"if it takes us a year and a half to move the American military from place to place, how do we launch invasions in the first place?"
During the Democratic debates, the same party who campaigned on the politics of ending Bush' illegal War in Iraq, yet failed to defund it when they gained a majority, the most commonly used slogan of all these candidates was some sortof sobering, logistic reality for how long it really takes to end a military conflict police action like this. The timeframes varied from 90 days to a year and a half.
lets break this down. Lets say a politician said to you, "guys, we're ending this thing in Iraq, the military there will no longer be responsible for policing or engaging insurgents, and we have enacted a plan to bring them home A.S.A.P."
if the plan to bring them home involved flight plans, ship movement, and travel arrangements taking from 3 months to a year and a half, but they were removed from the dangerous area to a nearby safer territory, and remained there not in engagement against insurgents, would we consider the war, continuing?
of course not.
we have troops that remain in Germany, bases near Japan, and many theaters of WWII to this DAY! do we consider this a continuation of the WWII conflict? of course not. (although the sad thing is it probably is, on some level)
essentially, they know you don't really understand the physical schematics of how to move military troops around, and in a state of peace, does it really matter?
the reason why your sold this TIMELINE thing: to justify keeping them there even longer, possibly for other things.
who wants to use the military in other places?
who can you trust to fucking leave these people alone!
the mainstream Republicans(neocons) are giving you no impression its them, they will use as much as a nuclear first strike against Iran if you let them, and stay in Iraq as an occupying power until the media forgets we're there. They wouldn't mind taking a stab at Lybia, Syria, or China also. The mainstream Democrats won't take that off the table, and some of them have other wicked warmongering plots on the backburner, Joe Biden and Obama, most notably, with Obama recently calling for bullying Pakistan to do our work for us with Osama bin Ladin, or well come in there against their will. Invading our more powerful nuclear allies is like an Iraq times an Iraq; that's supposed to appeal to young voters as a Hope for Change?. And DARFUR. don't forget, when we pick sides in a "genocide"...we got another BOSNIA and KOSOVO.
Bosnia and Kosova is to Clinton and Demopublicans, as Iraq and Iran are to Bush and the Republocrats. One is the HUMAN RIGHTS flavored warmongering imperialism, the other is the ANTI TERRORIST flavored one. they both taste like ichor and human blood.
be careful with that SAVE DARFUR stuff. make sure the people behind it aren't lobbying for military intervention.
and isn't it funny that the ONLY PERSON who said what the Americans wanted to hear on the war was at the REPUBLICAN debates.
On Aug 5, at the Iowa Debates, Ron Paul dropped the bomb with what will probably be a slogan of the American Antiwar movement. When asked what he would do about iraq, he answered "Just Come Home". The plastic Ken doll mormon Mitt Romney tried to tackle him with 911 rhetoric during his antiwar message, with which Ron Paul stiffarmed him with his own 5 years of military service during Vietnam, a similar type of ordeal, and showing how good we're doing with them now after leaving there too.(Romney and Guiliani definately used shifty political moves to avoid draft eligability, so they obviously would have to back down and stay quiet, look at that as a threat to turn the issue to who actually served?)
The crazy thing is the MASSIVE cheer this message got him, at the REPUBLICAN debates.