- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Exactly. We could have paid for health care with the money we wasted in Iraq for nothing. Big government, big spending, big deficit, big war, big brother policies are bad. Definitively bad, measurably bad. They go to bad places and if we keep on this path of imperialism we're going to lose this Republic fast.
So, instead of neutralizing an inevitalbe stabilization of an entire region, we should have spent that money on an entitlement program? That don't make a lick-a-sense.
So, instead of neutralizing an inevitalbe stabilization of an entire region, we should have spent that money on an entitlement program? That don't make a lick-a-sense.
I'm not saying that we should have gone ahead and made healthcare. I'm just saying for what we spent in Iraq we could have built one several times over by now.
And BTW, Iraq was stable before we went in, we destabilized it.
Germany was stable before we bombed the crap out of them, too.
But, that's not what I meant. My point is, Saddam threated to distabilize the entire region, had he been left alone long enough.
The whole region eh? I don't buy it, and if he tried he didn't have what it takes to beat the West's military might. I think these are straws being grasped at after the fact. The fact of the matter is we had no real reason to go into Iraq, but we did. We disposed the government, dropped the country into chaos for how many years now? And have been unable to provide a working, stable government for the area in all that time. Yet more troops, time, and money are necessary because we have to "finish the job" even though the goals are ill defined and there's no real plan to get there.
Iraq and Nazi Germany are so radically different it is not an appropriate comparison. It's only one made by people who have no other argument to justify their bloodlust.
How many national leaders in the ME have complained about Saddam's removal? Don't bother looking it up, because I'll tell you: none.
How is war with Iran going to be worse than Iraq?
Yeah, cause they're all worried that we'll come **** them up next. They have something much larger to worry about. Saddam...that guy ran his mouth but had nothing to back it up. We do. Of course no one complained. The people most affected are still running around trying not to get killed by terrorists and American forces. The rest are trying their best not to piss us off, some are trying probably preparing for the time when they do catch our eye.
They have a bigger military, over twice as many people, and its a nation that is absolutely full of Islamic extremists. Winning the peace there would be impossible.
They have a bigger military, over twice as many people, and its a nation that is absolutely full of Islamic extremists. Winning the peace there would be impossible.
They are? I'm betting that's not entirely accurate.
The thing about Iran though is that they have a very healthy and educated middle class. Which is a necessity for a western style democratic republic. They are the closest to being able to adopt our ideals and governments. Attacking them...I mean it's hard to say what the outcome could be. Maybe...maybe we can take out the theocracy and let the people take control. In the rosiest of circumstances it wouldn't be nearly the hassle Iraq is since the people are united and want a form of democracy for themselves. But no telling on that one, they are better equipped with a better military and I don't know how good we are at winning the hearts of the people. If you look at Iraq now, the answer to that question is not so good.
Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world. We rolled their asses up in 3 weeks.
The Iranians couldn't whip the Iraqi army, so I'm thinking that their army ain't all that.
Of course we won't have any problem taking to country. We could roll through any nation on earth fairly easy. Its just the insurgency after wards would make Iraq look easy.
:rofl:roflHow is war with Iran going to be worse than Iraq?
Actually Iran is full of Islamic moderates with a loudmouthed spokesman who pisses them off.They have a bigger military, over twice as many people, and its a nation that is absolutely full of Islamic extremists. Winning the peace there would be impossible.
History is not exactly full of examples of successful transitions from bullets to ballot boxes.
:rofl:rofl
I wish I could just subscribe to your posts instead of whole threads.
Do you really not realize the answers to your question?
History is not exactly full of examples of successful transitions from bullets to ballot boxes.
There're plenty of open source resources where war with Iran has been gamed. Take a look at some if you want to see what military professionals et al think.I doubt the insurgency would be any worse and probably not as bad. We've put a helluva dent in the jihadist population around the world. But, if they want to come to Iran and die, they're more than welcome.
There're plenty of open source resources where war with Iran has been gamed. Take a look at some if you want to see what military professionals et al think.
You'll have to--duties in my life will take precedent over playing on the interwebs for the next several hours. :2razz:Go ahead and educate us Mr. Know-it-all. Can't wait to hear this.
I doubt the insurgency would be any worse and probably not as bad. We've put a helluva dent in the jihadist population around the world. But, if they want to come to Iran and die, they're more than welcome.
Actually Iran is full of Islamic moderates with a loudmouthed spokesman who pisses them off.
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?