Elections in Iraq

Kerry’s Amnesia

Published on September 28, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Putting aside the violence midst the coming Iraqi elections, heavily entrenched and financially supported exile groups are dwarfing the influence of native Iraqi political groups, only furthering the bleak promise of free and fair elections. … It seems incredible that someone did not say to the president, “Excuse me, sir, but don’t you think we should finish the war in Afghanistan first?” The closest to this was Powell’s warning Bush that “if you break it you own it.” It is unfortunate that so many Americans think it is our war, not Bush’s. … Moreover, it is mystifying that we just don’t learn by the history of empires that in the end it is a losing struggle. Kerry, too, is guilty of forgetting his own youthful criticism of the Vietnam War by voting to authorize Bush’s war without bravely questioning the wisdom of it until now. … It is scary to think that just before 9/11 there were five incidents in which police had stopped the terrorists responsible for the tragedy and let them drive off after being ticketed for traffic violations, owing to inadequate integration of databases, which still are not in play to this day — that’s not just scary, it is outrageous. … How can there still be 46% of the public who believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? I’m hoping they don’t vote because ill-informed voters are as dangerous as our blindly informed politicians.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

Comments (Page 2)

Texas Wahine

on Sep 29, 2004

The Army's actually reconfiguring things now, and within the span of several years the troops stationed in Germany (they are there at a duty station, not on deployment orders) will be brought home. The point is, we were still at war with another nation when we got started up in Iraq . . . a war that is still being fought. We are not at war with Germany.

messybuu

on Sep 29, 2004

Exactly. We're not at war with Germany, and they haven't WMDs or been of any threat for decades. It's unwise to start one war when there's another war happening, but it makes absolutely no sense to have troops occupying Germany, whether on deployment orders or at a duty station.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 29, 2004

No disagreement here.

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 29, 2004

Though it could serve as a forward deployment point for that part of the world, after all would you like to travel straight from the US to Iraq, or US to Germany to Iraq? Germany is kept more of as a staging point for forward deployment. Korea would be the better example or Bosnia, or Kosovo? Though Japan is the same situation as Germany, Japan serves as a forward deployment point for the Pacific.

Though I may have the terminology wrong, maybe called something else, like a logistical point or something.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

Texas Wahine

on Sep 29, 2004

Good point, GX, but how large a presence do you think is neccessary?

Lee1776

on Sep 29, 2004

The Military was in Germany as a balence to the old USSR. But the big plan is to move the staging area to the Baulkens. This helps in four ways.

1. Moves the deployment/staging areas closer to the hot spots of the world.

2. Provides the local economies in the area a needed boost.

3. Provides a stablizing Force to prevent them from killing each other again.

4. Keeps a sizable force near NATO, filling our requirments for assistance there if needed (I'm not sure what from, Oh wait the French, they are the only ones whos forces are not helping us in some way elsewhere in the world. hmmm, I'll have to take note of that.)

The Airbase will be the only thing left soon, but I think that will be closed here within the next ten years also.

I think it's a win win situation for us to move. The only thing I don't like is the fact that Germany is one of the best Duty Stationings there is.

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 29, 2004

Good point, GX, but how large a presence do you think is neccessary?

Corrected after I actually looked at the Army site: It is usually a 'Corps' sized force, i.e. I Corps is in Fort Lewis and will be moving to Japan once they have been outfitted in the new modular formation. The remants of VII Corps (?), 1 Inf Div and parts of 1st Armor Div are in Germany.
What do you think is an adequate force size for an emergency deployment, personally I would rather have a core or multiple Brigade Combat Teams or Division (?) in a Forward Point that could be deployed or hold the point until the bulk of the forces from US arrive there, refuel and move out.

Though I think a person more enlightened to logistics would know better.

As for the move to the Balkan powder keg, initially it will suck for them, but eventually as the region economy improves so shall the region, and eventually it won't be that bad of place, also you can still drive from the Balkans to Germany if you really want to go to Germany.

For the corps names, I haven't paid attention nor remember who was who and where they were. Just checked on it and Lee reminded me.

- GX
"I have no answers to your questions, but I can question your demands." - Motto Inspired by Laibach's WAT

Lee1776

on Sep 29, 2004

Most likely a Corp built only with the 1st Inf. Div. that is already in Germany. They will add a few small elements to realy be called a Corp though. As for the Corp name, I think they are playing with the 7th Corp.

stevendedalus

on Sep 30, 2004

Germany is kept more of as a staging point for forward deployment.

Yes, that's exactly what it was for to swiftly deploy troops as it did in Bosnia and Kosovo, not to mention Desert Storm. The visible presence of US troops in South Korea has substantilly prevented incursions by north. Though for deployment Okinawa would be better for Pacific and far eastern troubles.

Grim Xiozan

on Sep 30, 2004

The visible presence of US troops in South Korea has substantilly prevented incursions by north.

I think troops in South Korea is more of deterrent than actual forward point, after all as long as the US is there in South Korea, Ole Kimmy Boy will not try anything funny, we hope, though it would be nice to SEE China take a harsher stance with Kimmy boy.

- GX

stevendedalus

on Oct 01, 2004

Agreed, China has got to rid itself of its nagging alliance with NK ever since the Korean War.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!