Because in the history of our interventionism we've had a lot more Vietnams than Libyas. We tend to screw it up because we don't understand the country, the government, the people, the culture, the religions or the history; we just go in and start killing. (And oddly people don't always react well to that.)
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
Because in the history of our interventionism we've had a lot more Vietnams than Libyas. We tend to screw it up because we don't understand the country, the government, the people, the culture, the religions or the history; we just go in and start killing. (And oddly people don't always react well to that.)
Prove that. Cite sources saying how many people were dying in fighting per day just before are intervention vs how many are now.
Your article does not support your claim.
Libya is "worse" simply because of its people, the airstrikes did not make it "worse." Also it is arguable if libya is in fact worse off now then before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_Libyan_civil_war
Really? That's your basis? You really think that's legitimate? I'm not a fan of Obama, but do you really, honestly think Obama is lying and intends to send a million troops into Syria just two years after NOT sending a million troops into Libya? American history is a lot more complicated than the endless string of Vietnam's you seem to think it was.
You're living in the wrong century and examining the wrong President. Say hi to Putin for me!
?? No. No one claimed he was going to 'send a million troops into Syria.' I'm sure it will be a limited police action.
Agreed. There was also the Korean War, the two Iraq wars, our support of the Mujahideen, our propping up of the Shah of Iran . . . .
Also agreed. I'm more a Founding Fathers kind of guy. (I know, I know - what the heck did those guys know about what the US was intended to be? They didn't even have war back then!)
Say hi to Kruschev to me! He really got into the interventionist thing. Making the world safe for communism and all that. That worked out well.
You compared it to Vietnam, which though we never employed much over half a million at a time, several million were committed overall.
In any case, the answer is apparently yes: you do think Obama is lying about ground troops. I suppose we'll need to check back in a few months to see who was right.
And Iraq 1991 and Kosovo and Libya....
...all of which were very different from Vietnam. So again: intentional strawman by your harping on Vietnam?
I'm sure you understood but just chose to ignore the point, so I'll say it more clearly: you are making false comparisons to an America/war that doesn't exist.
Moreover, while I am a constructivist as well, I recognize the many relevant differences between that country/world and this one.
No, the answer is no, as I said.
Nope. Vietnam was an example of a war that sounded great. Freedom, protect the US, peace, etc etc. It would be easy and quick. Not a whole lot of troops. How'd that turn out?
We keep making the same mistakes. (And no, the mistake will not be that any new war will be EXACTLY LIKE Vietnam; that's your strawman. The mistake that will be, once again, we get involved in a war that doesn't go like we planned it to. We will end up killing a whole lot of people without achieving our objectives, and see side effects we never anticipated. And then we'll try to rationalize it later, of course.)
in recent news: the US jumps the bridge with unproved and unsanctioned by UN use of chemical weapon in Syria.
"The chemical weapons have been used in Syria, this is an atrocity", says US.
The question is, by who? And the answer is simple, by the backed up terrorists that US and West sponsors.
"The chemical weapons have been used in Syria, this is an atrocity", says US.
The question is, by who? And the answer is simple, by the backed up terrorists that US and West sponsors.
As an ardent interventionist when I joined this forum, I don't know about getting into Syria. Everything else has just gone belly up. Why would Syria not go wrong? And where's the rest of the world, anyway? Only the Americans can intervene?
Wrong on both counts.
I see you still don't know what that word means.
Citation? I'd like to take you at face value, but I've learned abut your loose conception of truth.
That's the occupation, not the invasion. Still, I give you some of that as being almost so. So what's Obama's excuse for messing up? Should be a good one.
Well put. Nothing any administration has done has gone right for some time.
That certainly makes it easier to target the drone strikes.
Oh, then why are you compelled to neurotic behaviors? The dictionary isn’t that far away if you need some assistance.
Are you really that ignorant? I guess you are. Simply because you are ignorant, it doesn’t mean more informed and intelligent folk have a “loose conception of truth”. I suggest you look up Tora Bora.
By December 17, 2001, the last cave complex had been taken and their defenders overrun.[citation needed] US forces continued searching the area into January, but did not find any signs of bin Laden or the al-Qaeda leadership. According to his book published in 2005, the former CIA officer, Gary Berntsen, led the CIA team (consisting primarily of CIA Paramilitary Officers from Special Activities Division) in Afghanistan tasked with locating bin Laden during the armed conflict.[4][page needed]
In his book Jawbreaker (2005), Berntsen said that his team had pinpointed bin Laden's location.[page needed] He wrote that a number of al-Qaeda detainees later confirmed that bin Laden had escaped into Pakistan via an easterly route through snow-covered mountains to the area of Parachinar, Pakistan. He believed that bin Laden could have been captured at the time if the United States Central Command had committed the troops which Berntsen had requested.[4][page needed] In a 2005 interview, the former CIA officer Gary Schroen concurred with Berntsen's opinion.[5] Pentagon documents suggest bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
No, that was during the invasion, military and police armories should have been secured during the invasion – even more so because George Junior had accused the regime of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Securing those facilities should have been a key part of the invasion plan and they were not. It occurred to them as an afterthought…after the weapons started showing up in the hands of insurgents.
Two, George Junior declared “major combat operations” on May 1. On May 23 the Bush government issued its formal declaration disbanding the Iraqi government, not that it mattered much, because since the invasion began the Bush administration had been rounding up and arresting Iraqi government officials. And as a result, the Iraqi people were without vital services like water and sewer and electricity. And in fact, major combat operations had not ceased. Major combat operations continued at least into June.
So the bottom line is, you still don’t know what you are writing about.
What the heck was wrong with the Korean War? We deprived those poor southerners of Mao and Stalin's nipple sweat and now they're running out of fresh water? One of the most justified wars of the 20th century if not all of history.
And it got us a good TV show.
So did Vietnam. You're just trying to undermine my argument, aren't ya? :bugeye:
wth?? wow.
Reading further into that blog, is a link about how the US encouraged Saddam Hussein to use chemical warfare ...
Do as we say, not as we do, eh?
Yeah.
Just as a refresher...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
What was your suggested solution CptBork?
Just trying to take a "glass half full" approach . . .