Imagine . . .

[CuteOldGuy]

Something to consider:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ePHhnTfkxrQ

Maybe there is a reason they hate us?

[Anon3x]

Very thought provoking, good job COG.

[TexTushHog]

Absolutely correct in it's analysis. I'm nor sure it's Ron Paul, however. It sounds like a computer generated voice. If it's Paul, why is the audio so poor?

[CuteOldGuy]

It's Ron Paul. I think it was delivered in the House during special orders.

[Jackie S]

As a veteran who was stationed in several countrys, (Vietnam, Germany), I always felt they hated us being there.

But then they also hated the alternative, which at that time was the Red Horde taking over everything.

I have mixed feelings about this. We stayed in West Germany aftewr WW-2 in order to bolster it's defense, the same can be said for Japan. There was a genuine threat at that time.

But, what the heck are we doing there now? With our modern deployment methods, we can be anywhere in short time. And with all of the new Preditor Drone technology, taking out individule enemies is just a push button away.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

But, what the heck are we doing there now? With our modern deployment methods, we can be anywhere in short time. And with all of the new Preditor Drone technology, taking out individule enemies is just a push button away.

Post WWII those countries were prohibited by their "constitutions" to project militarily beyond their borders, and the presence was to "monitor" but also to provide deterrence in the event a third party desired to stir up problems and attack a weakened country with a practically nonexistent military. The also had restrictions on the number and types of military "equipment" (including vessels), as they did Post WWI.

[That was, and is, a problem with respect to "any coalition" participaton by those countries. There "fighting" mode was restricted.]

Strategically, during the cold war, it was convenient to establish bases close to the "communist" borders to monitor activity, which was sometimes done "unannounced" and "unnoticed" ... I do not believe we have the capability to launch an extensive ground assault from the U.S. mainland without relays of refueling opportunties across the globe, so the presence of our cooperative military bases is a two-fer. Additionally, places like Germany provide excellent close medical care in a protected environment.

Additionally, there is a strategic advantage of having assets placed in various parts of the world to avoid the consequences of a "first strike" against the U.S. mainland that might cripple our ability to respond before a "second strike" ...

In the 911 hearings there was a somewhat lengthy discussion about responses in the 90's and the members of the Clinton administration related the difficulty of obtaining permission to fly over Pakistani territory for instance and it was a deterrent to any ground assault. Bush II had to improvise using assets out of Japan to make the first assault on Afghanistan.

Reagan had a similar issue with Spain when he ordered attacks on Libya. Since then we have had a joint based in North Africa with the French, from which U.S. and French war planes fly together ... pre-911.

Bush II had a conflict with the Turks, who apparently changed their minds regarding access to Norhtern Iraq through Turkey.

It is unrealistic to protect this country and its interests from our mainland. It is also frustrated by the relative openness of our society and the ever present media attention that is generated when bases locally start "gearing up" .... it is much easier in restricted, closed societies and places at a distance from the U.S. mainland and "dependents" or family. There are contractors who live abroad with multiple passports so they can come and go without the tracking of U.S. airports and local curiosity.

[I B Hankering]

Hell! You don't have to go to Iraq to find malevolent hatred and discord for the U.S. military among the public. Just go to Fayetteville, NC. The civilians there will give you an ear-full on what's wrong with a nearby U.S. military base . . . even as they bank the money they get paid servicing that community. Then you have TTH and WTF here and other worthless shits like Senator Boxer, et al, in Congress to consider.

Even the British complained during WWII about U.S.soldiers stationed in England. They used to say, "U.S. troops were over sexed, over paid and over here."

U.S. troops would reply that the British were "Under paid, under sexed and under Eisenhower"

"If you want peace, prepare for war" ~ Vegetius.

[TexTushHog]

I'm sure that the Germans have mixed emotions about our military presence. But our troops in Germany don't bust into homes during the dark of the night on a regular basis, kill civilians by the thousands, etc. That is not an apt comparison to the disasters in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Texaspride74]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Absolutely correct in it's analysis. I'm nor sure it's Ron Paul, however. It sounds like a computer generated voice. If it's Paul, why is the audio so poor?

Yeah, it is from a Ron Paul speech in the House and there are quite a few different versions of it out there.

[anaximander]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I'm sure that the Germans have mixed emotions about our military presence. But our troops in Germany don't bust into homes during the dark of the night on a regular basis, kill civilians by the thousands, etc. That is not an apt comparison to the disasters in Iraq or Afghanistan.

How dare you attack the valor of our soldiers.
Our boys have done nothing of the scale and
order that you seditiously claim.

I suggest not getting your news from
Al Jeezera. You sound no different
than the ilk from al queda that we are
fighting. Heck they could use your posts
as morale booster for their jihadis.

Ron Pauls speech loses much impact
after being translated from fharsi.
Not enough flegm spitting.

[TexTushHog]

Are you on drugs?? That's our version of what they're doing.

We do barge into houses at night. Of course the soldiers are looking for folks that are out there trying to kill them. But the folks who are trying to kill them are pissed because we're occupying their country. And when we barge in, women and children are, wait for it, sleeping. We don't know who the fuck is who, so we roust everybody, tie a few folks up. And we probably rummage through the house looking for intelligence. And it's just my guess, but I doubt we straighten everything back up just like we found it before we left. And how many innocent folks have to have their homes ransacked, their women and kids rousted, to find one bad guy? Five? Ten? Twenty-five? Who the fuck knows. I don't. And you don't either. That's why it's called a quagmire.

And how many civilians do you think have died because of our presence in Iraq over the course of the Iraq war? The best conservative numbers are around 100,000. There are those who say it's more like 500 or 600,000. But either way, it's a shit load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ody-count-iraq

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Are you on drugs?? That's our version of what they're doing.

We do barge into houses at night. Of course the soldiers are looking for folks that are out there trying to kill them. But the folks who are trying to kill them are pissed because we're occupying their country. And when we barge in, women and children are, wait for it, sleeping. We don't know who the fuck is who, so we roust everybody, tie a few folks up. And we probably rummage through the house looking for intelligence. And it's just my guess, but I doubt we straighten everything back up just like we found it before we left. And how many innocent folks have to have their homes ransacked, their women and kids rousted, to find one bad guy? Five? Ten? Twenty-five? Who the fuck knows. I don't. And you don't either. That's why it's called a quagmire.

And how many civilians do you think have died because of our presence in Iraq over the course of the Iraq war? The best conservative numbers are around 100,000. There are those who say it's more like 500 or 600,000. But either way, it's a shit load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ody-count-iraq

+1

[anaximander]

Wikipedia, the guardian, iragicrap.com....
heck you might as well have ak jeezera
and al queda. The leftist sources listed
are about as anti-american as you can get.
Which makes you no better repeating it.

Casualties in the two theaters of operations
a hard to calculate due to number of
forces involved as well as the guerilla
tactics of hiding among the people.
You want to attribute a body count to
our forces not at all dissimaliar from
Viet-Nam. Problem being we haven't
carpet bombed anyone or napalmed
any enemy villages.
A Marine fwd op base was overrun
because command refused air support
unless ground could be certain no
women or children would be affected.
Ground reported the women and children
were attacking with the jihadis.
Air support denied almost two dozen
Marines were lost due to battle protocol
issued by sheik hussein.

Our forces could be slaughtering scores
more of those rats. But cowards and women
lament our success and power.
So they tie our boys hands behind their
back; and use enemy propaganda
to sap our nation's will to fight.

Petreas is going to reassess how data
is gathered and reported. He wants to
use military intel instead of usual intel.
Critics charge that mil intel is a different
from std intel and paints too positive a
picture. Supporters say it's time the
State Dept quit the doom and gloom
everytime our military is used.

Death to communists and their sympathizers.
God will deal handily with the godless.
In that I am certain.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

We do barge into houses at night. Of course the soldiers are looking for folks that are out there trying to kill them. But the folks who are trying to kill them are pissed because we're occupying their country. And when we barge in, women and children are, wait for it, sleeping. We don't know who the fuck is who,

THEY "know who the fuck is who,"

... so if THEY would give them up THEY could get a good night's sleep.

If you are harboring a bank robber in this country don't whine when the door gets kicked at 2 in the morning, everyone gets "rousted," and some get searched, have weapons pointed at them, and some may even take a ride "down town" for outstanding warrants or outstading attitudes.

______________________________ ______________________________ __
I am beginning to smell the stench of John Kerry in this thread. I hope it disperses.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Are you on drugs?? That's our version of what they're doing.

We do barge into houses at night. Of course the soldiers are looking for folks that are out there trying to kill them. But the folks who are trying to kill them are pissed because we're occupying their country. And when we barge in, women and children are, wait for it, sleeping. We don't know who the fuck is who, so we roust everybody, tie a few folks up. And we probably rummage through the house looking for intelligence. And it's just my guess, but I doubt we straighten everything back up just like we found it before we left. And how many innocent folks have to have their homes ransacked, their women and kids rousted, to find one bad guy? Five? Ten? Twenty-five? Who the fuck knows. I don't. And you don't either. That's why it's called a quagmire.

And how many civilians do you think have died because of our presence in Iraq over the course of the Iraq war? The best conservative numbers are around 100,000. There are those who say it's more like 500 or 600,000. But either way, it's a shit load.

Your implication that U.S. troops are “kicking down doors and murdering thousands of civilians in the middle of the night” is complete and utter bullshit. A large portion of the Iraqi civilian deaths due to coalition forces were incurred in the chaotic opening weeks of the war. Subsequent to that period, the preponderance of Iraqi civilian deaths are directly attributable to anti-coalition forces.

Iraq Body Count project: 102,417 — 111,938 civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. March 2003 to August 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Iraq war logs: Classified US military documents released by WikiLeaks in October 2010, record Iraqi and Coalition military deaths between January 2004 and December 2009. The documents record 109,032 deaths broken down into "Civilian" (66,081 deaths), "Host Nation" (15,196 deaths),"Enemy" (23,984 deaths), and "Friendly" (3,771 deaths).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Suicide bombs have injured no fewer than 30,644 Iraqi civilians [fully a third of those who been killed using Iraq Body Count or nearly half of those killed using the WikiLeaks numbers]. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysi...s/lancet-2011/

Suicide bombers in Iraq kill significantly more Iraqi civilians than coalition soldiers. Among civilians, children are more likely to die than adults when injured by suicide bombs. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...023-4/fulltext

This chart illustrates that since the end of the conventional war in Iraq, anti-coalition forces are consistently killing more civilians than coalition forces.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...10-deaths#data

More over, the present circumstances besetting the Iraqis, while not close to ideal, are better than when under Saddam.

The widespread use of chemical weapons, the wholesale destruction of some 2,000 villages, and slaughter of around 50,000 rural Kurds, by the most conservative estimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdish

In 1991, some 60,000 to 100,000 Shia Arabs were killed Saddam’s forces in southern Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_r...ssein%27s_Iraq

. . . . Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people [1,000,000 deaths equates to about 42,000 deaths per year during Saddam’s twenty-four year reign – and this site: http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html says it could be as high as 2,000,000] . . . .

MORE recently, according to Iraqis who fled to Jordan and other neighboring countries, scores of women have been executed under a new twist in a "return to faith" campaign proclaimed by Mr. Hussein. Aimed at bolstering his support across the Islamic world, the campaign led early on to a ban on drinking alcohol in public. Then, some time in the last two years, it widened to include the public killing of accused prostitutes.

Often, the executions have been carried out by the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary group headed by Mr. Hussein's oldest son, 38-year-old Uday. These men, masked and clad in black, make the women kneel in busy city squares, along crowded sidewalks, or in neighborhood plots, then behead them with swords. The families of some victims have claimed they were innocent of any crime save that of criticizing Mr. Hussein.
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2...27_saddam.html

Though Iraqis have called for Americans to leave from the start of the occupation in 2003, the prospect of such a drastic drawdown, from the 48,000 troops here now, has revealed another side of the Iraqi psyche. This is a nation that distrusts itself, with little faith in the government’s own security forces or political leaders. It is as if people here never actually believed that the United States would leave, so all along demands for a pullout were never carefully weighed against the potential fallout.

“They [U.S. troops] bring a balance to Iraqi society,” Mr. Maamouri said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/wo...pagewanted=all

Once again, your argument wilts under the harsh reality of facts.