Any combo of them, and for the purposes of justfication of establishing a defense platform, it really doesn’t matter much, does it?

Um, yeah it kind of does, because defending against Al Qaeda is completely different from defending against Iran. Having an anti-missle system is worthless if Al Qaeda is going to attack, and, and border checkpoints would be worthless if Iran was going to attack. If you don't know your enemy, you can't win.

Because there ar other people, also funded by Iran, Syria, and other orgs, dealing with that.

So you agree that Al Qaeda isn't an immediate threat to Israel. Good, we're making progress.

But all ahve been known to work together when it beneffitted their short term goals. And with the side switching we see going on even today, we have solid indication that’s going to continue.

But they also all know their long-term goals, and the Palestinians know that if they let Al Qaeda in, they'll never be free of their control. It's the same reason Hezbollah doesn't operate in Palestine.

With their goals accomplished in Iraq… a full takeover… they’d not NEED a proxy.

Iran already has a full country under their control, would having two suddenly give them more cause to directly attack Israel? I don't see it.

Well, which one?

Any combo of them, and for the purposes of justfication of establishing a defense platform, it really doesn't matter much, does it?

Al Qaeda has had plenty of opportunity to attack Israel, why haven’t they yet?

Because there ar other people, also funded by Iran, Syria, and other orgs, dealing with that.

Al Qaeda has had plenty of opportunity to attack Israel, why haven’t they yet? Because Al Qaeda doesn’t have any support inside Palestine. Hamas, Fatah, even Hezbollah, none of them like Al Qaeda.

But all ahve been known to work together when it beneffitted their short term goals. And with the side switching we see going on even today, we have solid indication that's going to continue.

Iran has been using proxies to fight Israel for years, and I’m not sure that Iraq, with no border with Israel, would provide them another proxy.

A proxy to that end is not what Iran would ahve in mind. With their goals accomplished in Iraq... a full takeover... they'd not NEED a proxy.

Well, no, I was talking about AQ/AQI, Iran, etc.

Well, which one? Al Qaeda has had plenty of opportunity to attack Israel, why haven't they yet? Because Al Qaeda doesn't have any support inside Palestine. Hamas, Fatah, even Hezbollah, none of them like Al Qaeda. No matter what happens in Iraq, Al Qaeda will be no more likely to attack Israel than they are today.

Iran has been using proxies to fight Israel for years, and I'm not sure that Iraq, with no border with Israel, would provide them another proxy.

Who, the Iraqis? No, I don’t think they’d be an immediate threat to Israel if we leave. I don’t believe anybody in Israel has made that case either.

Well, no, I was talking about AQ/AQI, Iran, etc. But to the point you made, consider the Palestinians. Would you consider that they've been causing serious issues for Israel on a military basis? And yet, they're weaker in many respects than the nations surrounding Iraq. So, I think you under-estimate the utility of having force right to hand.

Do you honestly think they’d stop at Israel, whom they would surely attack if we were not in the area….?

Who, the Iraqis? No, I don't think they'd be an immediate threat to Israel if we leave. I don't believe anybody in Israel has made that case either.

Even absent the need for the free flow of oil at market prices, it would still be in our interests to be there.

How exactly?

Well, Bit, you left out the reason why we’re still in Germany and Japan. It’s in OUR interest to be there, forward deployed on the periphery of Korea, China, and Russia. Don’t think the Chinese, North Koreans, and Russians haven’t noticed. Don’t you think we’ll be in Iraq for the long term for the same reasons? McCain has said as much.

I know, but we've gotta keep this simple. Those countries being over-run certainly is not in our interest. No action is ever completely altruistic. Of COURSE it's in our interests to be there. Even absent the need for the free flow of oil at market prices, it would still be in our interests to be there.

I’m pretty confident that if we pull out of Germany and Japan right now, there’s little to no possibility of the Germans invading Poland or the Japanese invading China anytime soon (discounting the tourist hordes).

True... NOW.... not 30 or 40 years ago, however.

Bithead, I don’t know when you’re kidding or serious. Are you still living in 1988? You gotta be sh*tting me. Yes, I was at Checkpoint Charlie in 1988

Then you should understand the principle I'm driving at.

And you should, I think, also do some investigation as to how long security was tended... inclduing the running of checkpoints in Tokyo, following the end of the war in Japan.

Again, I ask, where's the major difference? The principles and applications are the same.

Their naval capabilities alone rival that of our WESTPAC assets.

As I say, true NOW, not 30 or 40 years ago. And yet, we're still there. When you get the logic for staying in Japan and Germany but not Iraq worked out, get back to me.

Ever heard of Checkpoint Charlie?

Bithead, I don't know when you're kidding or serious. Are you still living in 1988? You gotta be sh*tting me. Yes, I was at Checkpoint Charlie in 1988, but that was almost a lifetime ago when the DDR existed. As for Japan, they're not exactly defenseless. The mis-named Japanese Self-Defense Forces are probably the most technologically advanced and one of the most capable (perhaps after the ROKs) militaries in Asia. Their naval capabilities alone rival that of our WESTPAC assets.

You really didn't know this?

The Germans and Japanese aren’t currently telling us they want us to leave their country.

Well, now, that, as with Iraq, depends on whom you're talking to.

Or because we’re not managing checkpoints in Tokyo or Berlin?

Ever heard of Checkpoint Charlie?

Or because German and Japan have stable democratic governments that don’t need a hundred thousand US troops to maintain control?

And yet we're there. And remember, Japan had sworn off War, and thereby was seen as being open to attack. We were and are there because of a percption of their being open to attack.

I say again, how is that any different than the current sitrep in Iraq?

Explain to me how this situation is any different than Japan, Germany, etc, etc.

The Germans and Japanese aren't currently telling us they want us to leave their country. Or because we're not managing checkpoints in Tokyo or Berlin? Or because we're not arresting Germans and Japanese in their own country? Or because German and Japan have stable democratic governments that don't need a hundred thousand US troops to maintain control? Or because we're not supplying guns to both sides of an internal armed conflict?

Explain to me how this situation is in any way similar to Japan and Germany.

Explain to me how this situation is any different than Japan, Germany, etc, etc.

I'm pretty confident that if we pull out of Germany and Japan right now, there's little to no possibility of the Germans invading Poland or the Japanese invading China anytime soon (discounting the tourist hordes).