Reply With Quote
I'd say summarily throwing all members of one political party out of work and barring them from ever participating in government again was pretty provocative, to say nothing of the armed forces.
long enough for france to return the "dien ben phu" favor.
I'd say summarily throwing all members of one political party out of work and barring them from ever participating in government again was pretty provocative, to say nothing of the armed forces.
I'd say permanently. Good strategic position for potential future campaigns.
is this guy trolling?
So you're hoping for imperial success.
IIRC, Saddam's old party is allowed to hold office in the new government.
Our presence in Japan 55 years later is imperialism? I don't see how we're constructing or controlling their government at this point.
I simply said that it would be good for us to maintain a military presence there from a strategic position. This is the state department's mission now.
Do tell.
If that's true, it's a fantastic idea. We shouldn't have let our viceroy outlaw them in the first place, provoking them into a seven year insurgency.
Maybe we should leave, then.
Good strategic position for possible future campaigns.
anyone that they even think might have had ties to saddam are disqualified.
All Baathists were barred from govt office and the military after the invasion. This really hurt because a lot of them were professionals who weren't particularly Baathists politically like the Saddam and his top level ministers.
Not only did the Repugs lie themselves into Iraq, they botched every aspect.
They even botched the "surge" which greatly increased US and Iraqi deaths, which were already way down before the surge due to the ethnic cleansing/Balkanization of Bagdad.
Sec'y Gates proposed cuts to procurement. I'm guessing you'd be against that.
Are you?
Are you serious?
We wrote their cons ution and forbade them from having a real military of their own.
The State Department's mission is to maintain a strategic military presence forever? Why is the plan to have all the military out in a year?I simply said that it would be good for us to maintain a military presence there from a strategic position. This is the state department's mission now.
Well Chump mentioned Iran earlier...
Like a game of Risk.
No, I saw the proposed cuts...agree with them for the most part. Not crazy about the proposed 1.4-1.9% increase in military base pay, but you may be able to guess why...
Why would majority Shiite Iraq want the US to launch a military campaign from their country against Shiite Iran?
Whaddya think, would an attack on Iran endanger our troops and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan?
chump, did you say iran............when we're clearly discussing japan, vietnam, iraq, and possibly granada?
My bad.
Fair enough.
Notice I said "now". As in, we forbade members of Saddam's party who may have had allegiance to him initially, but eventually we left it to the government to decide who they let in and out of their organization.
Are you serious?
We wrote their cons ution and forbade them from having a real military of their own.
The state departments mission is to focus on continuing to aid in the rebuilding of Iraq and strengthening its ability to defend itself from internal and external threats.The State Department's mission is to maintain a strategic military presence forever? Why is the plan to have all the military out in a year?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
