I believe they're referring to the war IN Iraq.
Again what war?
We are either fighting the country or not - so I assume that there is no war and the use of the word is a dumbed down saying to appease those people who can't tell the difference or know how to figure it out.
There was a war in Germany when we fought the Germans but when they gave up in April of '45 and they became a country again in 1949, does that mean between those two times we were still at war?
NOPE.
We are ending our occupation of Iraq. The difference is with Germany we told them we will have bases while in Iraq, we built some really great bases and we are just giving it to them.
Not so fast my friend (I've been watching College Game Day) - there are several options available that would hit them especially hard, not the least of which is an embargo on their imported refined gasoline.
BUT why?
The threat they pose is so much less than the threat on our southern border or did everyone seem to miss the decapitated people down there?
But what we would or could do depends on who sits in the Oval Office; the current occupant probably wouldn't do much of anything. Might be a different story with a Republican President with control of both houses of Congress.
Yep what difference. We can be a true republican/conservative country and follow the UN's lead or listen to our "allies" and gang up on them or we can actually act as a grown up country and worry about important things.
We could certainly invade Iran, and there's high percentage of the population that would support it if we've laid the right groundwork with the leadership of an insurgent movement.
Invade it for what purpose?
What reasoning outside of shear stupidity would be have to invade them?
I bet we would be in a protracted war that we would end up either using genocide to conclude or we would again walk away because we as a country don't seem to get our d*mn arrogance is part of the problem.
Added to this, the population there would most likely not go along with us, but they would protect their country and culture. Talking to Iranians and hearing their response - they feel is an attack on their country is an attack on them by the US, they do not seem to hesitate in their answer - they would fight us as if it was Iraq or anyone else.
One BIG reason for this is our meddling in their country in the first place which gave them the present regime. If we support the internal struggle by different means while not screwing around with their government, then there is a pretty good chance that the regime will fall.
One of Obama's many big foreign policy mistakes was not to support the most recent uprising of the Green movement a couple of years ago.
I wouldn't have either.
The stability that Qaddafi and others provided us is now gone and not one "expert" who has spoken in favor of the 'revolution' has actually any proof that Egypt or Libya will end up turning on us as it seems Pakistan is heading in that direction.
To me if we are hearing the word Support, it means foreign aid and the last time I looked these countries do not need our money unless there are specific strings attached and maybe one of them is to have a clear path to what they are going to do about some religious factions in their country and how they will eliminate them.
One thing that shows our ignorance and stupidity is this idea we need to go to Libya and help them form their new military, to what end would that serve our purpose?
I don't see any real reason what France or Italy shouldn't be doing that in our place, it is their oil we fought for, not the Libyan people's freedom.
We are in a bad position because we are not the one's who they are modeling their new government after, and after we stepped outside the boundaries of the UN resolution as being part of NATO, we are presented with a bigger problem - are we going to remain involved with every revolution that comes along or are we going to step out of the nation building business and turn that over to those closer to the countries that are trying to be formed?
BHO seems to be cowed by Iran, and they realize this.
Not really, it isn't a military thing, it is a diplomatic thing and I would be doing less as president to see where the internal problems that they have are going. When the true leader of the country says he may be eliminating the president's office - that means a lot, especially when they look around and seen what the guy did with the uprisings within their own border.
That's why IMHO they'll make whatever move they're planning sooner rather than later, before Obama is voted out next Nov.
I don't think the move will happen and if it does, where it may will be against their own sworn enemy - can you guess who that is?
It could be something in Iraq using Mookie Al-Sadr as a proxie, or it might be something less obvious like a move against Israel by a puppet group such as Hamas.
Well Hamas isn't a puppet group, they have their own say in a lot of this but I think that if they, Hamas, moves, it will be pretty dramatic seeing the latest things that Israel has been doing. If something happens in Iraq, oh well we did what we could and should have left a while ago but I think their PM is making a power move to save face by stopping negotiations for troops on the ground and in reality he is willing to give us what we want in order to keep a contingent group there.
0
And yes, I realize this is all idle speculation, but it's Saturday and it's a good day to be an a armchair quarterback - which I'm actually headed toward doing right now.
I do too to a point. I think part of the complacency in this country is sports and the distraction it provides but I'm p*ssed because I go to a game and have to fight crowds to get to the box.
