When was the last time the pro-war crowd was right?

Mott the Hoople said:
no war since WWII, with maybe the exception of Korea, met the standard of a clear and present danger and resulted in unpredicted consequences. There is no arguing base on the facts, that the American people were purposely mislead by our political leaders for political reasons and that basis for waging war in both Vietnam and Iraq were both wrong and immoral.
Click to expand...

ww2 warped the mindset of foreign policy though. Leaders from ww1 to ww2 didnt learn their lesson so they were unable to prevent another world war. Leaders now go in preemptively to avoid ww3.

So if the standard your looking for before going to war is a ww2 situation then you should be careful that you get what you wish for.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
But you have to wonder how Iraq would be if Obama would have secured a status of forces agreement. Maybe ISIS would stayed JV.
Click to expand...
Darth...I know your partisanship blinds you but that was just staggeringly stupid and I'll tell you why. If W had not made the immoral decision to invade Iraq and fucked it up worse with their deBathification stupidity then there would be no ISIL in the first place.

It is comments like this that are clearly propaganda talking points and completely devoid of critical thinking that cause most Americans to be dismissive of conservatives as not being competent to manage this nations national defense.

Let me clarify this point to again. Right wing conservatives were warned that this could be a consequence of their ill advised immoral war in Iraq and now you want to criticize others for the immeasurably more difficult task of fixing your fuckups?

That shit don't fly. Y'all need to sit back and let your betters fix your mistakes.

What you need to do is sit back and hate Muslims or anyone else who isn't exactly like you and let the grown ups in the room handle this.
 
tsuke said:
ww2 warped the mindset of foreign policy though. Leaders from ww1 to ww2 didnt learn their lesson so they were unable to prevent another world war. Leaders now go in preemptively to avoid ww3.

So if the standard your looking for before going to war is a ww2 situation then you should be careful that you get what you wish for.
Click to expand...
and you have clearly not studied history or learned the lessons from it. The clear and present danger policy standard for military intervention and war is the only standard that has worked. All others, including academic drivel like preemption have failed miserably.
 
deBaathification did lead to ISIS, and the SOFA negotiated by Bush wasn't able to be extended by Obama.
Even it it were extended al-Malaki hollowed out the Iraqi army even further by removing Sunni officer corps..

There was no way to put Humpty Dumpty together again.

The alternative is not regime change or counterinsurgency. It's a counterterrorism approach .
It's what we do by drone warfare in Yemen for ex..even that has to be limited to excluding signature strkes
 
Mott the Hoople said:
and you have clearly not studied history or learned the lessons from it. The clear and present danger policy standard for military intervention and war is the only standard that has worked. All others, including academic drivel like preemption have failed miserably.
Click to expand...

again if you dont allow for that then a situation like ww3 will develop before you get involved.

If the US stopped germany right at the start before they took over most of their territory or begun rearming ww2 would not have developed.
 
Islamic terrorism has been active long before 9/11. It was growing for years before and certainly did not start with the Iraq War....
 
tsuke said:
again if you dont allow for that then a situation like ww3 will develop before you get involved. If the US stopped germany right at the start before they took over most of their territory or begun rearming ww2 would not have developed.
Click to expand...

Think so?
 
NOVA said:
Islamic terrorism has been active long before 9/11. It was growing for years before and certainly did not start with the Iraq War....
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter to mod Cohort and his socks. The only thing that matters is that 9/11 happened under a republican president.

They don't care about deaths. Look at CohortTroll's gun threads, he doesn't care about death, only if it occurs with a gun. They are agenda specific people and sadly, they think their whiny voices on, as Cohort says, this very small forum, matter. TrollCohort doesn't care what anyone thinks. He is here solely to troll. But, as a mod he can do that and no one will ban him.
 
USFREEDUMBDOUCHEBAG911 said:
You need to read, Peon; because I never said a word about a budget.
But then, your myopia tends to cloud your vision and reasoning.
Click to expand...

Then what did you mean when you said ,"Tell the fucking politicians to get their hands out of the military pockets..."?
When someone is said to have their hand in someone's pockets it is generally considered as a comment on how they are taking money from them...budget cuts...
Clarify what you meant when you used this common phrase. If you did not mean the politicians were taking money away from the military then what could you have meant?

michael-jackson-moonwalk-1373308464.gif


WALKIN' IT BACK LOL​
 
Last edited:
tsuke said:
again if you dont allow for that then a situation like ww3 will develop before you get involved.

If the US stopped germany right at the start before they took over most of their territory or begun rearming ww2 would not have developed.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Preemption was thoroughly and utterly discredited with the Iraq invasion. It is also erroneous to equate the " clear and present danger" standard with isolationism.
 
Last edited:
tsuke said:
has nothing to do with military budget. You could increase budget 100x and the US still could not win a war.
Click to expand...
What nonsense, if the war is justified as a clear and present danger to our national security and the mission of that war is not open ended but limited to the military defeat of our opponent can win a awar against most opponents.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What nonsense, if the war is justified as a clear and present danger to our national security and the mission of that war is not open ended but limited to the military defeat of our opponent can win a awar against most opponents.
Click to expand...

The US proves over and over again it lacks the skills to handle insurgencies and guirella warfare.

China or Russia though would have no problems with it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
thats a problem with Korea. It can be argued both ways. Chinese and communist invasion were a clear danger to US interest but were the a present danger? Korea sort of split the middle.
Click to expand...

Syngman Rhee was really no different than Diem. People accept Korea, but not Vietnam, really on the basis of outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top