- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm pretty sure Nixon claimed the same for South Vietnam too
Bush era conservatives blame Obama for not doubling down on the multi-trillion-dollar cluster**** they created in the Middle East. That's the bottom line. Obama is not a neocon, and he was elected to change course rather than continue the Project For a New American Century.
But he didn't change that course and his MEFP has been as belligerent as his predecessors. But then Obama informed us in 2008 that he would attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan with or without the Pakistani governments position. For all with an ear to hear, there was going to be no change in the Bush/PNAC doctrine, and the destabilization of the ME would continue!!
Yes, he inherited it from George Bush, remember?Iraq was Obama's inheritance?
Then perhaps Obama was lying again? Or was it only stable while the military was there to keep it stable, just as all the advisers insisted.One would think that a "stable and sovereign" nation could have stood on its own without having the US military keeping it stable.
"Neo-cons" destabilized Egypt? Libya? Iraq? Syria?The Neocons/PNAC wanted to transform the Middle East by toppling/destabilizing regimes. The Obama Admin is aggressive with terrorist targets. You could argue that the policies overlap in certain areas, but there is a massive difference in their end goals.
. Obama created this mess and id 100% accountable for it.
Large does not mean the same as dangerous nor brutal nor efficient. As well, they are ignored by Western media when they pose little to no threat to Western interests or the US itself.There are far larger guerilla armies fighting in other parts of the world that are largely ignored by the Western media
The only way these guys are of any significance is in the way they use western victims to further their ends via our media. They have been singularly successful in this regard and now have many believing they are ten feet tall, bent on world domination .... yadda yadda. They are basically a small group of religious fanatics that will go the way of many other such groups in the fullness of time, taken down by their own infighting.
It was a war, an episode in the Cold War, but we can use that as another example of what happens when leftists, especially those who have no knowledge of international power and its dynamics, get involved in foreign policy decision making.No doubt.
Turned out his "secret plan" to end the Vietnam wa... I mean police action was to declare victory and leave. Look how well that turned out!
Wrong, George Tenet a Clinton appointee made the statement. You continue to buy only what you want and ignore anything that contradicts it
CNN.com - Woodward: Tenet told Bush WMD case a 'slam dunk' - Apr 19, 2004
So (again) how do you explain this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0wbpKCdkkQ
What have I ignored here ?
Just answer the question and don't bother me with your goofy links.
You want to underestimate them - that's classic bad strategy going back nearly 3,000 years to 500 BC and Sun Tzu's time.
Overestimating them serves their purposes far better
N, the bottom line was that Iraq was stable, all you need do is check the stats. But in order to keep it stable troops had to remain. Instead Obama moved them out, claiming an end to the war. That Obama would claim that it takes only one side to end a war is just anther example of his profound ignorance on foreign policy and power politics.Bush era conservatives blame Obama for not doubling down on the multi-trillion-dollar cluster**** they created in the Middle East. That's the bottom line. Obama is not a neocon, and he was elected to change course rather than continue the Project For a New American Century.
It was a war, an episode in the Cold War, but we can use that as another example of what happens when leftists, especially those who have no knowledge of international power and its dynamics, get involved in foreign policy decision making.
Hardly. Show me how many wars were lost because the enemy was overestimated.
Overestimating them simply buttresses this rag tag bunch of zealots It makes them think they can win and assists their recruitment
So let me answer since you will not. Zero wars have been lost due to overestimating an enemy. Zero.
Overestimating them simply buttresses this rag tag bunch of zealots It makes them think they can win and assists their recruitment
He can't explain it, so he'll probably ignore it.
One was made in 2001 and the other 2003 when we invaded Iraq. interesting how all you want to do is relive history and ignore reality of today. All you do is divert from the present to focus on the past just like you ignore all the Democrat quotes prior to the invasion and the fact that Saddam violated the cease fire and continued to focus on WMD development.
Perhaps before going in again to kill who knows how many more hundreds of thousands of collateral victims, it might be better to take a more realistic view of the magnitude of the threat first.
Instead of worrying about right and left perhaps you should care more about whats right and wrong. That war was most definitely wrong by what ever measure you choose to judge it by and I'm not using 20-20 hindsight here either
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?