Originally posted by normbenignIranian insurgent support has been a one of the main problems, but I wouldn't call it the principle problem. Even if it was, it's far better to fight Iranian insurgents in Iraq than to fight them on their home turf where they have better support and an infinite supply of fellow countrymen to recruit at their fingertips instead of having to recruit from a population of Iraqis that are their enemy.
All probably factors making Iran a more difficult enemy, but the principle problem in Iraq for the last two years has been the Iranian imported insurgents. Would there have been a similar import of insurgents from Iraq? I doubt it.
The military victory in Iraq took only a few months. It may have taken a few more months in Iran, and any asymetrical w ...[text shortened]... my lived. They could hit and run, lick their wounds, and come back whenever they were ready.
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhere are you getting this information? Rush Limbaugh? Was it a "master stroke" to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, (justified by lies about weapons of mass destruction)? Was it a "master stroke" to send over 4,000 American soldiers to needless deaths? If you think Iraq will become a truly captialist democracy in the future, think again! This simple minded attitude precieved of the same thing happening in Russia...and that sure worked, didn't it!? Why don't you admit what most of the world already knows. George W Bush was, and is, an IDIOT!
" Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America's 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade I ...[text shortened]... he insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. "
Originally posted by generalissimoSure it is.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3965454/George-W-Bush-winning-the-war-on-terror.html
''Criticism of George W Bush is often driven by a dislike of his personality, not analysis of his achievements''
However, not in my case. I actually think the man's quite funny.
His policies, however, are so bad they make Dan Quayle look competent.
Originally posted by zeeblebotYeah...
saddam refused to follow the rules and show he didn't have a clandestine WMD program.
So, he didn't show us that he didn't have any nukes. Which he did show us, and he didn't.
We just thought he didn't, but did have.
I'm sure America is covering up giant alien socks. And they've not proven to us they aren't!
Originally posted by shavixmirThe fact that Bush lied, doesn't undermine the fact that Saddam was a war-mongering buffoon.
Yeah...
So, he didn't show us that he didn't have any nukes. Which he did show us, and he didn't.
We just thought he didn't, but did have.
I'm sure America is covering up giant alien socks. And they've not proven to us they aren't!