truth on hold Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I do agree with you that Iraq would still be somewhat stable if we had left 100,000 or maybe even only 50,000 there. However they would still be getting IED attacks from insurgents no matter how long we stayed. We would be viewed as unlawful invaders to the Iraqi people just as the Germans were viewed by the French for a very long time. No matter where we invade, we're gong to have to leave eventually. And when we do, what happens is predictable. I just don't want to see it happen again. Seems you want to double down. If we were to go with your strategy, we would be better off to just to take it over and stop fooling around. Install 100.000 or more troops and turn it into the 51st state, New Texas. We keep the oil, money etc. But at what expense? Not worth the money and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of human lives IMHO. To you maybe it is. To me, it's not. And we're off to a good start with his thinking, as the the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium was one of our presidents, and he did it he explained, because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 I do agree with you that Iraq would still be somewhat stable if we had left 100,000 or maybe even only 50,000 there. However they would still be getting IED attacks from insurgents no matter how long we stayed. We would be viewed as unlawful invaders to the Iraqi people just as the Germans were viewed by the French for a very long time. We would have been getting IED attacks from insurgents after 20 years? after 50? After a multi-generational partnership and a stable, secular, democratic, independent government emerged? Would those attacks have increased in number? How do you know that? No matter where we invade, we're gong to have to leave eventually. And when we do, what happens is predictable. I just don't want to see it happen again. Seems you want to double down. Japan was predictable? How come that doesn't allign with your mantra? Casting aside your riduculous loaded language, what I want is for the job to be done correctly. Power hungry Democrats worked hard to perpetuate a narrative of war weariness; and as such our political structure abrogated it's duties in Iraq. They never allowed for the job to be done correctly. They abandoned their post, shirking America's responsibility. If we were to go with your strategy, we would be better off to just to take it over and stop fooling around. Install 100.000 or more troops and turn it into the 51st state, New Texas. We keep the oil, money etc. Stop saying absurd things. It would be better for us to act as a Imperial Era colonizer, and seize all land and assets for ourselves? But at what expense? Not worth the money and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of human lives IMHO. To you maybe it is. To me, it's not. That's because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Your reset button must be awfully worn out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 We would have been getting IED attacks from insurgents after 20 years? after 50? After a multi-generational partnership and a stable, secular, democratic, independent government emerged? Would those attacks have increased in number? How do you know that? Japan was predictable? How come that doesn't allign with your mantra? Casting aside your riduculous loaded language, what I want is for the job to be done correctly. Power hungry Democrats worked hard to perpetuate a narrative of war weariness; and as such our political structure abrogated it's duties in Iraq. They never allowed for the job to be done correctly. They abandoned their post, shirking America's responsibility. Stop saying absurd things. It would be better for us to act as a Imperial Era colonizer, and seize all land and assets for ourselves? That's because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the situation. Your reset button must be awfully worn out. This is the most important part. At this point, it's our mess. I do agree with you that Iraq would still be somewhat stable if we had left 100,000 or maybe even only 50,000 there. However they would still be getting IED attacks from insurgents no matter how long we stayed. We would be viewed as unlawful invaders to the Iraqi people just as the Germans were viewed by the French for a very long time. No matter where we invade, we're gong to have to leave eventually. And when we do, what happens is predictable. I just don't want to see it happen again. Seems you want to double down. If we were to go with your strategy, we would be better off to just to take it over and stop fooling around. Install 100.000 or more troops and turn it into the 51st state, New Texas. We keep the oil, money etc. But at what expense? Not worth the money and hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of human lives IMHO. To you maybe it is. To me, it's not. Because if we permanently leave the Middle East, no one will die. Except all those people dying on the mountains and in the cities that fall to terrorist regimes one by one. What you're really saying is that you don't care about their "human lives." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 18, 2015 Share Posted June 18, 2015 And we're off to a good start with his thinking, as the the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium was one of our presidents, and he did it he explained, because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy. ISIS's God is telling them the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 You had to use the word salient... Did you not forget where you are @? No, just forgot that you might want to contribute. Remedial reading classes start tomorrow in room 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I think it's important to draw a distinction between intervention and nation building. I won't even go so far as to say either is categorically good or bad, but the former is not necessarily anywhere near as risky or costly as the latter. I find that too many people refuse to take a realistic position. You can't have a first world society while simultaneously restricting excavation and extraction of fossil fuels, preventing expansion of nuclear energy, and refusing to perform the intervention necessary to keep energy flowing throughout the global market. At least one of those has to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 Term limits ACA overhaul Repair relations with traditional allies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts