The US has failed to learn the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

[Paul Markham]

16 years after the invasion of Afghanistan. 14 years after the invasion of Iraq. 6 years after the Arab Spring it's obvious to all but the severely retarded and liberals that giving the Middle East the opportunity to come into the 21st Century won't work. They need despots to hold their countries together because peacemakers get overthrown to easily. That's assuming peacemakers get into power.

But.

The US would ‘definitely consider’ further action in Syria and signals role in regime change.

Middle Easterners have rejected democracy, liberalism and the only way to keep the area functioning is to have leaders like Assad/Saddam/Gadhafi who were prepared to hit back and squash any form of resistance. Because the leaders know to not smash opposition is to see it grow.

Then exclude all but the high skilled and educated from the West.

[Joshua G]

Hey paul...how bout the lesson of democrat presidents dithering while terror groups grow.

Bill let al qaeda grow unchecked. What happened.

Obama let isis grow unchecked. What happened.

[beerptrol]

Originally Posted by Joshua G

Hey paul...how bout the lesson of democrat presidents dithering while terror groups grow.

Bill let al qaeda grow unchecked. What happened.

Obama let isis grow unchecked. What happened.

Your mom let you grow unchecked.......And we see what happened!

[Barry-xlovecam]

Paul we don't need your ass to remind us how we got sukker punched and acted rashly.

[pimpmaster9000]

what lesson? like the USA wants peace and stability LOL look at this "peacekeeping" map

[Sarn]

>16 years after invasion
>14 years after the invasion

People always continuous trust that is US want democracy in that countries.

[Barry-xlovecam]

What does Czechoslovakia mean in Russian -- doormat ...

[Sarn]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

What does Czechoslovakia mean in Russian -- doormat ...

Why you hate Czechoslovakia ?

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

What does Czechoslovakia mean in Russian -- doormat ...

i don't want to repeat myself...

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The US has failed to learn the lessons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, etc.

That is success!

Do you think we want peace in the middle east? What do you think the world wants in the middle east? Think hard.

[Barry-xlovecam]

You forget the tanks you rolled in

On the night of August 20, 1968, approximately 200,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 5,000 tanks invade Czechoslovakia to crush the “Prague Spring”

Doormat to Europe -- try to keep up ...

[Sarn]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

.. Warsaw Pact troops
...

Oh Poland comrades

[Barry-xlovecam]

Must be a bitch living in a failed empire

[Sarn]

America need go home))

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

16 years after the invasion of Afghanistan. 14 years after the invasion of Iraq. 6 years after the Arab Spring it's obvious to all but the severely retarded and liberals that giving the Middle East the opportunity to come into the 21st Century won't work. They need despots to hold their countries together because peacemakers get overthrown to easily. That's assuming peacemakers get into power.

But.

The US would ?definitely consider? further action in Syria and signals role in regime change.

Middle Easterners have rejected democracy, liberalism and the only way to keep the area functioning is to have leaders like Assad/Saddam/Gadhafi who were prepared to hit back and squash any form of resistance. Because the leaders know to not smash opposition is to see it grow.

Then exclude all but the high skilled and educated from the West.

Your knowledge is limited. You missed Kosovo on that list. Your assumption that US wants to do good is also wrong just like a belief that a superpower don't know what is doing.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Paul we don't need your ass to remind us how we got sukker punched and acted rashly.

If the US hadn't given arms to the Afghans to kill Russians. Al Queda would never have formed. Seems you do need reminding.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

That is success!

Do you think we want peace in the middle east? What do you think the world wants in the middle east? Think hard.

They don't need the US to encourage them to go to war. Seems you need educating.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by femdomdestiny

Your knowledge is limited. You missed Kosovo on that list. Your assumption that US wants to do good is also wrong just like a belief that a superpower don't know what is doing.

The Balkans are Europeans, so not as inclined to kill their neighbours as Middle Easterners. Except for some Serbs.

[seeandsee]

they do it for money jizzzzz

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

What does Czechoslovakia mean in Russian -- doormat ...

No longer exists. You need reminding to look at a map.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by beerptrol

Your mom let you grow unchecked.......And we see what happened!

hahaha ....

[jbvryant]

[JFK]

Originally Posted by beerptrol

Your mom let you grow unchecked.......And we see what happened!

[femdomdestiny]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The Balkans are Europeans, so not as inclined to kill their neighbours as Middle Easterners. Except for some Serbs.

Europeans my ass.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destro...tage_in_Kosovo

The color of the skin doesn't mean difference in mentality or way of thinking.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

16 years after the invasion of Afghanistan. 14 years after the invasion of Iraq. 6 years after the Arab Spring it's obvious to all but the severely retarded and liberals that giving the Middle East the opportunity to come into the 21st Century won't work. They need despots to hold their countries together because peacemakers get overthrown to easily. That's assuming peacemakers get into power.

Really?

We kicked out the Taliban government in what, 2001, and how many times has the new government of Afghanistan been overthrown? At the same time, has the Taliban or Al qaeda staged an attack against the United States since 9/11? Seems to be a success to me.

Iraq? How many times has the government of Iraq been overthrown? Since the United States put a new government in power in Iraq has Iraq invaded any other countries like Kuwait?

While I understand the difficulties involved in both countries, both of them have been a success. Countries are different than modern countries like the US, Canada, and Europe - Governments in the Middle East have little control of the population outside of the main cities. But in both cases Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer a threat to anyone else.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

They don't need the US to encourage them to go to war. Seems you need educating.

You don't get it

[Robbie]

Rochard, I would say that IF the U.S. pulls all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and doesn't rush to their aid...they would both be overthrown within a month or two.

The Taliban is already back in every part of Afghanistan that U.S. military doesn't have a presence.

And ISIS damn near conquered all of Iraq until we went back in there and started bombing like crazy.

I have to agree with Paul on this one. The power brokers in Washington D.C. don't give a damn about "freedom" or "national security interests" (which is just code for invading any country we want to)....they are interested in power.

We have no business bombing, invading, or putting "sanctions" on any sovereign nation in time of peace.

I know it all sounds like a good idea.
But the track record since WW2 of dead people and ruined country's is really, really bad.

[Sarn]

Originally Posted by Rochard

...
But in both cases Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer a threat to anyone else.

If this were true...
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islami...and_the_Levant

[Barry-xlovecam]

When we left South Vietnam did the world end?
Did Persia or Babylon ever really end?

America has its own interests and can more than defend itself if necessary.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Rochard, I would say that IF the U.S. pulls all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and doesn't rush to their aid...they would both be overthrown within a month or two.

The Taliban is already back in every part of Afghanistan that U.S. military doesn't have a presence.

And ISIS damn near conquered all of Iraq until we went back in there and started bombing like crazy.

I have to agree with Paul on this one. The power brokers in Washington D.C. don't give a damn about "freedom" or "national security interests" (which is just code for invading any country we want to)....they are interested in power.

We have no business bombing, invading, or putting "sanctions" on any sovereign nation in time of peace.

I know it all sounds like a good idea.
But the track record since WW2 of dead people and ruined country's is really, really bad.

I disagree.

The United States has about four thousand US troops in Iraq, and has for the past few years. This is mostly for air support, training, and defense. It's Iraqi forces taking on ISIS directly, not US troops.

Here is a good example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/w...tate.html?_r=0

We also have 8k toops in Afghanistan, but again these are mostly for air support, training, and defense.

To put this in perspective, the US has 40k troops in Germany, 50k troops in Japan, and 28k in South Korea.

You are making it out so that we these countries would fall apart without support from US troops, which is not true. We have a very small amount of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are not really engaged in combat.

[Sarn]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

...
America has its own interests and can more than defend itself if necessary.

Violate international laws - spent 2 trillion in iraq and take isis after. Interests for who?

[just a punk]

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I disagree.

The United States has about four thousand US troops in Iraq, and has for the past few years. This is mostly for air support, training, and defense. It's Iraqi forces taking on ISIS directly, not US troops.

Here is a good example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/w...tate.html?_r=0

We also have 8k toops in Afghanistan, but again these are mostly for air support, training, and defense.

To put this in perspective, the US has 40k troops in Germany, 50k troops in Japan, and 28k in South Korea.

You are making it out so that we these countries would fall apart without support from US troops, which is not true. We have a very small amount of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are not really engaged in combat.

South Korea has nothing to do with what is happening in the Middle East.

When our troops were pulled out from Iraq...ISIS moved in and conquered the majority of the country.
Only when US troops started coming back in and bombing from US planes started in earnest did ISIS begin losing ground.

Same exact thing has happened in Afghanistan. This is a map of Afghanistan in 2017...14 years after we "removed" the Taliban:




Comparing the cultures of civilized nations with the barbarians in Afghanistan and Iraq is a mistake that many make.
The South Koreans are a huge economic force who WANT to work with us. Same with Germany and Japan.

Afghans and Iraqi's? They would kill you on sight if you wandered into one of their stone-age villages or went out of the "green zone" in either country.

[Robbie]

By the way Rochard...I'm not sure where you are getting that "4,000" number from.

The Pentagon is no longer releasing any numbers on U.S. troops in Iraq as part of Secretary Of Defense Mattis strategy of keeping the enemy uninformed.
The Pentagon is no longer disclosing how many troops are in Iraq/Syria - Business Insider

And the numbers were close to 5,000 when the Obama administration was openly putting out that information in late 2016.

Mattis doesn't allow our enemies to see what our plans are now...but all reports coming in from Iraq indicate a much bigger U.S. presence in the fight (which is why ISIS is suddenly losing so badly).

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I disagree.

The United States has about four thousand US troops in Iraq, and has for the past few years. This is mostly for air support, training, and defense. It's Iraqi forces taking on ISIS directly, not US troops.

Here is a good example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/w...tate.html?_r=0

We also have 8k toops in Afghanistan, but again these are mostly for air support, training, and defense.

To put this in perspective, the US has 40k troops in Germany, 50k troops in Japan, and 28k in South Korea.

You are making it out so that we these countries would fall apart without support from US troops, which is not true. We have a very small amount of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they are not really engaged in combat.

So all those countries are living in peace.

Just because the Governments haven't been overthrown doesn't mean people aren't trying to.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

When we left South Vietnam did the world end?
Did Persia or Babylon ever really end?

America has its own interests and can more than defend itself if necessary.

I forgot South Korea and Vietnam. Two more wastes of lives that have led to nothing but more profit.

If the US should pull out of NATO, why not include all the other places you have to pay for?

When was the last time, NK, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya attacked the US?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

You don't get it

So educate me about how peace loving the different parts of the ME were before WW1.

You might learn something.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Really?

We kicked out the Taliban government in what, 2001, and how many times has the new government of Afghanistan been overthrown? At the same time, has the Taliban or Al qaeda staged an attack against the United States since 9/11? Seems to be a success to me.

Iraq? How many times has the government of Iraq been overthrown? Since the United States put a new government in power in Iraq has Iraq invaded any other countries like Kuwait?

While I understand the difficulties involved in both countries, both of them have been a success. Countries are different than modern countries like the US, Canada, and Europe - Governments in the Middle East have little control of the population outside of the main cities. But in both cases Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer a threat to anyone else.

Have you ever read the News?

Not being overthrown doesn't mean the countries are at peace.

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So educate me about how peace loving the different parts of the ME were before WW1.

You might learn something.

Like I said, you don't get it.

The goal is to destabilize the middle east and keep it destabilized, destruction of culture & society. SA funds ISIS to do this, we bomb ISIS all over the ME city to city keeping it destabilized. Oil.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Sarn

Oh Poland comrades

I will not bad mouth a country that attacked mobile armor with cavalry

[klinton]

Originally Posted by Sarn

Oh Poland comrades

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

When our troops were pulled out from Iraq...ISIS moved in and conquered the majority of the country.

As I mentioned earlier, in Middle Eastern countries the government has very little control of it's own country outside of the main population centers. Terrorist groups will be a constant in the Middle East because of this. ISIS didn't suddenly come to life because US troops left, but instead because after we left Iraq had little control outside of it's major cities.

It's the same with Afghanistan. It's also the same with the Philippines. You can even argue it's similar to here in the US where are large areas with very little law enforcement, which is where most militias exist.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Have you ever read the News?

Not being overthrown doesn't mean the countries are at peace.

Our goal with Iraq was to ensure Iraq didn't invade Kuwait or threaten Saudi Arabia. This goal has been accomplished.

Our goal with Afghanistan was to capture Bin Laden, and ensure al-Qaeda no longer had a "base" there. In the process we had to remove the Taliban from government. This goal was also accomplished.

These two countries are no longer a threat.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Robbie

By the way Rochard...I'm not sure where you are getting that "4,000" number from.

The Pentagon is no longer releasing any numbers on U.S. troops in Iraq as part of Secretary Of Defense Mattis strategy of keeping the enemy uninformed.
The Pentagon is no longer disclosing how many troops are in Iraq/Syria - Business Insider

And the numbers were close to 5,000 when the Obama administration was openly putting out that information in late 2016.

Mattis doesn't allow our enemies to see what our plans are now...but all reports coming in from Iraq indicate a much bigger U.S. presence in the fight (which is why ISIS is suddenly losing so badly).

The source I used was: Number of U.S. Troops in Iraq Keeps Creeping Upward | Time.com

It says 4087 US troops.

No, the decline of ISIS is not because of US troops. Iraqi forces have been fighting ISIS for the past two years, and beating them. Now Trump has sent in some Rangers into Syria and then Marines from 1/4 and suddenly he is going to say "We beat ISIS". No, we didn't - The Iraqis beat them.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Rochard

As I mentioned earlier, in Middle Eastern countries the government has very little control of it's own country outside of the main population centers. Terrorist groups will be a constant in the Middle East because of this. ISIS didn't suddenly come to life because US troops left, but instead because after we left Iraq had little control outside of it's major cities.

It's the same with Afghanistan. It's also the same with the Philippines. You can even argue it's similar to here in the US where are large areas with very little law enforcement, which is where most militias exist.

Nope.

When Sadaam was in power in Iraq he had control over that country.
When Gadaffi was in power in Libya he had control over that country.

When we REMOVE these dictators...THEN the religious crazies run wild and take over. Then we have what we see now.

That's the point. Stability.

And I fear that we are going to do the same thing in Syria.

If we had stayed out of it completely...Assad would have already ended the war there a couple of years ago and the country would be back to being stable again.
By prolonging the way in hopes of overthrowing him...we have contributed to the slaughter.

I know that the intentions are good...but like my Great Grandmother told me: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Rochard

The source I used was: Number of U.S. Troops in Iraq Keeps Creeping Upward | Time.com

It says 4087 US troops.

No, the decline of ISIS is not because of US troops. Iraqi forces have been fighting ISIS for the past two years, and beating them. Now Trump has sent in some Rangers into Syria and then Marines from 1/4 and suddenly he is going to say "We beat ISIS". No, we didn't - The Iraqis beat them.

And if you would use that thing between your ears (a brain) you would have seen that story is from a YEAR ago.

As I TOLD you. Secretary Of Defense Mattis does not allow the Pentagon to publish troop levels for our enemies to see.
That was Obama's stupidity. Things are different now.

And YES... the decline of ISIS is all about U.S. intervention. The Iraqi Army can't fight it's way out of a paper bag.

Question: Do you EVER follow world events? Or do you just post nonsense that you "believe"?