...and those who do not learn history correctly are simply doomed.
I've got exactly one reason why this proposal to emulate the long-term force in Korea is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Korea was a traditional war between nations, with a defined border. The troops that are there now are nothing more than a deterrent against renewed hostilities. And the fighting was over by the time it was decided the troops needed to stay.
How, pray tell, is any of this similar IN ANY FUCKING WAY to Iraq? */me sighs, shakes head*
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Are we calling this an occupation yet, or is it still a liberation?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
(Somehow, I don't think this is supposed to be in the contests forum...)
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Unless, TSN just won the prize!
To be honest, the US as the world police is a concept that makes me laugh. They will never win over the Iraqi people, and nor can they apply the concepts from the Korean war to this. The only thing in common is that they are both effectivly civil wars.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I beg to differ. Iraq was not a civil war, it was an invasion. NOW its a civil war, of course, but it wasn't to begin with...I'm really just tired of hearing about it and I look forward to the day there's something else on the news. It's all you hear about over here.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I agree, Iraq was not a civil war until we went in and kicked all the anthills over. However, in fairness, all of this conflict and hatred was always there, it was just squelched by Hussein and his cronies. (Of course, that makes it all the worse for Bush, because they should've known before they went in.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Alas, poor Apghanistan is the neglected stepchild in the (cough) War on Terror. After all, just because the Taliban was actively training terrorists does not mean that we should concentrate our efforts there- not when there are other lands to invade.
Speaking as someone with a cousin serving in Iraq now (why he joined up is beyond me), I'm not voting for anyne that follows the current murky "maybe there for years" theory of "nation building" in the most corrupt country on the planet.
Literally billions have just....vanished in reconstruction money with no real effort put into tracking it down- it's embarrasing after all.
Fuck, if we invade anyone else, it should be our pals in Pakistan- it's where everyone agrees Bin Laden and the gang are hiding out- we can call it "manuvers" and leave the military regime in place. it wont be an invasion- we wont have to rebuild anything (as our targets are mostly in tents and caves, I guess) and if we blow the hell out of the middle of nowhere, no one should bitch.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Not to defend (or even to criticize) our latest plan B here, but it is clear from news reports that they mean Korea in the "U.S. troops stationed there essentially forever" sense, not the "partition the country and guard the border" sense.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I have a better idea, we stop solving every damn problem with "Bomb the fuckers and throw troops at it." There *are* more effective ways. The only time a military invasion is the best reaction is when you're stopping a military invasion.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Not to defend (or even to criticize) our latest plan B here, but it is clear from news reports that they mean Korea in the "U.S. troops stationed there essentially forever" sense, not the "partition the country and guard the border" sense.
Very true, but that doesn't mitigate the stupidity in the slightest. The US troops in Iraq will not be able to just sit on their hands and do their job just by being there, as in Korea. So my opinion is that the analogy does not apply, regardless.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The problem you are having is that you are not enjoying the spoon feeding being given you, for shame.
Jason, when did we start rebuilding the US?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Alas, poor Apghanistan is the neglected stepchild in the (cough) War on Terror. After all, just because the Taliban was actively training terrorists does not mean that we should concentrate our efforts there- not when there are other lands to invade.
It's the oil, stupid.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
But to be more specific, its not to get MORE oil, but to drive the oil prices up, for the profits to filter upwards into the hands of people like the Bush and Cheney families, and their good buddies the Saudi Royals.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Alas, poor Apghanistan is the neglected stepchild in the (cough) War on Terror. After all, just because the Taliban was actively training terrorists does not mean that we should concentrate our efforts there- not when there are other lands to invade.
It's the oil, stupid.
If that were the case, there are better targets, besides, I have yet to see how we'll ever see any of that oil: even if we decide Iraq has to pay some giant sum for our assistance in setting up their new government, the whole corruption angle negates our ever really seeing it as a favorable deal. At minimum it would cost as much or more than just buying it from elsewhere (once you get into maintaining security and developing/maintaining the oil fields themselves).
It may well be that it was all about the oil, but it's certainly not what's keeping us there.
quote:Jason, when did we start rebuilding the US?
A very good question: we could have a national healthcare system. brand new New Orleans and a new World Trade Center for what this fiasco has cost in money.
Am I the only one that is sick of bozos saying that the key to stabilizing Iraq and making the whole world peaceful is to resolve the Palestenian/ Israel conflict? It's not as though any of the past peace agreements have ever been honored...