The problem Al Qaida can afford to lose and we cant. They can regroup and rethink their strategy and move the war front to another region like Iran or Pakistan. But the U.S cannot simply keep fighting these proxy wars. Every country we invade needs order to be restored and democracy established before we can move on which can take decades. As an example let's say Pakistan's government was to crumble today and extremist take over and engage the U.S. into a war over the nuclear capabilities of that country. Any invasion means destruction of the milltary as the premise for victory but in the process the country is further destabalized and then we have to spend years to reestablish a working government and restore order. The biggest problem facing the US in the war against terror is not the military aspect but rather how do you deal with the aftermath of a war? We can invade any country we want today and defeat them with ease but what we do after that is very important. The world is no longer lives the chivalry warfare where you invaded, took all the resources and left them to rot. No today the world will not accept an invasion just for the purpose of destruction. A war is now considered the last option not the first so any war must justify itself in the longer prosperity of the nation being attacked. Simply removing Al Qaida is not enough unless you plan on changing conditions and ideologies in the countries you invade. Bring freedom and not take away life.
Interesting... looks like we may be there awhile... So, here's TPM's analysis of the above article... Let the good news flow!
so now we're back to the "fight em over there" reason instead of the spreading democracy reason or the weapons of mass destruction reason.
i love your sig btw basso, your boy ****s up iraq beyond repair and you criticize the dems for not haveing a solution. unbelievable
What on earth are you talking about, basso? We have troops in the People's Republic of Korea now? Zowie... I had no idea. We've already brought the vast majority of our troops home from Germany, our ally, in part so we could send them to Iraq. We've reduced the number of troops in the other Korea, that's South Korea, basso, so we could send them to Iraq. Japan? Do you want us to reduce our troop levels in Japan so we can send them to Iraq, as well? I'm not so sure the rest of the Far East would love that, but who knows? Perhaps Japan's neighbors would like Japan free of the US military, so there would be no US influence on Japan's behavior other than the semi-coherent to incoherent words of the current US President and his equally incompetent Secretary of State. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning with more than a short sentence or two, your equivalent to a soundbite, which is your posting style these days. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Holding Hands with an Idiot.
In fairness to basso, he used to make longer posts but everybody made fun of him for plagiarizing them from other sites. Poor basso.
I'd rather read more substance, regardless of the source. This throw away BS gets more than a bit tiresome. You spend some time writing a couple of paragraphs, or more, about a topic and get a one-liner in response, usually from what I consider to be a bizarre source. Not always, but most of the time. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Holding Hands with an Idiot.
I do favor bringing our troops home from North Korea. If Bush decided to spread democracy to Okinawa by spending billions upon billions blowing the place up while unnecessarily endangering our troops and killing innocents, I would be in favor. Now, about that torture question...
my bad, South Korea. and who said anything about sending them to Iraq? Rim-man wants all our troops home from iraq, and seems to be against any long term US-Iraqi strategic partnership, at least one that would open the door to an indefintie US troop presence in Iraq. we've had troops in Germany and Japan since 1945, in Korea since 1952. easy question: do you want to bring them home?
First, where did you get that I'm "against any long term US-Iraqi strategic partnership?" Just because one is against an abysmally bad idea of a partnership doesn't mean that someone else couldn't do a better job. Second... How many Japanese have been firing at us since 1945? How many Germans have been blowing us up since 1945? How many South Koreans? I know it takes a little more nuance than you can muster, but Iraq is not the same as Germany, Japan, and Korea. It's like comparing mayonnaise to whiskey. Think hard and I'm sure you'll get it. Torture much?
What are you smoking? You do know Bush was President during, and well before, the 9/11 attacks don't you? I'm a "lib" and a 21 year veteran of three major conflicts, care to follow me to a recruiter? That's what I thought.
