Ryan, I would be thrilled to death if you were right on Iraq. Nobody is saying, “yippee, there still is death and destruction in Iraq and I was right!” If tomorrow the Shiites and Sunnis and Kurds start dancing cheek to cheek and singing kumbaya, I’d rejoice with everyone else. But how long must it go on before we say “hey, we tried. Let’s cut the losses and not throw good bodies after bad”?
Just a thought…
How would things have turned out if we had booked out of Germany in the late 1940’s?
Ahhh, yes, I remember, those 10’s of thousands of casualties due to Nazi terrorists. I bet if we would have withdrawn, they would have toppled the Bonn government and took over, instituting a massacre of Jews and suspected Jewish sympathizers.
Just curious, does anyone have any stats on US casualties in Germany following V-E Day? I would wager it isn’t as large a number as those in Iraq following Mission Accomplished.
What in the living name of Jaysus does post war Germany have to do with Iraq?
Apart from bullshit ignorant attempts at point scoring that is.
Gosh, how spectacularly apposite. Indeed, how could any sane person fail to see the parallels between resisting a hegemonistic superpower hell-bent on world domination, and deliberate invasion and occupation with the intent of exporting democracy? Thank goodness you pointed that out. That’s changed my entire thinking about the war in Iraq, that has.
Russia may have invaded. Not really an equivalent situation.
Hey, if we’re not allowed to draw parallels with Vietnam, you’re not allowed to draw parallels with WWII.
Of course, Germany wasn’t full of suicide bombers, and every country around Germany wasn’t embroiled in thousand-year racial and turf conflicts and happen to blame the U.S. and its allies for all the ails in the world.
At any rate … Happy Clam, what you are insinuating is a really frightening prospect, and I hope to Hell you are wrong.
Let’s see: Bush’s War of Non-Conquest was intentionally ill-concieved so as to leave the most fanatical peoples of the Middle East blasting each other into a state of barbarism until a time we can freely step in and set up shop without interference. Am I right? Scary.
I think complete lack of planning through stupidity is far preferable to this cold, nay, diabolical, alternative.
should have previewed, so I knew others had beat me to the basic point; still, perhaps there’s some authority in repetition
It’s not a game at all, you ignorant twat.
My question was more about how the U.S. had to remain in Germany for 12 years after the new government had been established to help keep the region stable. If you use that as a barometer, we’ll be in Iraq for quite a while.
In retrospect, I should’ve asked this question in another forum where people don’t feel the need to reply with snark just because of the forum. Good show, chap. :rolleyes:
I hope to hell I am wrong as well, mainly because I insinuated no such thing (it was BobLibDem and ululate). I agree with you that stupidity is a far more likely explanation than malicious conspiracy.
It’s an ongoing saga of ignoring the facts, changing the facts, lying, and gross criminal incompetence. over and over and over again.
No one could have foreseen.
Nobody could have anticipated.
Catastrophic success.
Repeat.
Perhaps if Germany had been initially invaded when previously at peace, and had then devolved into a near civil war as a result of the invaders’ actions, then the comparison might bear some examination. Or perhaps if there were a communist superpower waiting to invade Iraq. Or maybe if Iraq were a beaten aggressor nation, wanting nothing but peace. Perhaps if there weren’t more people dying now under our “stabilising” influence than there were before we thought about invading. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
The USA has created a warzone in Iraq on its own, and shows no real sign of having the plan or initiative to achieve stability. Civilians and troops are dying at levels never seen in post-war Europe, with no sign whatsoever that things are getting better. I’m sorry, but the analogy simply doesn’t work on just about any level other than “it was an occupation”, and moreover suffers from being part of the endless parade of WWII comparisons when it comes to the USA’s latest bout of adventurism. I (and many others) are positively sick of this war being painted as some moral duty, and invocations of the undeniably just effort in WWII strike me as cheap, lazy and tired. I’m sorry if that wasn’t what you were going for, but that’s what it came across as.
Hell, I don’t even support withdrawal (yet), but come on.
First of all, I don’t think you know what a zero sum game is. U.S. Congressional elections are a zero sum game: the number of seats is fixed, so a gain by one party is a loss for the other. Iraq stabilizing vs. falling into civil war is not a zero sum game, as there is no conserved quantity.
Second of all, you’re not being Pitted for noting that it’s important for the Iraqi government to limit violence in order to succeed. That brilliant and unique insight is of course beyond reproach. You’re being Pitted for suggesting that critics of the war like RTFirefly would be happy if it failed and Iraq descended into civil war and chaos. Considering people like RTFirefly used the likelihood of sectarian violence and civil war as an argument against the war from the beginning, it’s both unbelievably stupid and unbelievably offensive to imply such an outcome would now make them happy. Believing Iraq may be a no-win situation is not the same as wanting it to fail.
I think this is why somebody once asked John Cleese if the Dead Parrot Sketch was about the Vietnam War. And I completely agree with Little Nemo’s “team” explanation.
Well? Was it?
Ah. ululate had quoted you in his post to that effect - thus my confusion in reading too quickly, Happy.
Ooh! Two of my favorite things–historical hypotheticals and shitty analogies–wrapped up in one tasty package! I want to play, too!
How would things have turned out if Richard II had conquered Jerusalem in 1192, despite the fact that he knew he couldn’t hold the city?
How would things have turned out if Robert E. Lee had endorsed the idea of a guerilla war in April, 1865 instead of recognizing the South was beaten and moving toward reconciliation, much like the Germans did 80 years later?
How would things have turned out if Hirohito had listened to Yamamoto and not initiated a sneak attack against the United States in order to start a war to secure his oil supply?
How would things have turned out if George W. Bush had finished the job in Afghanistan and rebuilt (or maybe just “built”) the country, and put forth the necessary resources to win the hearts and minds of the Afghans, thus separating Al Qaeda from their base of support in the Muslim world by winning the “war of ideas” instead of foolishly deciding to invade Iraq–despite the fact that Iraq had jack shit to do with September 11 and that Osama bin Laden was still free in Tora Bora?