OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Vietnam is a trading partner with the U.S. and there are 2 non-stop flights a day to Hanoi from L.A. I'de say they have become a model country compared to Iraq.
The shiite Govt. has closer ties with Tehran than Washington which is not surprising since most of them are Iraqi exiles who grew up in Iran. They don't have Alqeada because they left when our troops did. No more targets. I irony of the Iraqi blunder is not that it was a hopeless quagmire (like Vietnam) but we were actually helping our only REAL enemy in the region, by defeating Iran's mortal enemy. It was like poking a stick into the hornets nest...and then hanging around while the swarm stings you silly.
Honestly, this is some of the worst analysis I've ever read.
One must match the goals to our needs. Our goal should be to deny safe haven to terrorists. I do not know the right troop levels to accomplish that. But the professionals do.
One must match the goals to our needs. Our goal should be to deny safe haven to terrorists. I do not know the right troop levels to accomplish that. But the professionals do.
How do you know that?
Is Afghanistan a safe haven? Is there any price we should pay for safety?
Do you love your country so little that you want her to be safe for only a little while? Why do you put a time limit on the security of the nation?
Defeatists will always be defeated. Afghanistan is not so important. If the Taliban and Al qaeda were not there then we would have no reason to be there either. We fight the enemy where he is. You should know that.
If we are not prepared to stay there as long as it takes to deny the Taliban and Al qaeda a safe haven then we shall lose and they shall win.
Enlighten me please.
We should go where are enemy is. We should kill him and break his things until he stops waging war against us. Did you think this was going to be easy?
It seems you know as little about business as you do about war.
One has to wonder where all the defeatists come from. Is your life so dear that you would purchase it with Sharia chains?
Yeah...you are right. It's better to make bad decisions...stick with them even though everyone knows they are bad...until you have no choice but to make a new decision and try to, somehow, spin the bad one to be...if not good, then not so bad. That's the liberal way. A prime example is the recent events in Libya.
One must match the goals to our needs. Our goal should be to deny safe haven to terrorists. I do not know the right troop levels to accomplish that. But the professionals do.
Let's see. The USA is not an imperialistic Nation, but we have military bases in about 140 Countries. Why not 141?
It's sad, but understandable that you hold this view, because your job as a contractor benefits directly from this situation. For the rest of us who can view the situation objectively, it's madness.
It's people like you that are the reason we're in this situation in the first place. War is a business, and business is goooood.
You mean like invading Iraq over WMD's and then changing the reason for the invasion after finding no WMD's?
People don't buy the idea that Republicans are experts in foreign policy. You can thank Bush and his team for blowing that perception away.
Like most liberals, you've seized on one issue as the reason for attacking Saddam and ignore the rest. If I remember correctly, there were some 25 or so reasons given by Bush BEFORE the invasion. WMD's was just one of them.
Saddam was not the guy we should have gone after, after 9/11.
I think that trumps any reason given for attacking Saddam.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
Sorry, dude...I just took away your trump.
I guess the difference is, I'd give back the money to have my fallen comrades back.Sure it's imperialistic. Why not?
Sure it is. You've benefitted handsomely, too. Enjoy!
Like most liberals, you've seized on one issue as the reason for attacking Saddam and ignore the rest. If I remember correctly, there were some 25 or so reasons given by Bush BEFORE the invasion. WMD's was just one of them.
Then you must be saying, "War is good business," let's have more of it, because it makes jobs for people. You are supporting the wars. OK, but don't try to make it sound innocent. It is ugly, evil policy. Just say, let's gin up some more chaos, mayhem, destruction and death. Don't be shy.
I guess the difference is, I'd give back the money to have my fallen comrades back.
The rest have always been issues. It's only by using post-9/11 fear and "mushroom clouds" over American cities that Bush convinced us to go to war to track down those WMD's.
Guess so. Enjoy your high standard of living!
I'm confused. The fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 is the biggest reason why we should not have invaded Iraq.
The real connection is that 9/11 compelled American polcymakers to take a more proactive stance with regards to the Middle East. No longer was it deemed to be prudent to be passive regarding the prerevolutionary atmosphere of the region that promotes extremist iedologies.
That's your real answer. Leftists don't like it because it justifies the concept of the invasion. Rightists don't like it because it ignores the moral/tribal aspect of America being "good".
It's just simple pragmatic thinking.
The real connection is that 9/11 compelled American polcymakers to take a more proactive stance with regards to the Middle East. No longer was it deemed to be prudent to be passive regarding the prerevolutionary atmosphere of the region that promotes extremist iedologies.
That's your real answer. Leftists don't like it because it justifies the concept of the invasion. Rightists don't like it because it ignores the moral/tribal aspect of America being "good".
It's just simple pragmatic thinking.
The terrorists were using the excuse of the U.S. being bent on killing muslims in a "crusade" to get new recruits. Bush's "answer" was to invade a muslim country and kill 100,000 muslims and we are surpised that Alqeada got lots more members? The invasion of Iraq helped the terrorists and Iran and did nothing to avenge 911, yet diehards still defend it?
...what? In what world is someone okay with war the 'diehard'? You'd think the people vehemently against them would be more likely to be called such.
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?