WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush envisions a long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq similar to the one in South Korea where American forces have helped keep an uneasy peace for more than 50 years, the White House said Wednesday. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-05-30-13-04-06
There won't be an 'easy peace' at all in the Middle East. The Arabs over there are a bunch of bratty little kids when it comes to their land, especially since it has oil. I envision that 50 year troop presence idea as the fuel for WW3, if it hasn't started already.
I don't see how you can say that, Spider, we were in Germany and Japan longer than that ....and things turned out just wonderful for both nations. Baron Max
We were only in Germany to protect Europe from the USSR, and Japan was prevented from having a military. In both cases, peace prevailed before there were bases there.
Peace? Ya' mean after we kicked the livin' snot out of 'em? And see? That's what you lilly-livered, doo-gooder liberals won't let the US military do ...kick the livin' snot out of 'em. We coddle them, like little kids that we can't spank. Baron Max
That's because we aren't Nazis. In any case, military strategy has changed radically since WWII. We are no longer fighting armies, we are fighting ideologies. Al Quida is present in more than 80 countries. No amount of brute force can end this without converting more people to their cause. In fact, that was exactly the purpose of Al Quida's attacks. They meant not to draw us into a direct battle, but to overreact and use that as a recruiting tool.
Nazism was/is not an idealogy? And Japan's ruler at the time was considered to be a god ...that's not an idealogy? C'mon, Spider, you can use any excuses you wish, but it's really because we went into those nations and kicked the livin' snot out of 'em. Well, good ...let's just let the bastards do whatever they want and then we'll just pick up the dead bodies and pieces of humans, and go on about our lives witout another thought about it. What the hell, if there's nothing we can do, then ...let's just let them do what they want. You've convinced me, Spider. Baron Max
False choices. It's not brute force/nothing. Nazism was not a guerilla/insurgent movement, it had armies that could be fought.
I'm surprised no one has yet called your hand on this. Your title is a carefully worded distortion intended to provoke emotional reactions. He did NOT say "they should stay in Iraq 50 years" as you put it!! He was comparing it to Korea and saying that was a possibility. In no way, shape, form or fashion was he indicating that we SHOULD follow that path. Note that I'm NOT a Bush fan but neither do I have any respect at all for people like you who deliberately distort the truth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not that much of a distortion. It should say: Bush: Troops Should Stay in Iraq 50- if Necessary.
Any distortion is still a distortion. And especially when it's designed to fulfill someone's personal agenda.
No. It isn't a distortion. He categorically believes that US forces should follow the S. Korean model. US Troops have been there since the end of WW2. World War 2 ended in 1945.
How is this an admission of failure? I hate W, but the fact is that we should have all known the second we invaded that we'd be there for centuries. There is no way to level Iraq's military, and overthrow their government, and expect to walk away from it. I am completely against the war in Iraq, because it served no purpose in the war on terror, but our troops must remain there in some fashion, until the government can prove itself to be able to adequately defend themselves. That's what happens when you invade a country; same with Japan, and same with Germany. This isn't an argument of "should we have gone in or not" or even "an admission of failure", because the topic at hand has nothing to do with either; this has to do with helping this new government for as long as it needs the help. I believe we failed the second we went in, we never should have gone in at all. But we have to have a presence there from now until they don't need us. It's our obligation to the new government.
Speaking of distortion's, how can an AP writer honestly describe the Korean peninsula as having an "uneasy peace?"
Korea was failure then. An Iraq like that would be a failure now - and without the excuse of Chinese or Russian military force. Neither Korea, Germany, nor Japan had huge piles of natural resources coveted by all. In Korea, Germany, and Japan the US was keeping a worse enemy out - Russia, China. Korea, Germany, Japan were surrounded by enemies. The Iraqis, except possibly the Kurds (who are working with us better than the others) are surrounded by friends. In Germany, Japan the US did not "kick the snot out" of the people once the army was defeated. The US brought in lots of local language speakers, supported the local police, set up working and orderly government from day one as a very high priority. There was no Abu Ghraib, Bucca, etc, in those countries. When we kick the snot out of the ordinary Iraqis, AQ gains power. In Korea,Germany, Japan the US secured the military weapons and explosives and so forth immediately. Iraq is full of firearms and military grade explosive. War has changed - so has peace. We have kicked the snot out of Iraq. It hasn't worked very well. We were not fighting Iraq, the whole country and its people, in the first place. Allegedly. Now we are ?
