe...and stay out!

Good, and we can stop sending you financial aid too.