AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: US Soldiers all DIED IN VAIN in Iraq. Time to go home!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I was right.
You were wrong.
Time for you to ADMIT IT.
Any of you bush pro Iraq war apologists ready to ADMIT your folly in supporting the fool bush and his folly in Iraq, the worse foreign policy error in US history?

Instead of Iraq, IRAN should have been targeted from the get go. The Iraq war has basically strengthened IRAN to the point where they are seriously dangerous.

How about some intellectual honesty folks?
You supported a disaster!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...VILWAR.TMP
Here's your "sign" lol
and here is a french fry. lol Have a happy meal.
Quote:Instead of Iraq, IRAN should have been targeted from the get go.
....
How about some intellectual honesty folks?

I think everybody here knows that had Iran been targeted, you would be complaining about that, and saying North Korea was the true enemy. There's no need to engage in even semi-serious debate with a clown like you, who is constantly looking in the rearview mirror and attempting to adjust your position for perfect hindsight.

-S
TQ,

I just don't see where this is going to amount to a civil war. It is a Real attempt of the terrorists to cause this, but thank heavens the Iraqi are not going along with it.

When you see the Kurds deserting the military, and heading north to reestablish The Peshmerga, you will know that the experimentt has been a failure.

Until then, I will go along with the military's assessment on the ground.
America needs no wars until we decide to prosecute war,anyone who supports us attacking Iran is immoral,IMO. I don't support our war in Iraq or Afghanistan anymore for the simple reason we're sending kids to die and NOT using our firepower to prevent it like we did in WWII.

If we as a people are not prepared for total war,leave the brave young soldiers out of harm's way PLEASE.

When we're prepared to retrun to WWII style destructive power,let's have us a war,otherwise let us leave our soldiers home and not use them as barbecue platters.
I agree with TQ only in saying that we should go after Iran. I've been saying for years that the US should nuke Qom, Iran's holy city, where most of the Ayatollahs and Imams are who tryannize the country.
Ron Lambert Wrote:I agree with TQ only in saying that we should go after Iran. I've been saying for years that the US should nuke Qom, Iran's holy city, where most of the Ayatollahs and Imams are who tryannize the country.
The country may be unhappy with proposed action. East adore own tyrants and dislike bombing...
Just because Iraq may not have been the best place to go doesn't mean we should necessarily bring all the troops home right away. In fact, what that means is that we should keep them there as long as possible, so our failures won't be blamed on early withdrawl.

But if we are talking about someplace else more deserving of our military, it would have to be Pakistan. They're making our job in Afghanistan more difficult, and probably hiding OBL himself. Their regime is one of the most tenuous in the Islamic world, and their population one of the most radical.

I'm not saying we should necessarily invade them right now, but we need to at least keep troops on hand ready to stabilize the country if (when) the government collapses.
Quote:Just because Iraq may not have been the best place to go ....
Strategically, Iraq was the "best" place to go for the following reasons (not in any particular order): central location, proximity to the majority of trouble-makers, potentially self-sustaining oil reserves, diverse pop. (to keep it occupied with each other, if needed), substantial secular component, sanctions regime producing (at least) diminishing return, etc. I am certainly missing some other qualifiers, but even the ones I mentioned are enough to make it the first choice.
Pakistan can be kept in check by proxy (cheaper and more flexible). There was/is no need for direct involvement.
ag, you forgot to mention that Iraq was a catalyst and main launching point for world-wide terrorism. It was an extremely important target for combatting terror. I do not believe either Iran nor North Korea was a bigger threat.
WmLambert Wrote:ag, you forgot to mention that Iraq was a catalyst and main launching point for world-wide terrorism.
There were no Iraqis among mercenaries in Chechnia, most of them were Turks. Lets bomb Turkey ... after holiday season, not now.
WmLambert Wrote:ag, you forgot to mention that Iraq was a catalyst and main launching point for world-wide terrorism. It was an extremely important target for combatting terror. I do not believe either Iran nor North Korea was a bigger threat.
I think this mantle went to mullahs since the embassy occupation.
bh Wrote:There were no Iraqis among mercenaries in Chechnia, most of them were Turks. Lets bomb Turkey ... after holiday season, not now.
Chechnia is internal Russia's prob. in geographical terms, is it not? So it is (I think) up to Russia to organize the bombing. Shock
Yes, the Iraqi Civil war the media is harping on every 4 minutes. Somehow, they've been harping on it for the last few months and so far those darn Iraqis refuse to get on with it despite any urgings from the media.

I am more inclined to think this "Civil War" scare will pass into the quiet from their scripts, like the media's previous bogeyman, the "Brutal Afgan Winter" and the headline that Afganistan was the humbler of Empires.

So far, it was around 50 F and we've (us and them) have began anew after toppling the Taleban.

No, no amount of emotional blithering is going to do much, much less when put in a less then constructive post. Wink1
ag Wrote:Pakistan can be kept in check by proxy (cheaper and more flexible). There was/is no need for direct involvement.

They're already sheltering OBL, and they've let nuclear technology be sold on the open market (by A. Q. Kahn.) These may not be direct threats, but they're still more direct then the threats Iraq posed. We could have also dealt with Iraq indirectly.
Quote: We could have also dealt with Iraq indirectly

????????????

What do you mean? We had 10+ years of embargos, with the UN's brilliant Oil-for-Palaces... I mean Oil-for-Food program. It was the largest bribe scandal in human history. The embargo leaked like a sieve, and most of the international leftists wanted it removed because of all the humanitarian suffering allegedly caused by it.

Saddam was just going to wait for the will of the so-called international community to collapse, which it was close to doing.

My own belief is that there won't be enough participation to effect Iran with an embargo (which the US already has in place). Russia, China, or the French will gladly supply Iran's needs even if most of the rest of the world joins an embargo.

-S
So how do you propose dealing with Pakistan without using more direct force?
How about if Israel announced that when they win the next war against Arab and Persian states, they plan to keep the land and any oil that is in them this time, and order all residents who refuse to pledge allegiance to their sovereignty to voluntarily leave the new greater Israel and emigrate to whatever Muslim country will take them? They can call it the "Will of Allah Diaspora."
ag Wrote:
bh Wrote:There were no Iraqis among mercenaries in Chechnia, most of them were Turks. Lets bomb Turkey ... after holiday season, not now.
Chechnia is internal Russia's prob. in geographical terms, is it not? So it is (I think) up to Russia to organize the bombing. Shock
Exactly internal, it's what Russia tries to explain to Turkey - member of NATO and key ally of US in region. In fact US and NATO are at least indirectly behind terrorists in Chechnia.
b5d Wrote:So how do you propose dealing with Pakistan without using more direct force?

WmLambert Wrote:How about if Israel announced that when they win the next war against Arab and Persian states, they plan to keep the land and any oil that is in them this time, and order all residents who refuse to pledge allegiance to their sovereignty to voluntarily leave the new greater Israel and emigrate to whatever Muslim country will take them? They can call it the "Will of Allah Diaspora."

Then why didn't we try that with Iraq? Israel's closer to Iraq than Pakistan.

To answer my own question, it's because Israel is (supposedly) a democracy, and if it were to become a 90+% majority Muslim country, they might have to change things just slightly.
Pages: 1 2