Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.

Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.

Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.

Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.

Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.

Is it really though? Have any of our modern military efforts in regime change left a secure nation-state? Have they led to a more secure United States? Were any of them worth the toll of US blood and treasure that they incurred?

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.

Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.

Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.

How? Taliban are winning. How are they different than ISIL? ISIL is there too now.
FOllowing this logic, we have to stay in the ME and North Africa FOREVER.
No ing thanks.

 jasper76 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.

Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.

Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.

Is it really though? Have any of our modern military efforts in regime change left a secure nation-state? Have they led to a more secure United States? Were any of them worth the toll of US blood and treasure that they incurred?

Germany, Japan, Phillipines, examples from the 20th century. Iraq would have been eventually, if we stuck to it. Afghanistan, that is going to be a generational project. The region needs a national identity before it can start to climb up on its own. It's far from having even that though.

By modern, I meant more modern than WW2.

I don't buy for a minute that we were ever on a course for a secure Iraq.

I'm not sure I would compare WWII to the invasion of Iraq.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

The odds of it happening would have been startlingly smaller.

Why? Its happening right now in Afghanistan.

Apples and Oranges Frazz. Apples and Oranges.

How? Taliban are winning. How are they different than ISIL? ISIL is there too now.
FOllowing this logic, we have to stay in the ME and North Africa FOREVER.
No ing thanks.

First off, Iraq is a true nation. It's people consider themselves Iraqi's. They have a national identity. Patriotism is a thing for them. Afghanistan has none of that. What you have is a hodge podge of people who up until a couple decades ago knew each other more as the donkey-caves from the next mountain valley that we'll occasionally raid, than anything else. Afghanistan has a 5% literacy rate. The only "learned" people that the majority of the population interacts with is their religious leader, hence the ease to convert to islamic extremism there. The region of Afghanistan is NOTHING at all like the geopolitical structure of Iraq, and that is why the two conflicts are drastically different and in no way can be compared to each other.

They were (are) both efforts to topple a government we didn't like, and replace it with a secure government we do like. Both efforts in that regard have been costly failures.

It's time to face the cold hard fact that the modern USA sucks at regime change.

Germany yes, Japan yes

Phillipines? Seriously?

And for a rebuttal:
Bosnia
Haiti
Libya
Iraq
Lebanon
Afghanistan
South Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Iran
Somalia
Puerto Rico

It's time to face the cold hard fact that modern America sucks at regime change.

Thats ok. We're not an empire. Regime change tends often be bad for those trying. Just ask the Soviets, and British.

But, we are an empire. We've got occupied territories, client States, the whole 9 yards.

The founders didn't envisage an empire, but that's what we've inherited, whether we want it or not.

Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?

 jasper76 wrote:
But, we are an empire. We've got occupied territories, client States, the whole 9 yards.

The founders didn't envisage an empire, but that's what we've inherited, whether we want it or not.

Correct I should be more clear. When we don't act like an actual empire we are not good at it. When we acted like an empire in the 1800s we were pretty good at it-of course we had a tendency to leave no one alive then either.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?

He did, indeed. McCain was very critical of Obama's platform of a timelined withdrawal from Iraq.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?

He did, indeed. McCain was very critical of Obama's platform of a timelined withdrawal from Iraq.

That was Bush's timeline I thought. He just wasn't going to be in office for part of it.

Edit: I realize we might be talking about different parts of the plan as there were lots of moving parts and multiple players.

djones said more concisely to I what I was driving at...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?

Yup.
McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement

He was very clear on that.

Was he wrong in his 2008 statements on what would happen if we did leave early?

You decide.

 Ahtman wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?

He did, indeed. McCain was very critical of Obama's platform of a timelined withdrawal from Iraq.

That was Bush's timeline I thought. He just wasn't going to be in office for part of it.

The SOFA that Bush had arranged had expired then. It wasn't a hard end time for him. It was a goal, that if not ready for, he'd work to extend. Obama just hit 2010, and pulled us out. No attempt to rework the SOFA.

I'm not sure who the author of the timeline that Obama supported was, to be honest, I just distinctly remember John McCain opposing it, saying it wouldn't give the generals the flexibility they need to complete their mission, and so forth.

 djones520 wrote:
The SOFA that Bush had arranged had expired then. It wasn't a hard end time for him. It was a goal, that if not ready for, he'd work to extend. Obama just hit 2010, and pulled us out. No attempt to rework the SOFA.

I changed it above when there was no replies yet but just in case:

I realize we might be talking about different parts of the plan as there were lots of moving parts and multiple players.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The SOFA that Bush had arranged had expired then. It wasn't a hard end time for him. It was a goal, that if not ready for, he'd work to extend. Obama just hit 2010, and pulled us out. No attempt to rework the SOFA.

I changed it above when there was no replies yet but just in case:

I realize we might be talking about different parts of the plan as there were lots of moving parts and multiple players.

Yeah, saw after I hit submit.

 whembly wrote:
djones said more concisely to I what I was driving at...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?

Yup.
McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement

He was very clear on that.

Was he wrong in his 2008 statements on what would happen if we did leave early?

You decide.

Earlier than 100 years is "early?" That statement lacks what is it what is it oh yes...sanity.

News outlets are starting to report that Cruz has picked Carly Florina as his running mate.

Bad move, IMO...he couldn't have picked a less charismatic choice.

Sarah Palin would beg to differ

 Ustrello wrote:
Sarah Palin would beg to differ

I didn't say intelligence, but charisma. Whatever Palin snorts, smokes, or injects before her Trump rallies, Florina could probably use some of it.

I wouldn't call her charismatic but just dumb and some how people become endeared by it

I don't think Florina is at any harm of being defined as "endearing".

She was big out in California, wasn't she? That's what Cruz needs to keep in contention to survive to the convention. Cali isn't a winner take all, so if he can win enough districts there, that would keep him afloat maybe.

So Ted Cruz is naming Carly Fiorina as his VP pick.

Ted ran the government into the ground.
Carly ran HP into the ground.

Goes to show hust how badly the GOP wants to screw the country.

Trump will be their nominee. I read he needs something like 30 of the remaining delegates to lock first ballot nomination.

Democrats are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of all the new toys they will get to open for cheistmas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/27/politics/ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-vice-president/index.html?sr=fbCNN042716ted-cruz-carly-fiorina-vice-president0633PMVODtopLink&linkId=23925953

 whembly wrote:
djones said more concisely to I what I was driving at...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Being realistic, did McCain campaign on a platform of staying in Iraq for as long as it would take?

Yup.
McCain defends '100 years in Iraq' statement

He was very clear on that.

Was he wrong in his 2008 statements on what would happen if we did leave early?

You decide.

The electorate decided. Naturally Iraq wasn't the only issue, but it was an important one. If Obama campaigned on the basis of withdrawing and then didn't he would have been blamed, as he was for not closing Guantanamo fast enough after making that promise.

Double post, or as they might say a post so nice I posted it twice.

I'm not a big fan of picking a VP nominee before knowing one is even going to be the P nominee.