I don't think we are still in Mexico or France. For us to have a long term military presence in the heart of the middle east doesn't sound like a good idea for obvious reasons.
good evening there once again CometsWin.. I agree with you about what the muslims would say (unless they are educated and in which case most of them are not because they have been used to brainwashing techniques from muslim fundamentalists..)... But Iraq doesnt have to be like vietnam... vietnam became vietnam because we withdrew pre-maturely.... we won the war, we pushed back north vietnam to it's borders... then we withdrew knowing the facts thats south vietnam wasnt ready to stand up on its feet and Govern itself.... When we withdrew, North Vietnam took advantage and invaded the American Military-less South Vietnam with ease.... If we leave Iraq prematurely... thats exactly whats gonna happen... but, instead of north vietnam invading... it is Akmedinijad's Iran and Al Qaida who will invade Iraq... I agree that we have to end this War ASAP.... but we have to do it wisely...
There is a small US Military Presence in Tijuana and Baja California.. and in France, U.S. Special Forces (DELTA) helps train France's Special Forces
It's never personal with me, no worries. I respect what you gave up for this country - I only regret this country putting you in that position in the first place.
alright, let me clarify what i am saying....which is that ya know what, our president doesn't have to be a military general....because that's why you have a secretary of defense. In fact, many presidents didn't have foreign policy experience (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc) or much of else. But Obama is extremely intelligent, and clearly a masterful leader. He's a person who is worldly and yet in tune with the nations problems. And he does offer solutions based on pragmatic thinking - their is a constant theme is all his proposals. That makes him very qualified to me.
the military obviously doesnt think so or he wouldnt be the 2nd leading fundraiser from them after ron paul. you do realize texx, that the two most anti-war candidates are the leading fundraisers among active duty military, right?
you might want to ask the military, as they are donating more to him than any other candidate other than ron paul. texx, are the military now a bunch of "libs" for supporting obama?
can we make this post a sticky? the cover of Rolling Stone this month features a lead story titled "why the surge has failed" followed by a second on "McCain's plan for perpetual war" (i'm paraphrasing the latter). who can reasonably state our media is not biased both against the troops, but against their efforts to win? Yes we can....surrender and lose this war. or, we could resolve to win it and elect john mccain.
It doesn't really matter what Obama says he is going to do. His drones will support and vote for him no matter what.
As McCain put it deftly, where is Obama's 'audacity of hope' when it comes to the efforts of our military? The way Obama talks about how we are losing the war, how it's hopeless, how we should effectively neuter our troops' ability to win... that's not the audacity of hope. That's the timidity of despair. McCain summed it up nicely.
Thanks for your perspective. I would venture to guess that you're the only one posting in this thread that has been to Iraq since the invasion. On your Vietnam War example, though. Wouldn't you say that the way we handled the Vietnam War after it became clear that we weren't going to really defeat the communists was better for our National self-interest than the way we are still handling the Korean War? After we ended our involvement Vietnam, we left completely, the South Vietnamese were crushed and the North Vietnamese slaughtered hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese. Thirty years later, though, Vietnam is prosperous, reasonably free, open to US visits, and the entire country is a trading partner with the United States. In Korea, we kept our word and still spend tens of billions of dollars and significant troop commitments protecting South Korea from North Korea. South Korea is very prosperous, free, and a trading partner with the United States. The North Koreans are impoverished, oppressed by a horrible dictator, are refused trade by the United States, and they are developing ability to hit us with nuclear weapons. It seems like for us, getting completely out of Vietnam was better for our self-interest than staying in Korea. And I think I could make the argument getting out was better for Vietnam as a whole than staying has been for Korea as a whole. (That's certainly not true if we look at our allies only.) To me, it seems like long-term major troop commitment by Americans does two things: 1. It props up a foreign economy by subsidizing their defense with US tax dollars. It gives us a good trading partner, but at what cost. 2. It angers neighboring countries and either turns them against us or hardens feelings against us. This seems to be even more pronounced when we refuse to let American companies trade with those countries (like North Korea).
if a democrat wins. either one will eventually realize that immediate withdrawl is not practical as well as dangerous. the iraqi politicains are dragging their butts. they need to move faster. but we cant expect them to solve 100's years of built up animosity in a few years. if a republican wins the office he'll eventually realize that its time to raise taxes in order to pay for this war/reconstruction and veterans benefits (health, education...) you cant have your cake and eat it too.
you must post this repeatedly, brave soldier! I wish that I was killed on September 11 like basso, so I could mimic his resolve. Unfortunately I escaped death. And my posting doesn't show his grit and determination.
It isn't I who am insisting. I asked about it. It seems that the money flowing from the U.S. servicemen is going to Obama more than it is to McCain. So I asked why despite what the studies tell us, he believes differently. If you don't like the fact that servicemen are funding Obama more than McCain, talk to them.
