• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

140k US tropps in Iraq and our military is straining?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The utter and complete incompetence and stupidity of our current political leadership is not a reflection of the quality of our military.
 
The military is trained for destroying things not Nation Building, which is what candidate Bush said in 2000 and it turns out he was right, to bad he did not take his own advice.
 
Originally posted by: JonTheBaller
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: JonTheBaller
Originally posted by: Aimster
blah blah...

Iran? North Korea?

Both have always been more dangerous to the world than Iraq has ever been (following 1991).

Yet we went into Iraq.

Why did we go to Iraq when Iran is known to have chemical weapons and North Korea was known to have been days away from getting a nuclear bomb?
Hey stupid, who said they Iran and North Korea aren't on the sh*tlist?

Being on a list and having something done about it militarily are 2 different things.
First you're on the sh*tlist, then you get attacked. That's how it works. Iraq is at Phase 2, Iran and NK are at Phase 1.

Wouldn't it make sense to attack the more imminent threat? North Korea didn't have nukes, they were just close for a very long time. Now they have them.

Iraq didn't have anything like WMDs or nukes. Why, then, did Iraq accelerate so quickly into "Phase 2" as you put it?

I think that's what Aimster was trying to say. Why did we attack Iraq when other countries are more imminent threats?
 
Originally posted by: Aimster
Occupation is hard...
Occupation is harder when the people you are occupying do not want you there.

Iraqis.. the majority.. wanted the U.S there.

Is it still called an occupation if the country wants you to be there? There has to be some better word for that that I just can't think of right now.
 
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Is it still called an occupation if the country wants you to be there? There has to be some better word for that that I just can't think of right now.
You're thinking of the word "liberation."
 
Originally posted by: duragezic
Still, I bet it's hell for the troops out there everyday. One second you're driving, the next second a bomb could go off?! And a lot of other stuff. That really sucks for our soldiers, no matter what you have to say about the Iraq War.

That's like: If you play with fire and you get burned, it really sucks, no matter what you have to say about playing with fire.

Well doh, don't play with fire in the first place.
 
They dropped the two front war thing years ago. After the first Iraq war they admitted they couldn't do it anyway. It was all propaganda....like Star Wars....to fool the Soviets.
 
Back
Top