Don't change the subject man.......just discuss. You said the administration was incompetent in handling this war. I then wrote what I wrote and you end up turning this into a question about a tyrant someplace else. If all you can do is comment negatively about Iraq, that's fine. But try and focus on Iraq cause that's what I was talking about. Not some tyrant in Chad.
One more thing. The only real change comes through war....not peace. All of history's great triumphs for democracy came through war. If that country is posing a threat to us and our people, we should do exactly what we have done in Iraq. If the country is like Sri Lanka, hey they pose no threat so let their tyrant get rich and kill his own people.
We are paying a big price now for the disdain with which we treated the Iranian people by propping up the Shah. The pity of this is that a large segment of their population likes Americans. Many were educated here. Their Islamist state is largely reactionary to past Western oppression, and now Bush has bolstered their influence with his invasion of Iraq.
I disagree. I was in Desert Storm and I said at that time that one day we would have to go back in and finish the job we did not finish then. The Dulfer Report stated that Saadam got rid of his WMDs in order to get the UN sanctions lifted, and the reason he wanted the sanctions lifted was so he could re-develop his WMD without interference. We would have had to take him out sooner or later.
Iran is a tougher nut to crack than Iraq was. For one thing, Israel would have to fly over the air space of Arab nations. Not likely they would allow that. And there are other complications to boot. We may have to go the UN sanctions route, although that has not been very effective. Iran will definately be difficult to deal with. I do not see any president having enough public support to attack Iran unless Iran attacks us.
I have to agree with you, although I generally try to be careful in lumping huge populations together when passing judgment. Usually I prefer to judge others one person at a time. But Islam seems to be a 16th century religion trying to live in the 21st century. It is an anacronysm. That is why it is so dangerous. It feels threatened because it cannot comfortably live in the modern world. What other religion speaks of Infidels? That is a 16th century term.
that was a very long-winded way of again saying you think we need troops ready for another war you do not favor. you realize we are not going to be in a war with north korea, china and pakistan antyime soon. and even if we did, we could just leave iraq today and fly our guys to pyongang tomorrow. they would be battle ready. if you want these other countries to start some trouble then following your policy of not finishing what we started will certainly encourage them. if they think americans do not have the stomach to finish, that makes it that much more likley they will start some trouble. no crazed leader will want to start a war with us if they know damn well we will overthrow their country and turn it into a free democracy, regardless of the resistance. but they will start a war with us if they know that an insurgency wills send us home scared so they can return to the way they were before we got there. when you get in a fight, you keep beating your opponent until he has zero chance of fighting you back. if you dont finish, then people will know you are not a finisher, and they will get in line to take their shot next.
Prudence demands that we must be prepared for what is possible, not what is probable, and certainly not by what we favor. Do you not understand this? Nonsense. Do a little research. The wise policy is to not start something you can't finish. It's a prudent, sound, and proven Republican policy. The elder president Bush knew this when he wisely decided not to invade Iraq in 1991 when we had a 500,000-man army on the ground. In his his 1997 memoir "A World Transformed" he said, "Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs... . We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy'. Had we gone the invasion route, The United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Then why are we dicking around over there? Whatever happened to the wise and successful Powell Doctrine--Either we go in with everything we have and win decisively or we don't go in at all, and we never go in without an exit strategy. The brass said 500,000 troops were needed and they were obviously right since we cannot seal the borders, maintain security, nor keep control of all of the cities. We have retaken some cities five times and then have to leave to retake another city. Three years now and the situation is worse than ever. The Iraqis are not cooperating. This is not Japan or Germany with an educated population that worked with us. These Islamic bastards don't deserve our help. If they were enemy enough for us to invade without military provocation, then what the hell do we owe them? We already won the war. We win the occupation by leaving the friggin' mess to them. Let them stew in their own juices. We will have bigger fish to fry soon. Bush naively expects the inept and infiltrated Iraqi military to control Iraq when we cannot even do it with the force we have there. This war is being mismanaged at the political level and the troops deserve to be utilized better.
That's like saying "All of Europe hates America." A huge general statement. And the Iraqi population as a whole is well educated. Anyway, in our occupation of Germany after WWII, there were bombs exploded against our soldiers helping to rebuild a morally corrupt society. Same things were happening.........roadside bombs then and now. So you think the Iraqi "bastards" as you call them do not deserve our help but the Germans and Japanese who killed almost 500,000 of our men deserved help? Because that was a good war in your estimation.
