Ask that question to the Russians in regards to Afghanistan.
Invading a country to try and conquer it is much different than trying to hunt a few hundred individuals who are hiding there, especially if we improve the way of life of the citizens while we are there.
I was not trying to infer that original strategy was to destabilize a government in the hopes that terrorists would pour in. However, it may the strategy of today.
Well, it appears it's not a very effective strategy.The National Intelligence Estimate puts Al-Qaeda involvement at around fifteen percent. To me that seems to be rather small to place them at the center of our "strategy". Also, the Congressional Research Service states that the number is less than two percent and blames the administration on trying to bump up the numbers.
Would you have them pack up and leave tomorrow?
Maybe, maybe not. Can't say for sure. But when McCain believes we should occupy the country for the next 100 years, it makes me a little worried.
Maybe, maybe not. Can't say for sure. But when McCain believes we should occupy the country for the next 100 years, it makes me a little worried.
We are still "occupying" Germany We are still "occupying" Japan We are still "occupying" several other countries.
I don't think McCain meant "occupy" in the sense of being the primary military force in the country. He probably meant it in the "we will maintain bases" in the country sort of way.
We are still "occupying" Germany We are still "occupying" Japan We are still "occupying" several other countries.
Should we still be in those countries? That is the real question to ask.
I don't think McCain meant "occupy" in the sense of being the primary military force in the country. He probably meant it in the "we will maintain bases" in the country sort of way.
It all sounds very colonial to me, and I don't like it one bit.
Should we still be in those countries? Nothing says good diplomacy like thousands of Americans spending their weekly paychecks in a foreign economy. As long as we do not meddle in their political affairs and our citizens do not commit crimes in those countries they are quite content to have us there.
Maintaining military bases is not colonial. Would you prefer we become isolationists?
I was not trying to infer that original strategy was to destabilize a government in the hopes that terrorists would pour in. However, it may the strategy of today.
Steve, you ignorant slut . . . do you seriously propose that anyone ever thought that? EVER? That's like Pee-Wee falling off his bike and saying, "I meant to do that." Yeah Steve, now we've got them right where they want us. Brilliant. Just fucking brilliant.
We are still "occupying" Germany We are still "occupying" Japan We are still "occupying" several other countries.
Bullshit. Having a couple of bases in a friendly country is nothing like what's happening in Iraq right now or what's going to be happening there in the coming years.
Should we still be in those countries? Nothing says good diplomacy like thousands of Americans spending their weekly paychecks in a foreign economy. As long as we do not meddle in their political affairs and our citizens do not commit crimes in those countries they are quite content to have us there.
Oh yeah, we haven't meddled in their affairs and we've been very law-abiding. They especially love our law-abiding Blackwater types. /sarcasm.
Maintaining military bases is not colonial. Would you prefer we become isolationists?
No, I would prefer that our stupid conservative leaders don't take us into ill-advised, useless wars that will ruin our economy.
Joe, I never tire of how you read things into what others say here on the forums.
To clarify point one:
However, it (drawing Al-Qaida into Iraq to fight) may be the strategy of today. <-- The point may not have been clear as typed if you were not following the complete discussion.
Point two:
How long after WW2 was it before things in Germany and Japan were stabilized to the point where we<b> could leave? What about Bosnia, don't we still have troops there?
Point three:
I never said whether we do or do not meddle in their affairs. I said they are quite content to have us there when we do not meddle in their affairs.
Point four:
Hindsight is 20/20 and the Democrats did not stop the war from starting. This makes ALL parties culpable. Singling out one party for your scorn only undermines your ability to argue as it devalues your argument by way of omission.
This is related to the way the media always adds the word Republican when a Republican gets in trouble but omits the word Democrat when a Democrat gets in trouble. Just yesterday I was reading an article about a contractor problem in Iraq and rather than just say Haliburton or KBR the writer wrote "the company formerly run by Dick Cheney" in the opening paragraph. They did not say "KBR" until the very last paragraph.
Hindsight is 20/20 and the Democrats did not stop the war from starting. This makes ALL parties culpable. Singling out one party for your scorn only undermines your ability to argue as it devalues your argument by way of omission.
Hindsight? This administration wanted this war so bad, they were willing to lie to get us into it. People in the military told them it wouldn't turn out right, but they didn't listen. Cheney said that an invasion wouldn't turn out right back in the first Gulf War. This is Bush's war and you know it. It's telling that you're trying to spread the blame now. It means that even you must realize how bad it is.
How long after WW2 was it before things in Germany and Japan were stabilized to the point where wecouldleave? What about Bosnia, don't we still have troops there?
That's irrelevant. You can't seriously comapre any of those to Iraq. I'm sick of you people comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan.
However, it (drawing Al-Qaida into Iraq to fight) may be the strategy of today. <-- The point may not have been clear as typed if you were not following the complete discussion.</p>
If that's the strategy, then Andrew needs to go to the Pentagon and tell them how stupid it is. Did you read what he wrote? He blew this argument out of the water. You're done on this argument.
I never said whether we do or do not meddle in their affairs. I said they are quitecontentto have us there when wedo notmeddle in their affairs.
We've been meddling in their affairs nonstop since since 2003 and we don't seem to be anywhere near done. Idiot.
I have to wonder how much money in these "war cost" documents involve double counting things. For instance, whether our troops are at war or not they still draw a salary. Same with munitions, even in peace time we burn off a lot of ammunition on training exercises and range time.
Yeah, when it comes down to a question of who do you believe about an economic issue, the guy who won the Nobel Prize for Economics or the guy whose wife handles his finances, I tend to believe the Nobel Prize guy.
Edit: Sorry about the "idiot" thing. I'm just a little tired and cranky. You do serve a purpose Steve. You're our own jingoistic little Frank Burns. We can always count on you to back the establishment, no matter how dumb they are or what a mess they've gotten us into and by so doing, you become your own strawman by showing us how pathetic and ridiculous conservatism has become.
I think the whole argument is backward. The need to wage war is clearly the most extraordinary claim here, since it incurs cost, defies the will of the people, and causes death. The burden of proof has always been on the commander in chief. Nothing has changed.
Exactly. I still haven't heard a convincing argument for us going to war, and I've been asking people for seven years now.
As a libertarian, I'm inclined to be against any war, however, I also realize that America doesn't live in a bubble. The UN is ineffective to rid of despots, especially considering that many of those despots have a voice in the UN, so they're hardly an option. Foolish policy options throughout the years make further massive military action in many countries we deal with almost an inevitability, and no one administration can be blamed for all of them. Carter and Regan for Iran, Bush I for Iraq, and Clinton for North Korea.
Carter should've dealt with the hostage situation swiftly and with power, Reagan should not have sold Iran weapons. Bush I should've likewise dealt with Iraq much more completely. Clinton should not have appeased North Korea and given it a nuclear reactor and aid that instead of going to the people went to the development of nuclear weapons.
The Iraq War was initially poorly managed, however, I believe the recent surge worked without a doubt. More bodies on the ground to learn about and relate to the Iraqi people is very important.
Wired has a great article discussing on how technology may have helped us win the initial battles, but our reliance on it nearly caused us to lose the war.
The question is, is there a war worth fighting for in the eyes of some Americans, those that have labeled themselves anti-war, and would they oppose one that is justified? What happens when Taiwan makes further moves towards independence, do we defend them? Why are we not helping prevent genocide Darfur?
Comments
We are still "occupying" Japan
We are still "occupying" several other countries.
I don't think McCain meant "occupy" in the sense of being the primary military force in the country. He probably meant it in the "we will maintain bases" in the country sort of way.
Maintaining military bases is not colonial. Would you prefer we become isolationists?
To clarify point one:
However, it (drawing Al-Qaida into Iraq to fight) may be the strategy of today. <-- The point may not have been clear as typed if you were not following the complete discussion.
Point two:
How long after WW2 was it before things in Germany and Japan were stabilized to the point where we<b> could leave? What about Bosnia, don't we still have troops there?
Point three:
I never said whether we do or do not meddle in their affairs. I said they are quite content to have us there when we do not meddle in their affairs.
Point four:
Hindsight is 20/20 and the Democrats did not stop the war from starting. This makes ALL parties culpable. Singling out one party for your scorn only undermines your ability to argue as it devalues your argument by way of omission.
This is related to the way the media always adds the word Republican when a Republican gets in trouble but omits the word Democrat when a Democrat gets in trouble. Just yesterday I was reading an article about a contractor problem in Iraq and rather than just say Haliburton or KBR the writer wrote "the company formerly run by Dick Cheney" in the opening paragraph. They did not say "KBR" until the very last paragraph.
Edit: Sorry about the "idiot" thing. I'm just a little tired and cranky. You do serve a purpose Steve. You're our own jingoistic little Frank Burns. We can always count on you to back the establishment, no matter how dumb they are or what a mess they've gotten us into and by so doing, you become your own strawman by showing us how pathetic and ridiculous conservatism has become.
nuff said.
Oh wait, isn't the Pentagon a liberal think tank... Oh, I guess we should disregard.
Carter should've dealt with the hostage situation swiftly and with power, Reagan should not have sold Iran weapons.
Bush I should've likewise dealt with Iraq much more completely.
Clinton should not have appeased North Korea and given it a nuclear reactor and aid that instead of going to the people went to the development of nuclear weapons.
The Iraq War was initially poorly managed, however, I believe the recent surge worked without a doubt. More bodies on the ground to learn about and relate to the Iraqi people is very important.
Wired has a great article discussing on how technology may have helped us win the initial battles, but our reliance on it nearly caused us to lose the war.
The question is, is there a war worth fighting for in the eyes of some Americans, those that have labeled themselves anti-war, and would they oppose one that is justified? What happens when Taiwan makes further moves towards independence, do we defend them? Why are we not helping prevent genocide Darfur?
This is similarly either funny or sad. I'm tending more towards sad. Violence = Surge is working. See how they got the Orwell in there?