Terrorists dude... Isn't it obvious? Why do you insist on making me do your work for you. Think for yourself.
It's not even about people admitting it's won or not...it's the very impractical nature of 'let's just leave'...a total fantasy of what would occur after that (or they just don't give a fuck), when almost anyone with common sense could see the very real dangers of doing that.
it should be about holding the people accountable who got us into that mess people should take responsibility and step down, quit, resign etc
See, this is why I don't take some liberal seriously. Because they do believe in their own bullshit. I know both sides of the coin do this, but their action are almost malacious, and bitch-like. We'd never do half of what we did in WWII if it was up to the media now-a-days. People make this shit-out to be far more dramatic than it is. They act like bitches. Perhaps that's why WWII was far more successful. The media was far more in check. Military action was a lot more free to act. I see good and bad things about that, but it's very impractical to have your own countries (special interests aka media) talk shit about our actions on the field. Denazification.... Carpet bombing.... None of these would be acceptable in modern media, but they're just two things that made Germany give-in to change. We did the same thing to Japan. Full surrender. I prefer not to use language e.g win or lost....that's just begs others to fight you semantical, which ends-up being a lost cause. Unfortunately parts of the middle-east live within a very stone-age mentality. I would say they're not used to freedom, and a form of free-government will take a very long road to go down. I don't know. Saddam did lie about some of his WMD caches [saying he got rid of them, but he didn't], and he's really not someone to believe....ever. Could they have? Sure. But there's very little to clarify this. I strattle the fence on this issue, but I'm sure we'll historically clarify this.
I would just let it go ... Gtech probably does not recall Russia trying to do thier thing in Afganistan ended up pulling out. It is very difficult to win a war like this without much sacrifice no matter how well our troops are equiped. I think the extended timelines for handing it over should clearly point that out.
Well, do you think your democratic leaders have taken this route or will? ------------ I don't think so, because they have implications on themself. But this is a very hypothetical view, is it not? What should happen or shouldn't happen....I'm more interested in what will happen. Unfortunately that decesion in war has to be taken before the war happens...to be remotely effective.
yeah well this whole "well we are there now and let just look forword" thing is BS if someone was running a company and they caused massive profit loses and lay offs due to their ill planned actions, they would be fired Are you guys for accountability and responsiblity or not?
Of course I would. But that isn't what will happen. The country is ruined, too late to live that "Liberate Iraq" dream now mate, about 3 years and 9 months too late actually.
Do you recall why they pulled-out? Their intent was to hold the region. The US doesn't intend to control the region. They've allowed a considerable amount of power to be held by a 'democratic-like' form of government in Afgan. Russia had a much bigger opposition (because they desired much more control), and the Solviet Union was crumbling fiscally. Their power structure was vaguely similiar to their past. They also had no idea how to fight counter-insurgencies.... Not to mention:
I don't ever wholesale apply to idealism....what's in your mind ferret, is not what the world revolves around. And to some level I'm thankful. I deal with what can practically be done.
Do you ever read the history? Russians installed a puppet government exactly the same way that American did.
Because Afghanistan is an occupied country and the government has no power of it's own and it's existence is based on the will of occupying forces. The same way that the other government was a puppet government for the Russians.
Gworld is correct. We are doing the same as the Russians by installing powers that will favorable to our own and not truly what the people want.
Mate, I can only think of a few people in the world that cannot see Iraq is ruined. That is Bush, Bill O'Reilly, GTech, Mia and some bloke with no teeth that I spotted in town earlier today who had his knob hanging out. Best option is to get them troops out right now. The cost alone of pursuing this lost cause will ruin America: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m29187&hd=&size=1&l=e Them brave 9/11 workers ain't getting what they deserve either: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1551.shtml Quite a few have died already, but I think that is just the tip of the iceberg, I am sure many more will die. They, like us have been lied to, theirs was about the air quality immediately around the WTC Complex on 9/11 and the subsequent weeks.
You haven't answered a shitload of my questions in the past...so I find no interest in answering yours (in it's specific context). But I'll answer it this way..... Yes, if that's throroughly and historically applied. Just pushing this upon the ole' anti-bush agenda is so disguisting and bitch-like. It seems like every interest is only pushing to apply those above consequences when it seems to fit to their particular idealogy. Should the courts be accountable to dilluting the constitution,.....yes (how's a good question as well) Should congress be accountable to the unconstitutional manner of declaring wars among their many other odd activities,.....yes (which is a far more practical question to assume but is rarely acted upon by either of the parties constituents) Should the multitude of admins be held accountable for the many ways they've harmed our form of government.....sure. (but again...it all goes back to us little peons) Will any of this happen? Maybe, but most of it won't. Either way, I don't want to live in your fantasy world, where we apply your politics throroughly. Agenda and responsibility don't go hand-in hand for me. I'd say this is why I loathe the theory of 'democracy', rather than limited government. My concept of government adheres to limits and demands super-majorities (for structural decesions), while 'democracy' appears to favor the rather subjective whims of the day. I'd say almost none of these problems would exist if my form of government existed. But that's too throughly practical and principled for many in this forum to fully grasp. And sadly I think it's destine to be only fantasy as well. Take that answer fully, and you'll understand my perspective on most of the above.