Because our forces are still in Iraq and S. Asia, we still face the forces unleashed by the regional instability that ensued going to war. Don't we?
Not saying this didn't happen in Vietnam, but we got out of Vietnam.
Printable View
Because our forces are still in Iraq and S. Asia, we still face the forces unleashed by the regional instability that ensued going to war. Don't we?
Not saying this didn't happen in Vietnam, but we got out of Vietnam.
You didn't mention any freedoms. You only mentioned protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Good luck with that. I think ethnic and sectarian strife are the worst problems there and problems the US has done and can do nothing to help. Their continued presence is just a band-aid holding the country together, not wholly unlike the way Saddam's presence did.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
when we leave, they'll get down to business. it doesn't matter.
We never even gained permanent territory in the North...the campaign was a failure in its entirety. At least with Iraq, we succeeded in ridding ourselves of a perceived threat. Yes we still have troops in Iraq, but being exposed to dangers of the region is much less impact than leaving a country battered and exposed to those threats that we indirectly opened it up to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
*They* might not wait for us to leave if we linger too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
The freedoms were implied. The protection of those freedoms is against those who would take them from us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
oh, i agree completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
pure comedy thinking the current "regime" will survive.
so, now iraq is us?Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
"ridding ourselves of a perceived threat"
no, it was a bogus threat, a lie by the Repug/neo-c*nts.
and even if it were a threat (Saddam can strike USA with US troops next door in SA and pinning him down with flyovers and non-stop aerial surveillance?), 4000+ dead military, 10s of 1000s maimed for life, and $3T wasted, the cost is not worth it, without even mentioning the destruction of Iraq.
What regime?Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
Was the election actually resolved?
Damning with faint praise?Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
I would say directly, but this is a quibble. I think leaving ourselves exposed to their social/political instability is a mistake. At some point, they'll have to settle it for themselves with or without our help.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
I think we already fucked up Iraq enough. GTFO honorably, ASAP. We paid in blood and treasure, for fiasco and bullshit.
The methods the two employ are entirely different. The purpose of democracy is to give a voice to factions and ethnic groups so that they don't have to use violence. Saddam used force offensively to quash certain factions, ethnic groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The US hasn't used force offensively to quash certain factions and ethnic groups?Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
That's rich.
I wasn't responding on Iraq. I was responding on the priority to use government funding on defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by clambake
But on Iraq, the reason we went in was to prevent Saddam from using the WMDs we thought he had...not to liberate a people. So no, Iraq isn't us.
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Isn't it possible defense bureaucracies succumb like all others to the tendency to grow without respect to the ultimate mission?
young man, you've been to too many pep rallys.Quote:
Originally Posted by AFBlue
Offensively = without provocationQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
(Who was trying to take away our freedoms?)
Right, so let's leave now like we did in Afghanistan. :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
How long do we have to stay?
you can't admit that bush got tired of his afghanistan toy?
10 more years?
20 years?
50 years?