Re: Possible Terrorist Attacks in Paris
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Britkid
And that is why they will continue to have 'success'. They are so small and insignificant, that the only way they can 'succeed' is by the building up the hatred, and then 'offering' an alternative to those Muslims who feel they are outsiders and unwanted in the Developed world.
So El Kabong, with posts like that, you are in your own small way helping to keep ISIS alive...
:rolleyes:
Well I've seen enough movies to know that if we LOVE our enemies and welcome them with open arms they'll have a crisis of conscious and end up befriending us.
Besides ISIS isn't even Muslim....it's Jewish or American....I mean see for yourself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWOF0_yARfw
true enough Lyle but I cant resist saying Bush was one of the idiots who thought handing out candy and flowers to Iraqis would win them over "hearts & minds", bwAAAHAHAHA
Re: Possible Terrorist Attacks in Paris
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
true enough Lyle but I cant resist saying Bush was one of the idiots who thought handing out candy and flowers to Iraqis would win them over "hearts & minds", bwAAAHAHAHA
Well that COULD have been the case, the issue with the War in Iraq was the small holding force Donald Rumsfeld chose and W backed him on. One could only think "What could have happened if a REAL occupying force been in place after Saddam fell?"
But hindsight is 20/20
Re: Possible Terrorist Attacks in Paris
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
true enough Lyle but I cant resist saying Bush was one of the idiots who thought handing out candy and flowers to Iraqis would win them over "hearts & minds", bwAAAHAHAHA
Well that COULD have been the case, the issue with the War in Iraq was the small holding force Donald Rumsfeld chose and W backed him on. One could only think "What could have happened if a REAL occupying force been in place after Saddam fell?"
But hindsight is 20/20
You're talking about half a million troops then right ? because I think they had something like 200,000 in there
at one point
Not until AFTER the troop surge and in that case we had paid to keep some groups from fighting as well (how fucking dumb is that?). We needed an occupying force IMMEDIATELY after the fall of Baghdad and the capture of Saddam in order to keep sectarians from seeing the lack of a head of the nation as carte blanche to get retribution on their enemies from the Saddam regime.
There needed to be a normalization, there needed to be concessions made by the majority in order to keep the minority pleased with being "Iraqi" which is still a foreign feeling to most of those folks. All groups needed to be represented in the rebuilding of that nation and the only way they'd cooperate is through a show of force so overwhelming they wouldn't dare fight back.....now seizing Iraq was a piece of cake, holding it and implementing a plan to keep peace was where the fuck up really started.
But that's MY view, I think VC would probably have a better understanding.
