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.
If you think they have little support and really weak, then why is the US/NATO who have 110,000 soldiers are struggling to defeat a group of 25,000 fighters who are lightly armed for the last 8 years?
If you think they're losing support then why do they operate in 80% of the country up from 54 percent two years ago.?
Keep this in mind, the more you kill the more they will expand.
We only had an average of 20 000 troops there in the past 8 years. A true half-assed effort.
We only had an average of 20 000 troops there in the past 8 years. A true half-assed effort.
It dosent matter if the citizens dont want to be occupied then no matter what you do, you will not succeed.
Why do you think the U.S. was successful against Al-Qaeda and other militant groups in Iraq? Because the Iraqis themselves were against them, they didn't support them from the begginning.
It dosent matter if the citizens dont want to be occupied then no matter what you do, you will not succeed.
Why do you think the U.S. was successful against Al-Qaeda and other militant groups in Iraq? Because the Iraqis themselves were against them, they didn't support them from the begginning.
Iraw war was supposed to be over in a matter of months, but then we got bogged down in a fight against the insurgents, and Al Qeada was very welcome in their ranks. That went on for six years. Where have you been?
See what wonders having a compotent president can do to your international relations?
There are two ways to handle your allies:
1. Spit in their face, divide them into 'old Europe' and 'new Europe', pour their wine in the gutter and rename french-fries to something else and cry about them not submitting to our demands.
2. Shake their hand and treat them with respect, and then discuss ways to work toward common goals.
1. Spit in their face, divide them into 'old Europe' and 'new Europe', pour their wine in the gutter and rename french-fries to something else and cry about them not submitting to our demands.
2. Shake their hand and treat them with respect, and then discuss ways to work toward common goals.
Or you can just call them a bunch of crazy socialists. Seems to work for a lot of people in here
i am not happy. i am watching history repeat itself. it's not enough to just pull up the analogy of the vietnam war, although that would be appropriate as well. just remember 1999:
Main Street Americans ask of the Serbian war, "What in hell are we doing over there?". At Nato's hideous jubilee party, these doubters are the great uninvited.
Such Americans are the dreaded isolationists who haunt the globalist dreams of the Clintons and Blairs (if such men can be said to dream). For their pacific concerns they are vilified as nativists and xenophobes. Why is it, by the way, that those who oppose killing foreigners are the ones called xenophobes?
The Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has called isolationism a"cancer". If so, the cancer is congenital. Mrs. Albright may be unfamiliar with the basic foreign-policy statement of the American founding, the Farewell Address of George Washington, in which the father of our country adjured his posterity to "steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the world".
Washington's carcinogenic advice is still regarded as sound by millions of his countrymen. Even at the height of the Cold War, opinion polls found that one -third of the citizenry wanted to bring the boys home from Europe, and, despite nightly lectures by the Instant Balkan Experts of the idiot box, they would really rather sit this one out. But the two parties will not let them do so. Just as in the early 1960s, liberal Democrat technocrats have stumbled into an unpopular and potentially disastrous war, and the Republicans have demanded ... escalation!
now we have the same situation in reverse, with our country verging closer to bankruptcy daily. we have only to look at russia to see what an out of control military budget can do to a country.
Everything you say is right but what can we do Afghanistan is a training ground for Alqaeda. Thats a fact now it was a fact in the Clinton and Bush years. I totally agreed with going to Afghanistan,Iraq was the mistake. Germany I think we can leave now as well as a lot of other places but for our own safety we must fight in Afghanistan and think you to the men and women serving in all theatres
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.
