Originally posted by Iron MonkeyERRATUM: that should have read '33-odd years'. 1975-2008. can't do arithmetic at 2:30am.
You lost the Vietnam war. The communist regime is still in power 38-odd years after the last US troops left the country. Iraq is a mess almost 5 years after it was invaded. Look, i'd personally much prefer that the US had achieved decisive victories in each case, but it didn't happen. Both operations were botched.
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyVietnam was lost, yes.
You lost the Vietnam war. The communist regime is still in power 38-odd years after the last US troops left the country. Iraq is a mess almost 5 years after it was invaded. Look, i'd personally much prefer that the US had achieved decisive victories in each case, but it didn't happen. Both operations were botched.
Iraq being a mess is Iraq's problem. I am all for helping them out, but we did what we set out to do and succeeded. Rather, the military folks did in our name.
Fighting never stops. Therefore if you insist that the presence of fighting means American failure, you've defined success as theoretically impossible. That's why you think the US "is losing" when in fact the war's long over and we won.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungFirst, what do you mean by 'fighting never stops'? it stopped in post WW2 Germany and Japan (except for the odd cave-dwelling Japanese soldier who hadn't heard the war was over). I'd happily say that the Allies won both world wars, or that the Unionists won the American civil war.
Vietnam was lost, yes.
Iraq being a mess is Iraq's problem. I am all for helping them out, but we did what we set out to do and succeeded. Rather, the military folks did in our name.
Fighting never stops. Therefore if you insist that the presence of fighting means American failure, you've defined success as theoretically impossible. That's why you think the US "is losing" when in fact the war's long over and we won.
But we don't see that in Iraq. we see a daily list of casualties because, as you say, fighting continues.
At any rate, the US has made it clear that its goal is to oversee the transition of Iraq to a stable democracy, and that goal has clearly not been achieved, and won't be in the near future. Granted, the initial invasion phase went well, and Saddam was captured, but as i said, no-one seemed to give much thought to the post invasion part of the operation.
And it is clearly wrong to say the mess in Iraq is Iraq's problem. The US made the mess, the Iraqi people are probably less secure than they were under Saddam, and if the US were to withdraw from the country now, the chances are that a state even more inimical to US and Western interests would emerge in that country. You still have a lot of cleaning up to do.
2 edits
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyThey just tried to fire mortar shells at a Marine barracks or something in Japan! Fighting exists everywhere.
First, what do you mean by 'fighting never stops'? it stopped in post WW2 Germany and Japan (except for the odd cave-dwelling Japanese soldier who hadn't heard the war was over). I'd happily say that the Allies won both world wars, or that the Unionists won the American civil war.
But we don't see that in Iraq. we see a daily list of casualties becau estern interests would emerge in that country. You still have a lot of cleaning up to do.
Are you recommending we nuke Baghdad to cow the enemy? That's how we got control of Japan...
1 edit
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI think cleaning up over there is a good idea.
First, what do you mean by 'fighting never stops'? it stopped in post WW2 Germany and Japan (except for the odd cave-dwelling Japanese soldier who hadn't heard the war was over). I'd happily say that the Allies won both world wars, or that the Unionists won the American civil war.
But we don't see that in Iraq. we see a daily list of casualties becau estern interests would emerge in that country. You still have a lot of cleaning up to do.
Would you please clarify this?
At any rate, the US has made it clear that its goal is to oversee the transition of Iraq to a stable democracy,
Who said what when? Was it a military person, making it a military goal, or is this a political goal? How do you know when you've succeeded? What are the measurable benchmarks?
The Iraqi peoples' security is the Iraqi peoples' problem. If a hostile state arose in Iraq...so what? Iraq is a mess, was a mess, has been a mess, and unless the people there decide otherwise, will always BE a mess. When it gets to be too much of a problem we can take them out again. Eventually they'll learn. They have learned; they're doing a great job defending themselves over there, actually. Iraq looks quite promising.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungfor now: ('US lowers sights on what can be achieved in Iraq'😉
I think cleaning up over there is a good idea.
Would you please clarify this?
At any rate, the US has made it clear that its goal is to oversee the transition of Iraq to a stable democracy,
Who said what when? Was it a military person, making it a military goal, or is this a political goal? How do you know when you've succeeded? What a ...[text shortened]... e doing a great job defending themselves over there, actually. Iraq looks quite promising.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html
1 edit
Originally posted by Iron MonkeyI see a lot of talk about what's possible and what was expected, but never a statement of "we are going to do X". Basically we had an idea of how we wanted things to go, but the Iraqis have different ideas. OK. Let them do their thing.
for now: ('US lowers sights on what can be achieved in Iraq'😉
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853.html
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe US isn't in Iraq for the good of Iraqis - it is there in its own interest, and its interest is in a democratic and non-hostile Iraq, and access to Iraqi oil.
I see a lot of talk about what's possible and what was expected, but never a statement of "we are going to do X". Basically we had an idea of how we wanted things to go, but the Iraqis have different ideas. OK. Let them do their thing.
So, either the US screwed up in spending a huge amount of money a killing lots of people to invade (because, perhaps, it wasn't in its interest after all), OR it has screwed up because it has failed to achieve what is in its interest. Not only that, it has damaged its global reputation as an agent for good, and as a power capable of achieving the outcomes it wants.
The Vietnam Mess was lost for the same reason iraq WILL be! The a**hole polititions that decide if we can actually shoot or if we need to just shake our finger at them. Had anyone had the Ba**s to go after Vietnam with everything we had the war would have been "Won" in three months OR we would have been in WW3 with China! I just wish Truman would have unleashed Patton when he had the chance and we could have had a "Pax Americana" over the entire world!! And the citizen of that time (1945-6) was pshycologically prepared for the war to go on for at least another year!! With the A-Bomb it wouldn't have taken six months to declare "Peace" throughout the entire planet!! AND we'd STILL have fanatical Muslims killing people and committing atrocities!