Reply With Quote
have things changed since may 2010?
I asked AFB why we didn't attack the other members of the "Axis of Evil" -- one of which has nukes and the other being closer to having them than Saddam ever was.
The answer was Iraq was "easy."
have things changed since may 2010?
Have they changed their cons ution?Why forbid them all in the first place, provoking an insurgency?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.
And getting all the military out in 2011.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.
That means not forever.
It wouldn't be an assault on the people of Iran but its leadership.
Right...Iran would've been easy too. Actually, I think an invasion of Iran is more a question of when than if.
I'm sure they have. Regardless...are you saying that Japan is worse off for the things we implemented shortly after the war ended?
I hope that Iraq follows the same path of stability and economic growth from the democracy that was implemented as Japan has.
Last edited by AFBlue; 09-03-2010 at 04:33 PM. Reason: Added stuff
There are still 50,000 troops on the ground, and I doubt they're going anywhere anytime soon.
It's been fun fellas...I'll check back in a bit!
iraq=japan. whoa
Yes, that's exactly how the people of Iran will see it. they will greet us as liberators! And you didn't answer the question.
That is especially funny coming from a military man.
Not the stuff we wrote.
Take it up with your military leaders who are working to leave next year.
On the one hand, I can see why you target Iraq in relation to the terrorist threat and growing ideology: there's no Al-Qaedia and no military solution to a mindset.
So removing a regime like Saddam's as a means to bring democracy -- freedom -- to the Middle East (hoping to plant the seeds for which will bring about the opportunity and hope of neighboring countries and factions) isn't all that crazy a conclusion to come to.
But like Chump said, who are we to decide that's what needs to be done? And if you are going to decide to do that, why would you half-ass it as badly as they did upon entry?
There has to be something after "Shock and Awe" besides "watch-loot-and-let-people-go-without-the-most-basic-of-things-(destroyed infrastructure affecting electricity, water, etc.)-while-suffering-collateral-damage-in-way-of-human-life while you figure out what the to do. I mean, if you're really going to go that route and you know you're going to have to win the hearts and minds over of the Iraqi, and by extension, Mideastern people, wouldn't you realize that you'd have a very small window in which to accomplish that goal -- that if you're going to knock someone over the head it's probably best to have their place look better off (or in the process of looking to be) when they come to and regain their wits?
It was just an idiotic and reckless attempt at doing the impossible: impose your wish or will by way of uninvited force.
The U.S. should be running a sound financial ship -- never allowing their fate to be in the hands of others -- and looking to lead the world by example. Live and let live, mind your own biz and utilizing military force only when it's absolutely mandatory to defend.
Excuse me. You seem to have begged the question why we should attack Iran at all. What's your case for a future campaign there?
Sorry, my unicorn meter just broke.So removing a regime like Saddam's as a means to bring democracy -- freedom -- to the Middle East (hoping to plant the seeds for which will bring about the opportunity and hope of neighboring countries and factions) isn't all that crazy a conclusion to come to.
It's easy?
If you just assume, yeah it's easy. Worked out great for us in Iraq.
That's rather unfortunate. Those things are expensive, from what I'm told, that is.
The conclusion ain't all that crazy -- as in, you've thought about how to confront an ideology and not a location -- but to then weigh all of what that would entail and follow through with actions on said conclusion is. Maybe I should have said: that being one of the options weighed isn't all that crazy.
Yeah ... definitely should have.
Our war supports the ideology we are at war with as long as we occupy Muslim countries.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-04-2010 at 04:24 AM. Reason: ugly adverb, removed
Do you think so?
And admittedly for a whole lot longer. Memories die hard.Our war supports the ideology we are at war with as long as we occupy Muslim countries.
Me? I dunno and I'd rather not find out.
It was apparently just a poor attempt on my part to play "what would AFB's answer be"
Fair enough. The fact that the two countries are comprised of a majority that share the same religious beliefs does not mean that they are allies. My guess is that Iraq would be pressured to do so by America and the internation community.
Having personal knowledge of a national guard unit that is being activated to deploy for the entirety of 2011, I'll believe it when I see it.Take it up with your military leaders who are working to leave next year.
Radical leader, who coincidentally has no issue espousing his agenda to wipe Israel off the map, making repeated attempts to develop nuclear weapons despite repeated pressure and sanctions from the majority of the international community.
I'd attribute escalation to a campaign to continued pursuit of those weapons.
Actually the initial invasion into Iraq was relatively easy. If we'd had a strategy for post-invasion, it would've gone much better. I can see how we would take some learned lessons into a campaign in Iran.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
