No War has been won since WW II
I heard something the other day ( I think it was while watching Bill O'Reilly, regretfully, I really dislike that guy).
Anyway, some expert guest said, "No war initiated by the U.S. has ever been won since World War II."
I thought about the different "campaigns" and "engagements" and the statement is actually true:
U.S. involvment in Korea, no success, 40+ year stalemate
U.S. involvement in Vietnam, no success, lots of death
U.S. involvment with Cuba, well, that never really took off (Bay of Pigs)
U.S. involvement in Kuwait, well I guess we didn't start that
U.S. involvment in Cambodia, well I guess we let that get out of control without really doing anything
U.S. involvment in Iraq...
The intentions with Iraq were all correct, the confidence, the planning, everything. But did someone with all the experience and knowledge we have sit back and look at the methodology of liberating Iraq? Could the American people really comprehend what it would require? Could the president really understand the potential longevity to success? The answer is no.
If you cannot answer a question adequately it's best just to leave it alone until you can.
It's aggrevating to think that I wasted so much of my life in the desert for something that will ultimately be "withdrawn" because it will boost a politicians rating.
And it's ridiculous to kid ourselves. With Bush's ratings now the new President, Republican, Democrat or Moderate will see the Iraqi issue as something to put behind us. BUT WAIT, this may actually help Iraq in the long run.
The quote "terrorists" are mostly Syrians and Saudis. Many of these shitheads will leave when the U.S. does. It is also probable that the majority of the Iraqi people will just give up to whomever roles in next (they're used to it).
-AK
Anyway, some expert guest said, "No war initiated by the U.S. has ever been won since World War II."
I thought about the different "campaigns" and "engagements" and the statement is actually true:
U.S. involvment in Korea, no success, 40+ year stalemate
U.S. involvement in Vietnam, no success, lots of death
U.S. involvment with Cuba, well, that never really took off (Bay of Pigs)
U.S. involvement in Kuwait, well I guess we didn't start that
U.S. involvment in Cambodia, well I guess we let that get out of control without really doing anything
U.S. involvment in Iraq...
The intentions with Iraq were all correct, the confidence, the planning, everything. But did someone with all the experience and knowledge we have sit back and look at the methodology of liberating Iraq? Could the American people really comprehend what it would require? Could the president really understand the potential longevity to success? The answer is no.
If you cannot answer a question adequately it's best just to leave it alone until you can.
It's aggrevating to think that I wasted so much of my life in the desert for something that will ultimately be "withdrawn" because it will boost a politicians rating.
And it's ridiculous to kid ourselves. With Bush's ratings now the new President, Republican, Democrat or Moderate will see the Iraqi issue as something to put behind us. BUT WAIT, this may actually help Iraq in the long run.
The quote "terrorists" are mostly Syrians and Saudis. Many of these shitheads will leave when the U.S. does. It is also probable that the majority of the Iraqi people will just give up to whomever roles in next (they're used to it).
-AK
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home