Page 62 of 66 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... LastLast
Results 611 to 620 of 657

Thread: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

  1. #611
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    01-05-17 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    71

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    your first point is totally meaningless to the argument. because we weren't attacked we should pull out our troops and allow chaos to reign in Iraq. that makes no sense(not that it stopped Obama from doing it anyway).

    on to your second point, you have proof that only a few years after WWII both Germany and Japan were humming like well oiled machines and didn't really need our help? then why the hell are we still there lee?
    As to the first point, yes, policy differs based in circumstances. A world encompassing war initiated by two first world nation aggressors requires a completely different occupation strategy than a war with a third world non-aggressor nation, based on two primary reasons that were found to be completely false. And actually, the occupation of mainland Japan only lasted seven years, but the agreement allowed the US to maintain bases on islands like Okinawa.

    As for the second point, the proof is called a history book. They made us read those to graduate college.
    Last edited by Leeburte; 11-15-14 at 02:21 PM.

  2. #612
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    In the issue of the Middle East, is it the role of the USA to go in and fix the problems that exist there?
    The problems in the Middle East will not remain in the Middle East. Now there is no control over what's going on there and containment becomes a more serious problem. Fifty thousand military remaining in the Middle East, as many advised.

    Even the NYTimes had an article on it at the time. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/wo...eave.html?_r=0

    So did Panetta. BBC News - Iraq will ask US troops to stay post-2011, says Panetta

    And this on Iran's seeking more control over the Middle East. U.S. Eyes Covert Plan to Counter Iran in Iraq - WSJ

  3. #613
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    And getting back specifically to the invasion of Iraq, was that worthwhile from the perspective of benefiting US interests? Given the enormous cost in terms of both blood and treasure, I say no. The results of the invasion have not been positive, have not furthered US interests in the region, have been costly to the extreme.
    It could have been extremely advantageous, had it been executed correctly. After the situation was initially mishandled, policies were adjusted and strides were made. But between the antiwar/antiimperialist braying at home and the Shia politicians in Baghdad, that momentum couldn't be sustained.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  4. #614
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    I haven't seen any official details about these 1,500, but it seems likely they are mostly special forces of some type. If they are going to be coaching local troops, or designating targets for aircraft, many or most will have to get pretty close to the jihadists. And things will always go wrong--not least because some of the supposedly-friendly local troops are working with the enemy.

    Am I the only one who wonders who will help any of our men who run into a larger force than expected, are ambushed or surrounded, or in some other way get into a desperate situation? Only if they are near Baghdad or Irbil will much help be available. In other places, without any forward bases from which strong forces supported by armed helicopters, etc. could rush to the rescue in an hour or two, some of these "advisers" are very likely to be captured or killed.

  5. #615
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    It could have been extremely advantageous, had it been executed correctly. After the situation was initially mishandled, policies were adjusted and strides were made. But between the antiwar/antiimperialist braying at home and the Shia politicians in Baghdad, that momentum couldn't be sustained.
    The way to have executed it correctly would have been to just stay away. Saddam Hussain may not exactly have been a democratically elected leader, but he did keep Iraq stable and kept Al Qaeda out. That may not have b een great for the Iraqis, but it was in the interest of the United States.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  6. #616
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    The way to have executed it correctly would have been to just stay away. Saddam Hussain may not exactly have been a democratically elected leader, but he did keep Iraq stable and kept Al Qaeda out. That may not have b een great for the Iraqis, but it was in the interest of the United States.
    But having a more democratic Middle East is better for the US, in the long run. The issue with the Middle East is since the fall of the Ottoman Empire there has been precious little means for the common person to feel enfranchised. This only promotes revolutionary ideology and actions- which is all Muslim extremism is, as dictators typically restricted all opposing parties and any civic institutions that could defy them, but left the mosque alone, where dissent was naturally funneled into, but I digress.

    As long as the only outlet for enfranchisement remained in revolutionary actions, the world was going to suffer violent Arab attacks globally- particularly with the general democratization of violence that we've seen with the rise of the internet and all that. With this in mind, the repeated violations of Saddam Hussein became an extremely attractive- and compared to any other area, a very easily sellable- opportunity for affecting that change and managing it. Of course it was going to be messy at first, but the bumbling done in 2003 made it that much harder to even institute a more open society, period, let alone manage its maturity. But by 2007 the security situation had stabilized and the next step could be initiated.

    Except the folks I've mentioned in a previous post put the brakes on all that. So that was bad.

    And keeping Saddam in power wouldn't have done anything but kick that can down the road a bit, hoping it'd go away. After 9/11, policy makers weren't in the mood to just hope it'd go away. Which I understand and appreciate, but they also weren't "in the mood" to execute the invasion correctly, which I don't.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  7. #617
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,540

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    But having a more democratic Middle East is better for the US, in the long run. The issue with the Middle East is since the fall of the Ottoman Empire there has been precious little means for the common person to feel enfranchised. This only promotes revolutionary ideology and actions- which is all Muslim extremism is, as dictators typically restricted all opposing parties and any civic institutions that could defy them, but left the mosque alone, where dissent was naturally funneled into, but I digress.

    As long as the only outlet for enfranchisement remained in revolutionary actions, the world was going to suffer violent Arab attacks globally- particularly with the general democratization of violence that we've seen with the rise of the internet and all that. With this in mind, the repeated violations of Saddam Hussein became an extremely attractive- and compared to any other area, a very easily sellable- opportunity for affecting that change and managing it. Of course it was going to be messy at first, but the bumbling done in 2003 made it that much harder to even institute a more open society, period, let alone manage its maturity. But by 2007 the security situation had stabilized and the next step could be initiated.

    Except the folks I've mentioned in a previous post put the brakes on all that. So that was bad.

    And keeping Saddam in power wouldn't have done anything but kick that can down the road a bit, hoping it'd go away. After 9/11, policy makers weren't in the mood to just hope it'd go away. Which I understand and appreciate, but they also weren't "in the mood" to execute the invasion correctly, which I don't.
    And part of not executing the invasion correctly was in conflating Saddam Hussain and his lack of compliance and supposed WMD with the attack on the WTC, which was Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq until after the invasion.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  8. #618
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    And part of not executing the invasion correctly was in conflating Saddam Hussain and his lack of compliance and supposed WMD with the attack on the WTC, which was Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq until after the invasion.
    No. Simply, no. There's no "conflating", it only looks like that you're not looking at the Middle East as a system in and of itself. It's like saying someone is "conflating" diabetes, a blood sugar deficiency, with someone losing their foot. On the surface it kinda looks unrelated. Unless you understand that, no, they are actually related. Or like the relationship between tooth plaque and heart disease. Someone telling you to brush better because it could affect your heart's health might sound stupid and like they're "conflating" two different issues...unless you know better.

    Which I just explained, so I'm not sure why you just repeated yourself.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  9. #619
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    And getting back specifically to the invasion of Iraq, was that worthwhile from the perspective of benefiting US interests? Given the enormous cost in terms of both blood and treasure, I say no. The results of the invasion have not been positive, have not furthered US interests in the region, have been costly to the extreme.
    The results were positive until the forces were removed from Iraq. There were costs of blood and treasure and those costs and sacrifices should have been protected. Leaving meant throwing all those lives, treasure and gains away.

  10. #620
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: CNN: 1,500 more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    And part of not executing the invasion correctly was in conflating Saddam Hussain and his lack of compliance and supposed WMD with the attack on the WTC, which was Al Qaeda, which was not in Iraq until after the invasion.
    You keep confusing Saddam and Iraq with the entire Middle East. Recall that the terrorists came form the Middle East, the 'caliphate' is now in the Middle East, international terrorism has its roots in the Middle East. You can forget about the geographical lines imposed by the 'imperialists' and think about the area in its entirety.

Page 62 of 66 FirstFirst ... 12526061626364 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •