Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can't force democracy on people who want a theocracy, they just seem to turn around and elect theocrats who don't want democracy.
However we do have a practical interest in preventing more terrorist regimes from taking over entire countries....... and then joining the nuclear club. It's bad enough that Pakistan, NKorea, and soon Iran are nuclear powers, since any one of them could sell even just one nuke to a terrorist organization which could hold the world hostage ...... and such organizations don't present a target that can be destroyed in retaliation. You can't nuke al Qaeda.
Basically, we have to at least prevent the most brutal and irrational Islamists from gaining control over a country and using its manufacturing capabilities to wage jihad, particularly against Israel and the US. There's a reason Israel is crapping its pants over the prospect of Iran rolling off nukes on an assembly line, and it has to do with one nuke on Tell Aviv being able to destroy them as a nation. We in the US are in not much better position ....... could you imagine even a small true nuke going off in DC, followed by threats of more?
We don't need to put boots on the ground in Iraq, but we do need to ensure that ISIL can't take over entirely.
Hence the need for US to run their country until they realize its either work together and play nice or no one gets any pie. After awhile the leaders will realize what needs to be done.
Imagine if you and your family hated each other and couldnt make nice. I go in and take over your house, help myself to your money and everything else. I tell you I aint leaving until your family learns how to behave. After while you guys are gonna realize its in your best interest to put differences aside and work out your problems.
Only we didn't put them in the same pond. They were already in the same pond. The British/French/Americans simply divided the pond up in a way they thought would promote peace and stability. And they really did think so. They had a vested interest in peace and stability in the region.
Religious/cultural/political differences are unique to every region. The WEST cannot tell the people of the Middle East how to resolve those differences. We have a different religious/cultural/political mindset. The people within the region have to WANT to resolve those differences, and then DO IT THEMSELVES.
Your approach is like someone who thinks they can fix an alcoholic. Only the alcoholic can decide what he WANTS, and then resolve his issues for himself. No one else can fix him. You can help him, but the help lies in helping him help himself.
We can help the Middle East. But we cannot fix the Middle East. Only the people of the Middle East can decide what kind of government they want, what kind of society they want, what kind of freedom they want. We can't make those decisions for them. Those decisions belong to the people of the Middle East, not to us.
And we can't take total responsibility for the mess, either. The people of the Middle East have had a lot of power in choosing to end the violence or to continue it.
How is dividing up stuff with different rival factions gonna promote peace?
The US and England made this mess, atleast in Iraq and need to fix it.
Imagine if you and your family hated each other and couldnt make nice. I go in and take over your house, help myself to your money and everything else. I tell you I aint leaving until your family learns how to behave. After while you guys are gonna realize its in your best interest to put differences aside and work out your problems.
And since our biggest problem is *you*, guess what happens. You go out in a casket. Then we get back to fighting with each other.
How when I take all weapons from you and have numerous security forces watching you?
You would get shot, killed, or imprisoned the moment you tried anything violent.
Boy, that'll make them pay attention to your reform efforts. You really think they're so dumb that can't take you out? after all, they outnumber you and they know their own house better than you do.
But go ahead and go there. No one's stopping you. We'll nominate you for a Darwin award.
Boy, that'll make them pay attention to your reform efforts. You really think they're so dumb that can't take you out? after all, they outnumber you and they know their own house better than you do.
But go ahead and go there. No one's stopping you. We'll nominate you for a Darwin award.
You think the Iraqi ppl would be able to defeat and vanquish the USA army?
You think the Iraqi ppl would be able to defeat and vanquish the USA army?
Lmao
How many times has much stronger army been driven off by a weaker but more determined foe using guerrilla warfare and unconventional tactics?
The answer - A LOT.
We've been on both the giving end of that (the American Revolution) and the receiving end of that (Vietnam).
It cracks me up how many chickenhawks apparently don't know the first thing about military history. Asymmetric warfare can be a very challeging military situation for the stronger foe when guerilla warfare tactics are used because those tactics largely offset superior military might.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 06-19-2014 at 05:56 PM..
How many times has much stronger army been driven off by a weaker but more determined foe using guerrilla warfare and unconventional tactics?
The answer - A LOT.
We been on both the giving end of that (the American Revolution) and the receiving end of that (Vietnam).
It cracks me up how many chickenhawks apparently don't know the first thing about military history. Asymmetric warfare can be a very challeging military situation for the stronger foe when guerilla warfare tactics are used because those tactics largely offset superior military might.
Ken
We could have easily stayed in Saigon and ran that country if we wanted.
They were poor and no no oil though, so not sure how much we would have had to gain by doing such.
The problem with the Vietnam War just like the Afghan War is we were doing retarded patrols and missions in remote locations and villages leading to alot of casualties.
We could have easily stayed in Saigon and ran that country if we wanted.
They were poor and no no oil though, so not sure how much we would have had to gain by doing such.
The problem with the Vietnam War just like the Afghan War is we were doing retarded patrols and missions in remote locations and villages leading to alot of casualties.
The "wanted to" is the KEY PART you are overlooking.
HOW LONG do you think Americans WILL WANT to stay fighting a war that never seems to end? People fighting a guerilla war don't have to WIN, they just have to OUTLAST the stronger foe. We've shown time and time again that we don't WANT a never-ending war. We showed that in Vietnam and we're showing that in Iraq. Why do you expect that to suddenly change?
Your plans and expectation of what the American people will put up with are silly, irrational and unrealistic.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,171,154 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by medellinheel
Hence the need for US to run their country until they realize its either work together and play nice or no one gets any pie. After awhile the leaders will realize what needs to be done.
Imagine if you and your family hated each other and couldn't make nice. I go in and take over your house, help myself to your money and everything else. I tell you I aint leaving until your family learns how to behave. After while you guys are gonna realize its in your best interest to put differences aside and work out your problems.
At what cost? We threw away a huge amount of money and American lives on Iraq and Afghanistan ...... should we stay there forever and fritter away our tax money on keeping berserker Islamists away from each other? We can't afford that. It's more cost-effective to help the least nutty side maintain a part of the country, through weapons (sigh ..... hoping they don't get abandoned) and air cover.
We should also do our best to subtly encourage leaders who will work to incorporate Sunnis. Most of them really don't want to fighting alongside of vicious nutters, they don't want to live under a caliphate with the harshest possible interpretation of Sharia.
We need more psy-ops there, and less here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
