Iraq isn't so isolated

whats my point, everyone says we are too stretched out for our own good, too busy in IRAQ to do anything,
but if you look at the map, we are actually closer to every country that matters than if our men were at home here,
couldn't they deploy faster from IRAQ than from our mainland, to EUROPE or RUSSIA OR GEORGIA?

We have a lot of weapons there as well, easy to transport.

I will get to the point, aren't we actually in a better position to deploy troops having them on the ground closer to possible adversaries than having them here in america?

your actually right lol

this is all about strategic advantages, and if you really think about it, it makes perfect sense

the pentagon's very clever and they have thought this stuff out decades ago, i wouldnt doubt for one minute

maybe they figure america is safe from invasion due to secrets we dont know about, or establishment of the homeland defense org. I would guess they have something or someway to protect us, maybe it is us, we have alot of guns in america, and we get cranky when we get messed with, I dont know. But they would seem to me to be able to do more where they are then here spread out all over america seperate from there weapons.

Yup, it was all part of the NWO's Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The full plan used to be fully outlined on their website. One step was to gain strategic positioning in the Middle East, even if it meant creating a negative image of a leader of a country to generate a 'major theatre wars'.

thats why we invaded, not to look for WMDs. To have a base in the ME. Now we can attack without having to overfly as many countries.

I looked into finding a copy and did so right here in the archives

interesting reading

web.archive.org...

read this also about the EU and the USA

From its opening-line salvo—"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world"—Of Paradise and Power announces a new phase in the relationship between the United States and Europe. Robert Kagan begins this illuminating essay by laying out the general differences as he sees them: the U.S. is quicker to use military force, less patient with diplomacy, and more willing to coerce (or bribe) other nations in order to get a desired result. Europe, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on diplomacy, takes a much longer view of history and problem solving, and has greater faith in international law and cooperation. Kagan does not view these differences as the result of innate national character, but as a time-honored historical reality--the U.S. is merely behaving like the powerful nation it is, just as the great European nations once did when they ruled the world. Now, Europe must act multilaterally because it has no choice. The "UN Security Council is a substitute for the power they lack," he writes.

Kagan also emphasizes the inherent ironies present in the relationship. European nations have enjoyed an "American security guarantee" for nearly 60 years, allowing them to cut back on defense spending while criticizing the U.S. for not doing the same. Yet Europe relies upon the U.S. for protection. This has led America and Europe to view the same threats much differently, as evidenced by the split over how to deal with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Kagan points out that some European leaders are more afraid of how the U.S. will wield its power in the Middle East than they are of the thought of Hussein or other "rogue state" leaders acquiring weapons of mass destruction.




[edit on 19-8-2008 by Randy Echo]

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Randy Echo]