maybe some the fancy stuff comes from outside the country, but there were already huges arsenals of weapons already there Well that of course would be Iraqis surrendering to .... Iraqis Well that problem won't go away for many years if ever Do you think we should stay there for 20 years, and have 20k more americans die for Iraq
It's not just weapons or even IED's. It's training and logistic support and most of all it's funding. Not so much. Almost all of the leadership of the terrorist groups is non-Iraqi. Muqata al-Sadr is an exception, but even he has moved to Iran to be closer to his handlers. I'm not a nationalist or a racist. I believe that it is necessary at times to trade lives for freedom. I don't see Iraqi lives as less valuable than American lives or Iraqi freedom as less important than American freedom.
"Freedom from America" means "total submission to totalitarian Islam." I would never willingly condemn someone to that.
I dont think that Freedom from America means total submission to totalitarian Islam. I would not want that anyway but all the invasion is doing is giving more justification to the fanatical Islamic Elements. Freedom needs to be free, 100% No preconditions, no puppet governments, no gunboat diplomacy, no hidden agendas.
That is a pretty theory, but is completely impractical in implementation. Anarchy is an unstable form of government, it almost immediately devolves into rule by the strongest and most violent elements of society. The rule of law is the only system which has managed to hold back rampant violence and allow true freedom to flourish. If western civilization abandons Iraq to the Islamists today, we will see a replay of the millions of deaths which occured when we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam to the bloody Communists. The Iraqi's need a stable government and the Iraqi government is leaning on us to help them create that reality. If we walk away, we will create a power vacuum which will immediately be filled by the terrorists who are currently beseiging Iraq. These terrorists know this, which is exactly why they are using political and military pressure to encourage our withdrawl.
please post some links for that, everything I have read says otherwise there is supposed to be like 6% foregin fighters Most of the people fighting are locals That is very easy to say when there is a 0% chance you giving you life personally for the Iraqi Freedom
and where is vietnam now? one of our biggest trade partners Didn't we also support pol pot over there? After the vietnam war?
I know what profits mean...but again, do you know anything about the margin of profits over expenditures?? There percentage was well below what most US companies make...meaning that it cost them a whole lot more to do the production part of their business. Furthermore, if George Bush really did this war for oil, why arn't the prices going down....i.e. you go to war to GET the oil, not GIVE it to others...so why are the prices in the US going up? (hint: oil jumped about 4$/barrel when iran kidnapped those british soldiers)
Read up on how the South Vietnamese suffered after we abandoned them to die. The casualty numbers were horrifying. The communists came in and killed people en masse. Hell, almost a million Vietnamese died at sea on makeshift rafts trying to get away from the communists. Ummm... no. Pol Pot was a communist. Don't you remember the horrible Mayaguez incident?
Yep. Communism appears to inevitably economic decline. Making discount goods for American consumers is actually a major step up for the Vietnamese economy and is greatly improving their quality of life. Vietnam is still ruled by a dictatorial party bureaucracy and human rights are still subservient to government control of all facets of each individuals life, but it has improved since the communists originally took control. Largely, this was due to a famine which was created by mandatory price controls. The Vietnamese nearly starved the majority of their urban population to death because they failed to understand the basic laws of economics. After that experience, the communists realized that they were going to have to compromise just a bit to stay in power. Did you mean to support my point, or did you not understand what you were pasting? That excerpt really is quite difficult to understand out of context. Think of it this way: China backed the KR. Russian backed the ANV. The U.S. monitored the situation, hoping that someone worth supporting would materialize. Eventually, both the Chinese and Russian strategies failed. This was mostly due to political pressures completely unrelated to the region. Both the Russians and the Chinese gave up the cold war and their plans to spread communism across the globe by force of arms. Eventually, the U.S. strategy won. This was more due to the fact that Pol Pot could not work well with other people than with any brilliant strategy on our part.
It will be Mitt Romney. Republicians will win the elections. The question must be who their candidate will be and it seems like Mitt Romney will. BTW, any President have been elected beforewith a +8% unemployment rate. So, in my theory, Barack Obama has no possibility to keep on his peaceful days at the White House. Along his presidency, proving that White House doesn't belong to whites, has been his sole positive action.