Slashdot Mirror
US Troops To Leave Iraq By End of Year
mayberry42 writes with news that President Obama has announced an end to the U.S. military engagement in Iraq. All U.S. soldiers will leave Iraq by the end of the year.
"Mr. Obama said that as of Jan. 1, 2012, the United States and Iraq would begin 'a normal relationship between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect.' In a videoconference on Friday morning with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Mr. Obama told him of the administration’s decision, which grows out of an inability of the United States and Iraq to come to an agreement on leaving a few thousand military trainers in the country. The United States had earlier agreed to exit Iraq by the end of the year and leave 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq as trainers, with some members of Congress advocating the retention of a reduced fighting force as well. But Pentagon lawyers insisted that the Iraqi Parliament grant immunity from legal prosecution to the troops if they were to remain."
They are machines, and they carry weapons, No soldiers present.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Why do you need immunity if you're not planning to do anything wrong?
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
This is NOT the first time an administration has said that.
Until it actually happens, I won't believe them.
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
China, for varied definitions of "china". Though it's not exactly a fair comparison.
But nice try, troll.
Since 1776 or since 3000 BC?
The CB App. What's your 20?
War is over, country is destroyed. Time to send corporations to rebuild it, and do it 'the american way' (tm) this time.
Which country has freed more countries? US or China?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
When we went into Afghanistan, I told my friends we were entering into an era of Pax Americana.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Regarding the summary:
When I learned arithmetic, 3 to 5 thousand remaining was not "all".
That should clear out the profiteering contractors...
When we went into Afghanistan, I told my friends we were entering into an era of Pax Americana.
Then you were at least 50 years too late.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
My bad. I misread the article.
You didn't RTFA (standard practice) but you didn't RTFS either. The whole reason this is news is because the US will NOT be leaving 5000 troops behind. The administration was unable to reach an agreement granting immunity to US troops, and so will instead be leaving behind only about 150, to "assist with arms sales."
None of the articles I read mentioned contractors, though, so your number on that is probably not far off.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
Unless they renegotiate the security deal at the last moment. Politicians the world over seemed to like to make last minute deals so that both sides can claim victory.
In recent years- the US.
However, I am sure if China were the global super-power and the US just an emerging power we would see the numbers reversed.
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?
Japan? Taiwan? South Korea? Singapore? Indonesia? India?
China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
There will be 5,500 mercenaries and 17,000 "individuals," working for the embassy. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/5500-mercs-to-protect-u-s-fortresses-in-iraq/
giggity
With several friends having just been called up to be deployed in Afghanistan, I'm still just a bit cynical about any talks of ending the wars. I'll believe it when it happens.
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Let's welcome them home from this situation properly -- with pomp and circumstance. To say they deserve at least that much is an understatement. If we can manage to make this happen for the Yankees, then we need to make sure it happens for the troops.
http://www.change.org/petitions/nyc-mayors-office-welcome-home-parade-in-canyon-of-heroes-for-iraq-vets
Simple really, because the guys in power now may not be the guys in power tomorrow and things they have done may not be acceptable later.
Plus accidents do and will happen. If these troops were forced to defend themselves they should not have to do so with the specter of prosecution hanging over their heads. The bad guys aren't beyond using innocents to setup a situation
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Soldiers still have to answer to US laws (theoretically of course). This just means they wouldn't have to answer to Iraqi laws. Imagine if Iraq passed a law that said all women must wear long pants and decides to arrest a female soldier in shorts.
After a long financial struggle, Obama's bank opened their doors after 4 years of being closed....
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/718/e901619124c2411380500fc.jpg/
>rape, pillage and murder with no consequences
The military tries and jails people for those things. They just don't want the locals doing it.
Define freed? Does tearing down an oppressive organization that will later be replaced by another that will be similarly oppressive? The problem with another group winning your freedom for you, especially in the middle east is that people that are used to being oppressed and enslaved, the oppressed middle eastern countries, are like girls with an abusive father. They grow up move out, and move in with an equally abusive boyfriend. A white knight "saves" her from the abusive boyfriend, he goes to jail or whatever, without massive amounts of therapy, guess where she'll be in 2 years. 9 times out of 10, with a new abusive husband.
Not a valid comparison. For one thing, the U.S. itself acts as an inhibitor for Chinese overseas-aggression. But my main point is, it's only relevant to compare against nations that had similar military & diplomatic supremacy -- such as the USSR (sort of), or the British Empire, or Germany. I doubt that Sweden for example would be the same peaceful loving country if its position were swapped with the United States of America.
The embassy constitutes US soil within a foreign land. Troops stationed there are technically on 'American soil'. For the same reason, we can firmly declare that we have no troops occupying Cuba even though there are thousands of Troops at Guantanamo Bay. It is US soil.
China at various times has conquered most of central and Southeast Asia.
It's not up to the US. The current Iraqi government wants US troops out. That's their decision,and they made it. This isn't new news; it's been underway for almost two years.
Yeah, god knows they might convict someone.
Funny how the loudest and most outspoken critics have never worn a uniform.
Rape, pillage and murder? Lets take any city in the us thats similar to the size of baghdad and compare the number of rapes between the two cities.
Do you know that a female with an exposed face or a female caught going somewhere without a male escort is a crime in most middle eastern countries. How would you feel if every female american soldier was put in jail and placed on trial for these crimes? I'm sure you wouldnt care because you would never have to leave the safety of your computer chair.
You obviously just spurt mindless bullshit from your fingers and have no idea what is actually going on in the world.
Written by an american soldier in Iraq.
I'm not criticizing the soldiers at all, actually. I'm just making a cynical joke of our foreign policy, which has, quite frankly, become a cynical joke.
give us the right to rape, pillage and murder with no consequences
Those things would be handled by a military tribunal. The immunity is sought in order to prevent US soldiers from being hanged by a foreign court that hates them, for a minor offense. A reasonable demand IMHO, as we did just overthrow their country, there is plenty of, justifiable, hate towards Americans there.
How does going into a war mean a period of peace? How does that make any sense? Maybe you don't know what the Pax Romana was?
Just want to say thanks for having the balls to go into a miserable situation and put your ass on the line for a bunch of people you don't know and then had to stay for reasons very few knew about.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
We have a part of a cemetery in France holding the bodies of US soldiers we executed during WWII for breaking the rules, mostly rape and murder.
Now, let's get them home from Afghanistan, too. As much as I'd like to see the Afghan people have a safe and stable democracy, 10 years is too long and too many Americans have died. We seem to be having better luck with drones and missiles. Bring *all* the troops home now!
I don't particularly have a lot of love for the President, but why do they continually call him "Mr. Obama"? If they can't respect the man, that's fine, but at least respect the office. Hopefully I'm not being overly pedantic...
I seem to recall one way that our beloved leaders have gotten around it is by sending in more "peace-keeping", "training", or "support" forces instead. And of course our dear friends from Blackwater as contractors can be there forever shooting up the place without being counted as troops.
In other words we probably won't see any meaningful change from this, just as we haven't seen any meaningful change from anything else that has actually been done by Obama since taking office.
Go ahead, mod me down now. But I dare you to try to prove me wrong.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
How much was this decision influenced by WikiLeaks and bad PR this nonsensical war is bringing to Mr. Obama for next elections?
839*929
I don't CARE if MOST of the troops leave...
What seems important to me and I hope many people is what is it COSTING us now and after some more troops leave? if one guy is still there, but 10 military bases are being powered and run, and supplies are still flowing in, it's wasting an already bloated budget.
-
This site is not really about the news stories, it is about the comments.
You can read about the news on a million different websites, but you can only get the nerds perspective here.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Become a solider so you can help these things not happen!
Not to defend China too much, but it's quite worth noting that China spends a far smaller percent of its GDP on its military than the US does. The official Chinese military budget for 2010 was under 90B, although estimates peg actual spending between 100 and 150 billion. The US does a bit of off-books military budgeting, too, such as putting nuclear weapons in the DOE and having war spending come as supplementals. Overall, the US spends about 6x on the military what China spends, but has under 3x the GDP.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
What do you call the last war before a long period of peace? That's right, it's called a 'war'.
I disagree with the GP post tho. I also disagree with yours.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Opportunity to use cool Centurion helmet icon.
You're right, why even bother?
I guess "no hope" > "some hope" in your world.
It looked good when I was writing it? I am usually a wizard of perfect grammar; please forgive me AC.
Erm, no. I think if everyone quit becoming soldiers it would help these things not happen.
If all the US American soldiers will go, who will search for WMD? And who will implement democracy in the Iraq? I thought you guys attacked the Iraq because they had WMD and besides that you wanted democracy for the poor people of the Iraq.
FTFY
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Indeed, why let it? Was the bit about burying WMDs in the desert too subtle an indicator that this wasn't mean to be taken too seriously?
more like cut back certain types of military activity.
There is no way the troops are leaving though, I can assure you that is not going to happen any time soon.
If anything the major news networks will be instructed to carry less news about the military activities in Iraq, there by making it seem like nothing much is happening over there.
My largest concern, is something I couldn't see now, way back when we initially started getting into the Middle east. But now, if you look at the agenda, and who has gained over the past 15 years of war, it is clear why will _never_ leave.
Iraq is now the base of operations in the middle east for control.
Libya will now be AFRICOM head quarters where the US can launch strikes deep into Africa, because that is what they are going to do next.
It is clear whoever is behind this military action wants, basically 3 things in Africa:
1) GOLD.
2) OIL
3) CONTROL
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Probably true of Germany compared to Britain in 1933.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You can't stop "rape, pillage and murder with no consequences" with a slashdot post.
You're right, why even bother?
I guess "no hope" > "some hope" in your world.
Your point is a good one, but can only hold water in a vacuum. "Freeing" countries involves war: blood spilled, innocents killed, things blown up, cities turned rubble. Hope is good, sure, but when you're going to order people into graves and nullify great amounts of energy building a society, I'd like a little more evidence of net good than just "some hope".
More Twoson than Cupertino
I doubt that a peaceful loving [sic] country like Sweden would end up in the same position as the USA, but there you go.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That is absurd, bordering on racist and misogynist. Its very similar to arguments made against ending slavery in the USA in the middle of the 19 th century.
Of course that doesn't mean that any war is automatically justified if its to free people. A look at St Augustine's principle of a Just war is a good starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The Middle East's problem is that the oppressive governments prevent the populace from having organizations and institutions that can stand up and help create a better government.
Usually, the only organized group is a fundamental Islamist one, because they're the oppressive government stamped out any other political competition.
As for the women, unless you have hard statistics to back up your claims, what you're saying sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Who is this?
Google search didn't turn up too much on the name...is he a rapper or something?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When the first world war started, in the summer of 1914, everybody thought it would be over by Christmas.
Which was true. November 1918 is before Christmas 1918.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hold out long enough and America will give up and send the troops somewhere else.
FTFY
1933, Ger. 4% /GDP, Eng. 2.5% (approx.), both rising sharply the entire decade.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/eloranta.military
http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/eloantra004.gif
http://eh.net/files/graphics/encyclopedia/eloantra005.gif
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power? I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?
Uh, same as the US? Resources, strategic locations, egomania and creating markets for the military industry?
China has grievences or claims against all of the above- if the US didn't have a military presence- all the above may have felt the wrath of China by now.
That's speculation. I can not disprove them, though I don't think the Chinese are entire irrational, and probably realize that most of these countries are more valuable to them as partners and markets than they are as battlegrounds.
Seriously, the US has invaded and bombed a ton of countries since WW2 (about 50, I think). The funny thing about all of them is that at least at the respective times none of them were important market places for US industries.
The main legacy of the two world wars was that they demonstrated how much modern wars are about attrition and economy. The US didn't win WW1 because they had the better soldiers (they didn't, in fact the first deployments were pretty much slaughtered like cattle, until the army radically changed their training methods) nor did it win WW2 because it had the superior technology (why do you think so many german scientists and engineer found new homes in the USA after the war?). They won because their industrial and military output, as the only major war participant unaffected by bombings or invading forces, surpassed the Axis. They could afford to lose 2 planes for every 1 german, because they could still ramp up production. A look at the production numbers on a timeline makes it trivial to see that the war turned around almost precisely at the point in time where Allied military production became larger than Axis production.
Everyone but the US has since realized that we can do the same thing without the ugly war distraction. Especially the Chinese. They have enough military and enough interesting toys (nukes, sunburn missiles, etc.) to make sure only a fool would want a war with them, but the real conflict is fought in the factories and universities.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You can read about the news on a million different websites, but you can only get the Slashdot groupthink perspective here.
FTFY.
Advice: on VPS providers
It has about the same level of effect as joining the military would. (Essentially none)
In any case, the whole point of my post was a cynical and sarcastic jab at US foreign policy. I'm surprised that everyone's trying to pick it apart as if I was serious. :/
But they WILL be subject to that countries laws.
Such is the life of a Merc. Want the glorious pay?
and it's turning out to be one hell of a blizzcon this year!
Let me be the first to declare, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Got Saddam, got bin Laden (basically the same guy right?), ended the Iraq war.
Wait... somebody beat me to it? By HOW many years?
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
That article at wired.com and I was talking to someone that worked military and other similar (now retired and living in France), he mentioned we have a problem when our embassies have to be fortresses. If you have a home in a neighborhood that has to be a fortress and protected by "goons" then it is you that has a problem and not the neighborhood.
mfwright@batnet.com
Only an idiot would really honour the US constitution. It's a fucking stupid document and the US works despite rather than because of it.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If all the American soldiers leave, who will search for the WMDs? And who will implement democracy in the Iraq? I thought you guys attacked Iraq because they had WMDs and besides that you wanted democracy for the poor people of Iraq.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
It bothers me that all of the "announcements" that I am reading make this look like a decision made for the good of the country by the Obama administration. This is just not the case. As much as I am not a GWB fan the truth of the matter is that the Dec 31 2011 date for removing combat troops from Iraq was set by a a strategic framework and security agreement between the Bush administration white house and the Iraqi's in November of 2008. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/11/20081127-2.html Pentagon officials under the Obama administration have actually been trying to get the Iraqi's to extend this date since may/june of last year but they (Iraqi government) will not ALLOW us to stay any longer in combat capacity.
I partially agree with you that the amount of housecleaning the former government did is a large factor. The part on women though is not blaming the victim, it is basic psychology in how the human mind works. People tend to stick to what they are used to, and wind up repeating roles. In the scenario I gave, it is not the woman's fault, if anyone would be to blame directly in that example it would be the abusive father that adjusted the hypothetical person to it. It dosn't take any research or source to know that humans, do not always or even often gravitate towards the healthiest relationship, but every relationship going back to the parent effects their tendencies. People who were abused (of both genders), tend to move to relationships that will also be abusive. The underlying cause for why someone gets into a relationship, if they are not dealt with, will cause a leaning towards returning to the same situation. It takes a change of the way they have been thinking for years, some people quickly learn their lesson the first time, most will repeat the same mistake a few times.
I did not say either was impossible. Women do get out of that situation all the time, usually after an abusive relationship is broken off, they get years of therapy, and work to change the way they think. When you mass scale it from a person to a country... it takes alot more years. Basically the 2 sane options are. 1. Agree to lock in, keep thousands of troops there for 20 years or so to stabilize the country, or 2 note that it is a more or less lost cause. Sending countless of your own people to their grave, and millions of other people's money, then walking away turning your head accomplishes nothing for them, and costs you greatly. Banning slavery within the US was fairly easy by comparison, mainly because it was the US chosing to ban it, and the US stayed around to keep it enforced. Now what if slavery in the US were ended by lets say, the french sailing to america, declaring war on the US, winning the war and leaving, do you think there is any assurance it would have stayed abolished?
The exit path is through Iran. This comes too quickly after the recent all-Senate closed door hearings (after the Iranian-Drug cartel Saudi murder plot). Ever since we hit Iraq, I've been saying that the long term executive goal was to pressure Iran from both sides (or wait for them to do something stupid).
Quite true. As I understand it, members of the United States military are subject to the uniform code of military justice, and we typically require soldiers to have immunity from local laws as a condition of us maintaining a military base on foreign soil. In the case of Iraq, they as a sovereign nation decided not to grant that immunity, so we're leaving.
I'm not so sure what the situation is for contractors. I believe there were a few embarrassing events where private security personnel killed civilians and, not being subject to either local laws or the UCMJ, there was no way to charge them with a crime. I don't know if Iraq has relinquished immunity from contractors since then.
There are all kinds of factors to that, though.
China can throw bodies into a conflict. They have huge numbers and they don't give shit one about using them. That's some cheap ass warfare compared to how we do things. And it means one less mouth to feed for them.
China isn't policing the oceans of pretty much the entire world.
China doesn't have bases scattered all over the world nor is it acting as other countries' military.
China has the US to keep it in check in places it would like to be involved in (pretty much any country within 100 miles of its borders).
And let's not forget they've been ramping up in a big way and will continue to do so. They're just waiting for us to blink.
The reality is the only thing holding China back for the last 60 years has been the USSR and the US. It's way more expensive for us to contain them than it is for them to wait.
The US (or more correctly the Allies) also won because the Soviet Union kept fighting, even after losing a shitload of soldiers (to say nothing of civilians) in fighting the Axis forces. Arguably they couldn't have done it without US industrial support (especially trucks), but that is what actually broke the German war machine.
(Yes, not the point of the comment, and somewhat informed people will know this, but the shorted version: "The US singlehandedly won WW II" is a pet peeve of mine.)
Yeah, either you're seriously ignorant or just trolling.
because inside every brown person is an American....
It's okay, I'm sure he's using a prophylactic.
BM3
Sounds like a hegemony is expensive to maintain....
BM3
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power?
We like to view China as an up-and-comer, but they're really a been-there-done-that situation. It's a 3000 year old country. They have a lot of strife and violence in their history for sure. That said, when it comes down to it, they've demonstrated the ability to have size and resources and power without letting it get to their head. Relative to their size and might, they've not demonstrated Britain's colonization drive, or the US's preference for invading random countries from time to time just to stay in shape.
Now, I'd rather be a US citizen than a Chinese citizen, don't get me wrong. It's just that if I were a resident of some small weak country that was neither? I'd be more afraid of the US than the Chinese.
Hooray! Now the can stop hating us for interfering in their country and begin hating us for leaving them hanging. Just like we did in Afghanistan, which pissed off Osama Bin Ladin enough for him to declare a Jihad against us.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Don't forget that military law is very strictly followed and absolutely vicious in its penalties. There are numerous instances in which crimes are silenced or covered up at the unit level, but once the wheels get rolling the JAG will cremate your ass. A friend of mine was killed downtown by a soldier driving drunk. Because he was off-duty and off-base at the time he was tried in civilian court, resulting in a two year sentence and a dishonorable discharge. I was told he could easily have gotten life in the stockade if it had happened on-base and he'd thus been tried by an advocate.
I don't really appreciate it when people conflate the cover ups and obstructionist solidarity that occurs between enlisted men with lax discipline and global, willful ignorance of criminal behavior throughout the command. Not being prosecuting because your sergeant helped you cover it up is one thing, and common enough, but officers rarely tolerate such a cover up when they find out, and in cases actually prosecuted military justice is usually too harsh, not too lax.
If you're saying it's more transparent and more satisfying to the parent to see them tried locally then I suppose that's possible. But if you're arguing that military sentences are lax then you'd be dead wrong. "Unspecified disciplinary action" sounds like you believe it will all be swept under the rug, but if the solider has actually been turned over to the provost marshal and shipped home his life is over. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not fuck around, and soldiers don't get off easily.
It's a problem with our military, and with any military operating abroad, for crimes off-base to be covered up within platoons or reported by the foreign national to a service member who, whether acting honorably or not, doesn't correctly refer it to the military police. But even implying that the official procedure doesn't sufficiently investigate and punish the crimes of service members is dead wrong. In many cases the punishment is far more than people would receive in civilian courts, either American or those of the host country, and it's almost never less.
You're right, of course, and I didn't intend to say that. However, russia alone would've likely fought to an impasse. They had lost not only thousands of trains, but also much of their industrial capabilities. The germans suffered massive losses on the eastern front, but the russians suffered worse, and were losing production capabilities. They stopped the "unstoppable" german war machine, but the price was horrible.
But even had there been peace in the east, the war in western Europe would've still been lost by the Axis, due to sheer numbers. The price, however, would've been several times higher without the russians.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Try searching for Kevin Smith and Clerks first. Or just read this: http://www.whysanity.net/monos/clerks5.html
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
The agreement did not say that we couldn't withdraw any time that we want .... just that we could only stay so long .... the agreement says we cannot stay beyond dec 31 2011 in a combat roll without their expressed permission ... which our president has been asking for for 6 months.
Actually, per capita deaths by war were far less in the past ten years than in quite possibly all of recorded history.
TFA is from the New York Times; the NYT seems to have a habit of using this kind of phrasing for many public figures.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Kuwait may count; I don't know how oppressive it is. South Korea too. What's China's count? Maybe North Korea, depending on your viewpoint?
What about mine do you disagree with? Pax Romana was hundreds of years in relative peace after years of civil wars and expansion. Pax Americana has been used many times before (like after the Civil War and again after WWII) but it never has lasted anywhere near as long - and going to war in Afghanistan obviously is contradictory to peace.
Riiiight, it don't have a thing to do with all that oil, and the shitload of minerals found under Afghanistan, perish the thought! Nope just helping brown people because inside every brown person is an American just waiting to get out....it seems like I've heard that before somewhere.
No oil under Afghanistan that I know of, but the Russians tried taking it over so they could build a pipeline from the Siberian oil fields to the Indian Ocean, chopping off a couple thousand miles of pipeline needed if they were going to rout it to Archangel. And on top of it, they'd get to load their tankers in calmer waters than the subArtic Pacific...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Tell it to Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, etc. It's easy to be cynical, but it looks to me like the Neo-cons are well on the way to creating an anchor democracy in the mideast and the dictatorships surrounding it are crumbling. Reading the same cynical one-liner subjects as nine years ago... looks like 1954.
Gently reply
Which country has attacked more countries. US or China?
Let's use a different set of metrics:
Which country has killed more people?
and
Which country has executed more of its own citizens?
Would you want to live in a world where China was the only global super power?
We like to view China as an up-and-comer, but they're really a been-there-done-that situation. It's a 3000 year old country. They have a lot of strife and violence in their history for sure. That said, when it comes down to it, they've demonstrated the ability to have size and resources and power without letting it get to their head. Relative to their size and might, they've not demonstrated Britain's colonization drive, or the US's preference for invading random countries from time to time just to stay in shape.
Yeah, they had the size in the past, but never really had the power. Remember, back then, their tech was used mostly in supporting all those people they had even back then. China's been one of the most populated areas throughout known history. Feeding all those people with Dark Ages technology wasnt easy.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The price, however, would've been several times higher without the russians.
The price would have been roughly the same. It's just that we would have been paying it instead of the Russian.s
You're the only one here who doesn't understand the Pax Romana. The Pax Romana was NOT a period of peace FOR the Roman Empire. It was a period of peace WITHIN the Roman Empire. There were constant border wars in the far-flung territories all the way through the period. There was peace IN THE CITY OF ROME (and really all of Italy, Greece, Spain, Gaul, and the African Provinces--in the Middle East, Britain, Dacia, and Germania there wars aplenty). That is what the Pax Romana was.
It should be noted that in comparison to the russian losses, these "massive" german losses you cite are a drop in the ocean.
The german average kill rate per soldier for german:russian was 1:26.
Yes, for every one german that died, 26 russians died. Not including civilians.
Nope, its a greek bronze helmet, from a few centuries earlier than Rome
I thought it was a lame reference to Star Wars, but one thing's sure - with friends like him you don't need enemies.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
you said:
[quote]How does going into a war mean a period of peace?[quote]
That is what I disagree with. The [i]pax romana[/i] was won by agressive expansionism, and wars to pacify the provinces. That placed it in a state where peace could largely be enjoyed throughout the empire.
It could therfore be argued that the war in Afganistan could mark the start of a [i]pax americana[/i].
Of course, the peace was kept through propaganda and social engineering, but that's a story for another time.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Troops may leave, yes.
But the rest remains.
Do you think Obomba will leave the oil alone?
USA 'Foreign policy' is a chain of fake stuff that provokes severe retaliation; even after decades they don't get it.
Fluoride?
I realize this is from a computer game, but it's true nonetheless : "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
No, it's a quote from Thomas Jefferson, but some other parts of your post sound like they came from a computer game.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
At least you're recognizing any claim or right excercised by the US in the last century (cause the US is at war for the last century, not recent years) is utter B.S.
Let me tell you, killing can't be justified; simply because there is no moral base to justify it on. Human universal rights aren't a menu a la carte.
As for the score US. vs China, China is still 2 nukes behind.
Yes, ancient Chinese maps show themselves as the centre of the universe for good reason. China had trade routes all over the Indian ocean as far away as Africa and the middle east before the Europeans had managed to round Cape Horn. It's a simple twist of fate that one of their Emperor's basically disbanded their navy in the 15th (?) century just as Europe started exploring the worlds oceans in earnest. Had they maintained their navy they would have had the jump on Europe's colonisation of the far east by several centuries.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
>> Define freed
As in the liberation of France.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
>> I wouldn't want to see what China's motivation for war would be?
Resources. Perceived threats. Taiwan.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
That may be, but it is likely that future historians will refer to the period beginning shortly after WWII until some date in the future (current trends suggest near future, but that is up to the American electorate) as "Pax Americana".
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Crap.
One could give immunity from soldiering such a self defence, but not from theft, rape, or other violent crimes.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
"go home" was just a generalization, how about "get bored and wander off" instead?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And what most anti-war propagandists fail to mention is that in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian deaths are higher because the other side doesn't play by the Geneva convention. They live amongst the population and don't wear uniforms, making it very difficult to determine who is the bad guy and who isn't.
The group most responsible for civilian deaths in these areas are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of their cowardly nature to hide among women and children and not identify themselves. Allied forces live in camps and wear uniforms, making them easy targets, yet are quickly condemned by the anti-war group if they so much as think about doing anything that might possibly harm a civilian. Yet they never bring the same condemnation against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who are the real cause of deaths among the local population.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
No oil under Afghanistan that I know of, but the Russians tried taking it over so they could build a pipeline from the Siberian oil fields to the Indian Ocean, chopping off a couple thousand miles of pipeline needed if they were going to rout it to Archangel. And on top of it, they'd get to load their tankers in calmer waters than the subArtic Pacific...
Exploitable wealth is not always oil. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all
Why should people who were defending a country that was invaded be vilified for defending that country? If Cuba rolled into the USA, perhaps bombing your home in the process, would you stand by and let them do whatever they liked to you and yours just because you're not wearing a uniform? Because if that's the case, you're a worthless human being.
We had exactly *one* justification subsequent to 9/11; that would have been to address Saudi Arabia in some fashion, where 15 of the 9/11 cultist fanatics came from, where the funding came from, and where the cult that supplied the initial and supporting ideology -- and which the country is based upon -- makes its state-supported home. Those issues combine to make 9/11 the directly obvious (blatantly obvious, in fact) responsibility of the Saudi Arabian nation.
But we didn't respond properly. Instead, we attacked Iraq for entirely fabricated reasons, and Afghanistan using reasoning that is the approximate equal of attacking England because an enemy's officer was educated at the War Studies Department of King's College London.
In the end, we have addressed neither the root of the problem -- which is the cult of Islam -- or the specifics -- which is the wealthy Saudi Arabian state promoting and funding the utterly reprehensible actions of that very cult.
And in the meantime, those people currently in Guantanamo... they can be, as described above, either criminals (and therefore should be on a fast track to a courtroom) or prisoners of war. There is no other valid reason for holding them, and each of those possibilities comes with a well defined understanding and rules of how they should be treated on a day to day basis. And before anyone screeches "terrorist", terrorism is a crime, end of story.
Not to mention the damage we have done to our own system by inflicting various cripplings on our liberties and freedoms, expending huge amounts of treasure for no useful result, and deceiving our own citizens.
It's been like watching idiots and children trying to solve a problem that is completely beyond them. Or congress. But I repeat myself.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
IMO Libya falls into that category. They did 70% of the legwork themselves. That strikes me as them standing up and showing they are ready for a change. Iraq, Afghanistan and pretty much everything else around there, I'm not so optimistic on. IMO freedom has to be earned, you can have some outside assistance but if you don't do the bulk of it, it just dosn't work. Who here wants to imagine telling with pride a story of America earning it's independence from Brittan, if our story were more like "And then the colonists hid inside their bunkers while the french defeated the british". French revolution, same thing. Admitted modern times don't bode as well for that (Due to the rapidly increasing gap between war weapons available to the government, and normal weaponry available to the people.
And what most anti-war propagandists fail to mention is that in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilian deaths are higher because the other side doesn't play by the Geneva convention. They live amongst the population and don't wear uniforms, making it very difficult to determine who is the bad guy and who isn't.
The group most responsible for civilian deaths in these areas are the Taliban and Al-Qaeda because of their cowardly nature to hide among women and children and not identify themselves. Allied forces live in camps and wear uniforms, making them easy targets, yet are quickly condemned by the anti-war group if they so much as think about doing anything that might possibly harm a civilian. Yet they never bring the same condemnation against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who are the real cause of deaths among the local population.
Not to mention the Taliban and Al-Qaeda specifically target civilians because they are easy targets (yes, even in the local population; if the targets are wealthy and can be ransomed or if they're not wearing the right clothing).
I'd say. If people are driving by blowing up bombs at my gate and lobbing grenades and satchel charges over my wall, that's obviously a problem.
Who is we? We won't be getting anything except the bill. A few rich fuckers will get richer though.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Pax Romana was a time of little expansion - sure there were minor wars/skirmishes but there wasn't the rapid expansion as under and before Julius Caesar. It was a time of relative peace and lack of expansion. There is no such thing as complete peace in any time of known human history.
But the start of the Pax Romana was AFTER all the big expansion wars. You are saying that Afghanistan was the last major colonialist war that the US is ever going to get into? That seems highly optimistic.
And "social engineering" is the only way we are ever going to end this "war on terrorism". We are undoing the engineering done by the Muslim extremists who are twisting the Koran (and at time contradicting it) to their own ends. If you read "Three cups of Tea" or "Stones for Schools" you'll start to think the only way to win is to educate their women.
"between two sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect"
Whether it's the US and China or the US and Iraq, there is the definition equal partnership. Neither respects the US (Hell, most Americans have no respect for the US) and the feeling is mutual.
We lease Guantanamo Bay, so technically it remains cuban soil. That is how we excuse the horrible things we there.
I will believe the troops are coming home from Iraq when the troops come home from Germany! When they stop constructing billion dollar bases in Iraq. When Israel stops using oil that they don't have. When the US protects the Kurdish people as promised. In general, when the USA stops behaving as bullies and thugs. When citizenship is stripped from the same corporations who depleted the US treasury to their own benefit. When the US rebuilds Iraq as promised. When we sop killing our own people without trial or charge. etc etc etc
Once again, Sir, I disagreed with the original post you replied to. Clearly, Afganistan was not the 'last major colonialist war' as it was quickly followed by a trillion-dollar Iraqi war.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.