A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Found the post:



So, anyone want to argue that we were "occupying" Germany for an extended period after the war? (FYI, formally, occupation ended in '48, with Berlin being a special case). Or that we did not have a strong plan for dealing with Germany post-war? Or, perhaps most to the point, because it's what this was really all about, that we had a good plan for dealing with Iraq?

We are still occupying Germany. When the last troops leave it will be over. then we focus our attention on disengaging from Skorea.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We are still occupying Germany. When the last troops leave it will be over. then we focus our attention on disengaging from Skorea.

Shouldn't we leave Japan before that? And the south Pacific? FIFO and all . . .

Oh, and the South.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Didn't take long for the moonbat Left to start trying to steal votes:

It's votin' time in Philadelphia. Oh, the sun also rose this morning.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
Okay, back in the circle? There were certainly those in Germany who felt (and still feel) we are some sort of "occupying force." That's not particular to our presence somewhere post-any-war. You will find the same sentiment all over the world, by certain peole - see, eg., the Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Or are you suggesting that we should have had or could have had as relatively simple a time in Iraq as in Germany? The point I'd make is that nothing is ever that simple, and even in Germany, a much easier row to hoe than Iraq for myriad reasons, there was long-term resistance that we took seriously, armed against, drilled for and suffered as a result.

When exactly did we get out of Berlin, anyway?

I'm suggesting that the Bush administration should have planned more realistically and thoroughly for how to deal with the transition to post-Saddam rule in Iraq -- they should have had a clear plan, understood what they intended to do.

It was the neocons who though Iraq was going to be quite easy -- that we would be welcomed with open arms.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Shouldn't we leave Japan before that? And the south Pacific? FIFO and all . . .

Oh, and the South.

I stand corrected. well played, playa!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm suggesting that the Bush administration should have planned more realistically and thoroughly for how to deal with the transition to post-Saddam rule in Iraq -- they should have had a clear plan, understood what they intended to do.

It was the neocons who though Iraq was going to be quite easy -- that we would be welcomed with open arms.

can we get time extension in Iraq for the 3 years it took to beat Germany?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Shouldn't we leave Japan before that? And the south Pacific? FIFO and all . . .

Oh, and the South.

i invented that

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...578#post282578 but dropped the "didn't" instead of a "did."

[Southern Patriot]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Shouldn't we leave Japan before that? And the south Pacific? FIFO and all . . .

Oh, and the South.

Son, you may think you're occupying the South, but haven't you noticed that we took over your army?

All your bases belong to us.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by nononono
Okay, back in the circle? There were certainly those in Germany who felt (and still feel) we are some sort of "occupying force." That's not particular to our presence somewhere post-any-war. You will find the same sentiment all over the world, by certain peole - see, eg., the Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Or are you suggesting that we should have had or could have had as relatively simple a time in Iraq as in Germany? The point I'd make is that nothing is ever that simple, and even in Germany, a much easier row to hoe than Iraq for myriad reasons, there was long-term resistance that we took seriously, armed against, drilled for and suffered as a result.

When exactly did we get out of Berlin, anyway?

There is absolutely no comparison between the way US troops were treated in postwar Germany and in Iraq. Yes, there were occasional attacks on them (though I think that the targets were primarily the West German government, just as the Italian government was the target of the Red Brigades, and the Spanish government was the target of ETA). And, yes, we kept troops there for a long time.

But the troops weren't there to maintain order or to prop up the German government against any sort of underground Nazi movement. They were there for the simple reason that there were 200+ divisions of Soviet troops that were, it was feared, ready to roll across the border at a moment's notice.

And our troops in Germany didn't live exclusively in fortresses, unable to leave their bases except in armored convoys. Sure, the bases were secured, but many soldiers and their families lived in civilian German areas.

You want a historical analogy? Use the Philippines. We "liberated" them pretty quickly in 1898 when Admiral Dewey blasted the shit out of the Spanish fleet in Manilla, and then fought a brutal decade-long guerrilla war with insurgents who didn't like the fact that we had replaced the Spanish as overlords. Any US soldier found wandering alone after dark would likely have had his throat cut -- read some of the memoirs of the times. And the Philippines didn't get independence until 1946 and we occupied huge bases there until quite recently.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can we get time extension in Iraq for the 3 years it took to beat Germany?

Well, Bush has two more years to figure it out. I'm afraid you'll have to ask the American people for any kind of extension beyond that time.

Maybe he should listen to the editorials in all those military papers yesterday as one good way to start.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm suggesting that the Bush administration should have planned more realistically and thoroughly for how to deal with the transition to post-Saddam rule in Iraq -- they should have had a clear plan, understood what they intended to do.

It was the neocons who though Iraq was going to be quite easy -- that we would be welcomed with open arms.

So you think we should have been able to go in and get out of Iraq in 1/50th of the time it took to get out of Berlin, and 1/infinity (so far) of the time it's taken us to get out of everywhere else? The only place we got in and out of that quickly was Haiti, and how's that going?

You say it was the neocons who were naive about the process of total reconfiguration not only of a government and a country, but also the famous "hearts and minds," but now it's your arguments that suggest we've somehow failed by virtue of still being there. So, which is it: our plan was poorly thought-out and/or not executed effectively, or it was wrong to try to facilitate what we did?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
There is absolutely no comparison between the way US troops were treated in postwar Germany and in Iraq. Yes, there were occasional attacks on them (though I think that the targets were primarily the West German government, just as the Italian government was the target of the Red Brigades, and the Spanish government was the target of ETA). And, yes, we kept troops there for a long time.

But the troops weren't there to maintain order or to prop up the German government against any sort of underground Nazi movement. They were there for the simple reason that there were 200+ divisions of Soviet troops that were, it was feared, ready to roll across the border at a moment's notice.

And our troops in Germany didn't live exclusively in fortresses, unable to leave their bases except in armored convoys. Sure, the bases were secured, but many soldiers and their families lived in civilian German areas.

You want a historical analogy? Use the Philippines. We "liberated" them pretty quickly in 1898 when Admiral Dewey blasted the shit out of the Spanish fleet in Manilla, and then fought a brutal decade-long guerrilla war with insurgents who didn't like the fact that we had replaced the Spanish as overlords. Any US soldier found wandering alone after dark would likely have had his throat cut -- read some of the memoirs of the times. And the Philippines didn't get independence until 1946 and we occupied huge bases there until quite recently.

we don't want an analogy. GGG did, and now you're all back pedelling. Not Bob, a sock is known by the company he keeps. You are thoguht of as far better than this lot- piece of advice? don't be seen as GGG's toady.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
So you think we should have been able to go in and get out of Iraq in 1/50th of the time it took to get out of Berlin, and 1/infinity (so far) of the time it's taken us to get out of everywhere else? The only place we got in and out of that quickly was Haiti, and how's that going?

You say it was the neocons who were naive about the process of total reconfiguration not only of a government and a country, but also the famous "hearts and minds," but now it's your arguments that suggest we've somehow failed by virtue of still being there. So, which is it: our plan was poorly thought-out and/or not executed effectively, or it was wrong to try to facilitate what we did?

How many times did you post here before 2006? You could be in line for rookie newber of the year.....

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


a sock is known by the company he keeps.

.

2. BFF...

[nononono]

Originally posted by Not Bob
There is absolutely no comparison between the way US troops were treated in postwar Germany and in Iraq. Yes, there were occasional attacks on them (though I think that the targets were primarily the West German government, just as the Italian government was the target of the Red Brigades, and the Spanish government was the target of ETA). And, yes, we kept troops there for a long time.

But the troops weren't there to maintain order or to prop up the German government against any sort of underground Nazi movement. They were there for the simple reason that there were 200+ divisions of Soviet troops that were, it was feared, ready to roll across the border at a moment's notice.

And our troops in Germany didn't live exclusively in fortresses, unable to leave their bases except in armored convoys. Sure, the bases were secured, but many soldiers and their families lived in civilian German areas.

You want a historical analogy? Use the Philippines. We "liberated" them pretty quickly in 1898 when Admiral Dewey blasted the shit out of the Spanish fleet in Manilla, and then fought a brutal decade-long guerrilla war with insurgents who didn't like the fact that we had replaced the Spanish as overlords. Any US soldier found wandering alone after dark would likely have had his throat cut -- read some of the memoirs of the times. And the Philippines didn't get independence until 1946 and we occupied huge bases there until quite recently.

I didn't create the analogy. Someone suggested that the Marshall Plan was better than what we are doing in Iraq, as evidenced by the fact that we were out very quickly. The points have been made that a) we weren't out quickly and b) expecting one to behave like the other in any event is unrealistic. Germany was an easier place to be, and yet we remain there for a variety of reasons. Is it not possible that there are a variety of reasons for us still to be in Iraq?