This isn't Vietnam even though we are desperately trying to make it end the same and it wouldn't be a mistake if we managed to have Iraq end up being a success like Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
and lol at all your editing. I've got you flustered to the point of having to second guess your posts. I'll certainly wish you a good night, but not before serving you a heaping pile of pwn3rship, which I did quite clearly in my last post.
We could be there 20 another years, spend another couple trillion, get another 5 thousand Americans killed, and it wouldn't be anything like those countries. How ridiculous.
Very unlikely that there would be more than a few hundred Americans killed if they kept troop levels at a decent enough level to provide security which would make it safer than being in garrison elsewhere. Give those people a decade or two of stability and peace and things would change.
The left has their talking points strategy -- which is to present the false choice of remedying the situation by sending troops into Iraq. Obviously that is unpopular. What the left does not want happening is a critique of how Obama took his eye off the ball in Iraq and let this situation occur. Do not fall for the left's misdirection on this. Again, watch how they try to deceive -- honest, upstanding people do not do that. The left does it daily. Instead of focusing on foreign policy while chaos reigns in Syria, Iraq and Ukraine, Obama has his Secretary of State running around telling people that climate change is the #1 risk. Seriously? How tone deaf are these people? It's just ridiculous incompetence.
"Provide security" is exactly what we already did in Iraq for years. You have a significant failure to understand what is happening in Iraq. A decade or two of getting in the middle of a religious war? Holy ****.
Heh you think it's going to be done in a year or two? Things were just starting to calm down when we decided to cut bait and run.....real, permanent change takes longer than that. Of course you are a good example of the stereotypical American who thinks that nothing should take longer than a year or two. ADD style foreign policy is laughably dangerous.
White flag has been raised by SamFisher. His poor logic was outed and he has nothing left to offer but the quoted post above. But hey, your argument really is good for the Kerry 2004 campaign! *giggles*
It is at least illustrative of how different people can think. Multiply this by about a thousand and you have the thinking in the Middle East. But at least over here people just type and not cut each other's heads off.
Yes, since we've been greeted as liberators and installed a Democracy. Things were "starting to calm down" in the centuries old war within Islam and then we cut and run after only 11 years. Haha. 11 years is ADD foreign policy? Bahahahaha. We need to have staying power, like 50 years of occupation, more dollars and blood down the drain. A brilliant strategy. You're a good example of the typical arrogant, full of **** American that thinks the US can interject itself around the world into things it doesn't have the first clue about, spend a ton of money it doesn't have, and get a bunch of people maimed and killed to gain nothing.
Come on, you can do better than that can't you? I mean the strawman about being "greeted as liberators"? Pretty weak stuff. Did we leave Germany in 11 years? Did we leave Korea in 11 years? Did we leave Japan in 11 years? 11 years is nothing in the life of a government so to answer your question, YES bailing on them after 11 years (really after less than 4 years of relative peace and stability) is ADD foreign policy. They need time to build a stable government and rebuild their country and that can't happen without us there. We'll have done nothing but waste Iraqi lives, American lives, and tons of money if we leave Iraq in a worse situation than it was in when we found it and our current path is set to do just that. They needed more than 4 years before having their cities taken over by separatist groups to have any chance to lead to a permanent and stable government.....but we didn't have the will to give it to them. Instead we sold them out for political points, so that we could say that we "brought home the troops" in campaign ads. You can argue that it was a mistake to go into Iraq to begin with, but that is really irrelevant now. If you make a mistake the last thing you want to do is make an even worse mistake right afterwards. The sad thing is that when it comes to foreign policy, this current incompetent administration makes the last incompetent administration look good by comparison and that's not an easy thing to do.
This. The Obama administration continues to astound me by its sheer incompetence around foreign policy.
Bobby, get over your blindness. Go on a vacation to Vietnam. It turned out ok in the end. What are you talking about? China is turning out ok also without and American invasion and occupation for 50 years. Not a damn thing was accomplished by the 2 million Vietnamese killed in the war which we prolonged and which Ho Chi Minh the George Washington of Vietnam would have won years before. Also tens of thousands of American killed and seriously wounded. There was no mission accomplished worth millions of lives whether we stayed or not. Again forget what I assume your right wing parents or uncles or somebody fed you. Get on a plane and go there on a vacation. Do some current reading or watch some videos on current Vietnam. I hear it is nice. Once you get over right wing myths about Vietnam you might be able to think straight about Iraq and Afghanistan. In case that thought experiment won't help you let's talk about Yugoslavia and even Iraq. Two strong men who occupied the country for over 50 years with hundreds of thousands of troops could not hold folks who hate each other and have long standing historical hatred together. You argue a couple of thousand Americans for 50 years are going to make them think straight. Talking about good old naive arrogant American belief that we have all the answers for all other people's whether they realize it or not.
We should have occupied them for 50 years or more and continued a war we had tens of thousands of casualties in just so they could have higher wages? I didn't say it was awesome, but to keep killing them by the hundreds of thousands? I really think it would be to try to maintain the myth of America the all powerful, the never defeated, the most just society of all time etc. Sort of natural to have these feelings, but don't get carried away. I haven't read all your posts, but I really don't remember you being a strong proponent of the $15/ minimum wage or a fanatical near communist supporters of unions. You would advocate killing millions in Vietnam with probably hundreds of thousands more and for an occupation of folks who didn't want us occupying them, even to this day 40 years more, just for this? For what? The Vietnamese and the Chinese who we did not conquer and occupy are slowly moving toward more democracy if that is your goal without the millions killed your policies necessitate. The Vietnamese, Afghans and the Iraqis did not want to be occupied. Would Americans liked to be occupied, even if the conquerors viewed it as for out own good?
This is so intellectually dishonest. There was not war going on in those countries still. We didn't leave soldiers in there to mediate civil wars.
Hasn't Vietnam turned into a valuable trade partner for the United States? The answer is yes, $4 billion in exports to Vietnam and $17 billion imported from Vietnam in 2011... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...de_in_goods_with_Vietnam_.28from_1992-2011.29
Iraq was "squandered" along with Afghanistan the second Bush decided to invade. The "laughable" part is the right wingers trying to blame the chaos on Obama. Your desperation is HILARIOUS!
