The U.S. must abandon the Middle East

I saw her pull the stunt as it was directed my way.

I too recall how we had linked the Egyptians to the Soviets. It was a long time that Egypt was cozy with the Soviets.

I wonder at her strident assertions from time to time.

 

Obviously, you fail to understand the roles of Yugoslavia, Libya, Tunisia and Syria in the grand scheme of things.

 

To protect the Petro-Dollar.

 

We are Americans. We can make it logical.

 

Sadly, there is an element of truth in what you say. Nevertheless, we still should leave. The cost is prohibitive.

 

you mean like we tried while bush was president? that obama completely reversed? that bush predicted would happen? good help doesnt come cheap, as much as thew left pretends taxing americans is always the answer.

 

Do you know how weak Mideast nations are? They are extremely weak, and the strongest Arab nations, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are our allies. Quit making excuses for the E.U. They are more than capable. Iran, a Persian nation, is above the fray. The E.U. would not have to confront Iran.

 

I don't understand your first sentence. My "long list" of false causes included three such lies, and I explained why they were outright lies after first informing you they existed. There wasn't an "or" involved.

I will never accept that Clinton is responsible for Bush's war. I have provided a great deal of evidence that Bush himself was responsible and that is patently obvious. He decided to invade Iraq and he was the Commander-in-Chief.

"The buck stops here."

 

I'm sorry, where is Don's address?

 

Sent to your pm mail box
[MENTION=71623]Sandy Shanks[/MENTION]

 

As I tell you, one more time, inserting the word OR in a sentence, gives an out.

I have not blamed Clinton for the actual invasion. I only point out it was not a single event, but a long chain of events. The congress had enough so voted for war.

Clinton herself voted for war.

 

Are you in West Covina or in Minnesota?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying when Bush yanked all those troops out, it was to not protect the Petro-Dollar?

 

It has nothing to do with strength and everything to do with logistical capabilities. Europe hasn't the capacity to field much more than a brigade or two at most in a foreign country and they US help to get that much there and supply it. Hell European force in Afghanistan while they were there didn't exceed much more than a freaking battalion combined. And they could only keep them supplied because the US airfoce was flying in food and supplies daily. Only the French and the Germans have anything like sufficient numbers to even have a reasonable shot of defending their own countries against a significant attack. You don't want to believe me go Read the various Jane's books on the subject. I try to keep up to date on this stuff but it is clear in spite of your other areas of expertise that you haven't the least clue about European military capabilities. Again European Armies are largely territotrial armies whose goal is to defend the homeland and little more. The entire British Tank force is some two hundred AFV. They are every bit as capable as an Abrams, Ditto the German Leopard II, The primary French MBT is either a joke or an amazingly innovative machine depending on who you talk to, it has as of yet no real combat record so it is hard to say. None of those countries has any capacity at all to deploy so much as a company sized unit over seas without significant US help (a company is roughly 14 to 17 tanks) The accompanying IFV necessary to support the tanks would require at least as much ship board capacity as the tanks and they don't have that either. And then there is the necessary support echelons for those units and there vehicles plus a couple of batteries of artillery. Aircraft and engineers. If the french had all they could do to keep an under strength Brigade in some Podunk West African country whose only weapons were some worn out AK's of various calibers, and the occasional antiquated, RPG, How do you think they'd fair keeping the same unit supplied in an area that is literally littered with every ex soviet company support weapon imaginable, and thousands of the latest and greatest RPG's and there is at least one AK in every hovel in the area?

 

Oh, okay.

 

I accept what you say. My point is what you are saying is irrelevant. We would warn our E.U. friends that we are withdrawing all ground troops from the Mideast. The E.U. would have to adjust to that set of circumstance. We would still be helping. We would still have air superiority over the Mideast and our fleet would still control the region.

"...they [will need] US help to get that much there and supply it." We can provide the amount of air support they need.

There is virtually no reason in the world why American troops must continue to die for the E.U. oil and natural gas needs, and Afghanistan is worthless. There is even a lesser reason for our troops to have to die there.

Bring them home and train them for the next mission, protecting the U.S. from foreign threats. Why is Putin beating his chest, taking Crimea, proxy forces controlling east Ukraine, and using naval and air assets in Syria? Because we are devoting a major part of our resources in the Mideast in a losing cause. Bear something in mind. Neither the U.S. nor Russia will be able to control the Mideast ever. The Mideast is a chaotic region and that has been so since the time of Mohammad. There is no light at the end of the tunnel.

We should withdraw our troops after we help the Iraqi army and the Peshmerga recapture Mosul. Syria is a failed nation and a totally lost cause. No matter what we do, Iran will remain within Iran's sphere of influence.

 

West Covina. CA. It's about 25 miles east of L.A.

 

Did I ever use "OR?" I don't recall doing so. I really don't understand your point.

Of course the Iraq story is "a long chain of events." It goes back to the Reagan Presidency. I never said anything different. That said, the U.S. began a war with Iraq in March 2003, and that is the focal point of our discussion here.

 

In late 2008, Bush signed a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with Iraq calling for the total withdrawal of our troops by the end of 2011. He signed that agreement because he finally recognized that the war was lost, and public opinion was heavily in favor of ending the war. By Aug. 2003, it had become an unpopular war. The plan the neocons and Bush sold the public was that it would be a short war.

It wasn't.

 

The war was very short. 3 weeks is a short war.

I don't mix up the war and the later insurgency.

But my earlier comment was not over Iraq. Bush stripped Europe of troops too. Those troops were what I commented on.

Look, Bush conquered Iraq. Bush ended Saddam's regime. This was desired by Clinton and virtually all Democrats.

The media gave the public an idea of a long war. They spoke of it as a long war. But they did not have facts to back them up.

 

I am not certain how you link Reagan to the war. When will you link Saddam Hussein to the war there?
I maintain Bush could not have started a war that was longstanding.

He did invade. We agree he did that. His invasion lasted 3 weeks. He took Saddam out of the picture. I say he did a very good job.

Today we don't need the no fly zones. We no longer hurl missiles at them. We really quit damaging Iraq other than what Obama is now doing to the country.

 

Speaking of air superiority, where was it on 911? We had under 10 airplanes that could defend this country on that day ready to go.

And they were to rally at a point 60 miles off shore.

I think almost all of us, if not all of us, desire we depart the ME. Bush fought not for oil, he fought for freedom. Most Americans are still fooling themselves if they think Bush waged war for oil.

Proof is we had ample time to simply seize Iraq oil yet we never touched a drop. It ended up sold to other countries.

When you claim air superiority in the ME, you must mean off Air Craft Carriers. But as I understand this, the Navy rotates them in and out of duty.

Air power can sure disrupt. But air power can't capture territory.

http://www.hoover.org/research/airpower-middle-east-contemporary-assessment

 

Muslims will kill each other even if we stay.

Just get the hell out, now!

 

I ran into some very interesting data today.

This site will not only inform you of oil, but keep using links, and you will get a large picture.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/oil-production-by-country.asp

 

Sorry, they'd as soon become become Putin's ugly step children, than lift a finger to stabilize the Middle East. Desert storm was likely Europe's last major adventure outside their boundaries.

 

LOLOL.. The British took Baghdad in a couple of weeks and then the wheels came off. The war lasted 20 years, The RAF gassed them.