gravenewworld
- 1,128
- 27
Greeaaattt, let's spend more tax dollars trying to conquer the world to mold more fake democracies the way we see fit.
mheslep said:Who or what are the 'fake' democracies?
gravenewworld said:We already did it once in Iran, do we really need to do it again?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/
Do we really want to spend a billions and billions of more tax dollars for more blow back up our butts?
Maybe we should just stay the hell out of other people's business and save billions in tax dollars in the process.
Bobbywhy said:Now that President Obama has said all US military will be out of Iraq by the end of this year WhoWee writes in post #51 above: “The President could have said he'd intended to leave by the end of the year - but the increasing Iranian threat must first be addressed. He could have made it clear the Iranians are not welcome to Iraq.”
I would like to know, please, what is the justification for the statement “Iranian threat”?
To analyze the relationship between Iraq and Iran it is useful to recognize the ethno-religious groups in their countries. In Iraq Shia Moslem Arabs are the majority, about 65%, followed by the Sunni Moslem Arabs (including Kurds), about 35%.
Iran is nearly 100% Shia Moslem, and mostly Persian. Since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 many Iraqi Shias have lived in and have been trained in Iran. Iran has provided logistic support for its “Shia brothers” next door. Presently the Iraqi government is a power-sharing arrangement with Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds rotating in the key positions. It seems natural to assume Iran today is far more satisfied with this configuration than it was with the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein, a Sunni.
From this I conclude that the US invasion of Iraq has actually helped Iran to join forces with the Iraqi Shia majority in opposition to the Sunni Moslem force based in Saudi Arabia. In my opinion it is presumptuous for any Westerner to decide who is not welcome to Iraq. That should be up to the Iraqis. More than presumptuous: purely arrogant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
mheslep said:Though I agree with the notion that US troops are excessively deployed oversees, that accounting is a bit silly as it counts the Marine detachments, maybe a ~dozen strong, assigned for security at all of the US embassies.
gravenewworld said:Greeaaattt, let's spend more tax dollars trying to conquer the world to mold more fake democracies the way we see fit.
gravenewworld said:Do we really want to spend a billions and billions of more tax dollars for more blow back up our butts?
Maybe we should just stay the hell out of other people's business and save billions in tax dollars in the process.
DD, I meant that embassies on the average have a ~dozen Marines or so, as you also indicate, and that it is silly to include the Marine embassy guards in a discussion about excessive US troop deployments.DoggerDan said:The Marine Corps Embassy Security Group provides all Marines stationed at U.S. Embassies. It's battalion-strength, which means it has been 300-1,200 Marines in it, total. In particularly, this Group has approx. 1,000 Marines stationed at 125 locations around the world. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/msgbn.htm)
That's hardly "silly" when the total number of Embassy Marines is less than 1/2 of 1% of military personnel stationed overseas. ...
What are these other successful forms?DoggerDan said:...This business of forcing democracy on other governments is for the birds, particularly when other forms have been successfully used for longer than we've been in business.