by Osterreich-Bayern » Tue May 19, 2015 11:17 am
by Osterreich-Bayern » Tue May 19, 2015 11:18 am
by Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire » Tue May 19, 2015 11:21 am
by Herskerstad » Tue May 19, 2015 12:06 pm
by Valaran » Tue May 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Benuty » Tue May 19, 2015 12:22 pm
by Conservative Values » Tue May 19, 2015 12:47 pm
Benuty wrote:Marco Rubio's interview on Fox News was hilarious because the interviewer kept pestering them to answer "was the Iraq war a mistake?". Rubio couldn't seem to grasp the concept enough to give a clear answer.
by Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire » Tue May 19, 2015 12:50 pm
Conservative Values wrote:Benuty wrote:Marco Rubio's interview on Fox News was hilarious because the interviewer kept pestering them to answer "was the Iraq war a mistake?". Rubio couldn't seem to grasp the concept enough to give a clear answer.
Rubio was killing it, IMO. He really impressed me. No one on the GOP side should flat out say that invading Iraq was a mistake. Given all the information on the table if the exact same thing happened again all candidates in both parties would do the exact same thing. If everyone would do it, it isn't a mistake. Just because later you get information that contradicted your decision doesn't make that decision a mistake.
I've had health insurance my whole life and never come out ahead, I've always spent more on premiums than I would have on actual health costs. If you ask me "Knowing what we know now, was it a mistake to have health insurance?" The answer is of course not, it is never a good idea to take that risk. It is the same concept, just because you find out later the risk you were responding to wasn't going to come to pass makes NO impact on if the risk assessment was correct at the time. It was. And Rubio communicated it better than anyone else in the GOP field has so far, he definitely did much better than Bush did.
by Hawick » Tue May 19, 2015 12:53 pm
by New Werpland » Tue May 19, 2015 12:57 pm
Hawick wrote:No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.
by Hawick » Tue May 19, 2015 1:02 pm
New Werpland wrote:Hawick wrote:No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.
It's a little more complicated than that. Western governments are afraid to look like the ebul neocons who perpetrated Iraq, aiding freedom fighters in the war against totalitarianism is ok though.
by Shamhnan Insir » Tue May 19, 2015 1:18 pm
Darwinish Brentsylvania wrote:Shamhnan Insir started this wonderful tranquility, ALL PRAISE THE SHEPHERD KING
by Laerod » Tue May 19, 2015 1:21 pm
Osterreich-Bayern wrote:In my opinion the failure in Iraq is harming the intrests of the west and may come back to the bite them in the form of formation of terrorist havens
by Dooom35796821595 » Tue May 19, 2015 1:32 pm
by New Skaaneland » Tue May 19, 2015 1:58 pm
Undo the Taylor report!
OOOOO HELSINGBORGS IF OOOOO
by Geilinor » Tue May 19, 2015 2:45 pm
New Skaaneland wrote:I think the more common expression would be "Stockholm Syndrome", which is pretty much everything which is famous about that northern shithole. Oh.. That and the ship "Wasa", which sunk on its' first trip.
by Osterreich-Bayern » Tue May 19, 2015 4:22 pm
Hawick wrote:No, there doesn't seem to be, given how eager our governments have been to intervene in Libya and Syria. Which is unfortunate, given the destruction caused by the rebels in Libya and Syria.
by Genivaria » Tue May 19, 2015 4:36 pm
Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire wrote:It isn't any supposed "failure" of OIF/OEF that is causing people to be leery, it's the fact that since 1945 there hasn't been a single successful large-scale military engagement that has ended with the world in a better place than before the military engagement.
Continuing to allow the status quo isn't acceptable.
Engaging in bellicose foreign policy via military isn't acceptable.
People are clamoring for a better path.
by Lalaki » Tue May 19, 2015 6:24 pm
by Genivaria » Tue May 19, 2015 6:36 pm
Lalaki wrote:People should be reluctant to go to war. Our 2003 invasion of Iraq was a big mistake (perhaps one of the biggest America has ever made). We should have focused all of our resources on Afghanistan and left Hussein alone if only for stability.
by Nierra » Tue May 19, 2015 6:58 pm
by Hollorous » Tue May 19, 2015 7:01 pm
Osterreich-Bayern wrote:Is there Iraq syndrome in western politics and if there is should there be or shouldn't there be?
Iraq sydrome is a reference to Vietnam syndrome in which politicians and the public in the west were scared of starting a war because of the recent failure of the war in Vietnam. Is that the case today with the failure of the war in Iraq? Has it prevented wars in Syria,Iraq,Iran,N Korea,Sudan,Egypt,Libya,Tunisia? Should it is the failure in Iraq an example of why the west should fight harder or not fight at all? Share your opinions
Is this same syndrome happening in the east (Iran russia china N Korea)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Pekares, Phoeniae, Picairn, Skwar, The Xenopolis Confederation, Valrifall
Advertisement