Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

The American equipment used to fight in Iraq is being prepared for our withdrawl. I couldn't be happier. But I would like to proffer some distinct ideas.

First, I don't like our kids to die for political reasons. If there's an enemy in the world that needs killing (and there is also some compelling advantage for America) then by all means destroy the outlaw regime--but do it fast, effectively and from the air. We have long range bombers, like the B2 and the B1-B that take off from the our own country and can hit any target in the world and yet be back home within 30 hours.

None of this "boots on the ground" crap.

Secondly, we have to stop "caring" some much. It's time the world fought its own wars. For example, WWII was actually two wars. Our war was in the Pacific. If our resources would have been dedicated to that front alone, we could have designed effective bombs and bombers to deal with Japan earlier.

Why there are American graves from The Omaha Beach baffles and angers me. Wasn't France an ally? Why did we have to die to free the country they already occupied? Once we had the nuclear capability, we could have nuked Berlin--probably earlier in the conflict.

Finally, if we have to destroy something, why should I be taxed to repair the damage? I hope we leave Iraq and Afghanistan in its condition at war's end. These countries want us out, but oh by the way, leave your checkbook.

I read in our local newspaper today that an Iraqi general wants our presences there unti 2020. Why should we continue to die so he doesn't have to fight? There are stories that our soldiers had to hold guns on the ARVN troops to fight for their own country in Vietnam. Had I been President, local troops would fight first, then we'd clean up if necessary.

They do have problems, agreed. But I have problems here. There are too many American burials for soldiers dying for the needs of foreigners. I want my money where it belongs--in my wallet. I no longer wish to be bilked for "restoration."

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

Most people doubt there were altruistic motives behind those wars tbh. Weapons of mass destruction? Yeah right! Many think oil had more to do with it.

And you can't just carpet bomb a country - what about all the innocent civilians? Enough of them died as it is.

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

WWII was not two wars - it was only one until Pearl Harbour forced the USA to become involved. Tourist, have you ever spoken with a survivor from a Japanese p.o.w camp, or a survivor from camp in Poland and Germany ?

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

Sure you can. Look at Berlin and parts of Vietnam. One bomb crater on top of another.

There are no innocent victims. Either they work and/or pay taxes for their country's war effort or they stood by silently and let a despot obtain power.

I want my people to live. Did you ever see the movie "Patton"? The general stated, "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win my making the other SOB die for his country."

Let me see, which one should I choose, "American boys or terrorists who plant IEDs to kill American boys?"

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

I would take issue with that Tourist - there are innocent victims - the children are innocent victims for a start. War really does make monsters of us all and there is no such thing as a "good war". Even if sometimes becomes necessary to fight, nuclear armaments should never be used again by any country.

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

Where do I start?-the radar blips that showed forces approaching Pearl Harbour that nobody thought important?

The oil blockade on Japan? -Their behaviour in China?

And some of the best minds behind the `Manhatten` project were European -It was Einstein who wrote to the then President alerting him to the potential of nuclear weapons and Enrico Fermi behind the first controled chain reaction

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

All true. But it seems only the USA gets blamed for collateral damage when terrorists can kill anyone at anytime with impunity.

If that's the 'new order' of conflict, then I say "don't hate the playa, hate the game."

About ten years ago home invaders were bringing lawsuits against the property owners they attacked when they were paralyzed by the victims' use of hollowpoints. In other words they could bash you in the head with a crowbar and rape your wife, but merciful heavens, don't fight back.

I'm a jokester and the life of the party that believes in reciprocity. I see only cowards in the enemies that seek to tie my hands.

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

I wonder if the death penalty should be brought back here for terrorists and people who indiscriminately bomb and kill innocent people. I have no problem with any country retaliating when these atrocities are committed against their people. Up to a point I do believe in "an eye for an eye"

Again it's a bit like that here in England, the victims of crime have not been permitted to fight back and criminals have sued those who have. It is very unpopular not to be able to retaliate, but I think, through public opinion, things are beginning to change for cases when homes are invaded and violence is involved.

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

That very thing is now changed in many states. We now have what's known as "the castle doctrine." Based on the idea that a man's home is his castle, we no longer have to retreat. In many states a criminal cannot sue his victim for damages.

If you break into a man's home, he shoots, and your spine is damaged, 'oh well.'

That should have been the policy from the git-go. If you have a chance, google something outling the concept of "home invasion" in the USA. This is a brutal and often fatal crime.

Re: Military "draw down" in Iraq. Now what?

This is quite a difficult subject I think, and it does often seem the criminal gets away very lightly when cases come to court. As you will know we don't routinely own guns in our country and I am so pleased that we don't. I am not an aggressive or violent person and thankfully, England, I think, is still generally a safe place. Where I live I do feel very safe, but even if this wasn't the case I would only fight as a last resort. I could not shoot and ask questions later - even if someone broke into my home. I am no pacifist but violence only breeds violence.