Iraq
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: still here...
Posts: 226
The Constitution, as written, did not "separate" religion nor the Church from active participation within and by the Federal "State". It declared only that the Federal Government could not prefer or "establish" one Church or religion to the detriment of another (as many of the existing Colonies/states had done). One of the first actions of Congress was to fund chapels on military posts and chaplains for the military. No "separation" at all, which accounts for the wording of oaths of office and in courts at the time, as well as for benedictions at government gatherings.
#102
Private security firms have flourished because it is incredibly expensive to fund large standing modern military organizations.
The current situation is likely to end in a long struggle between various tribes and whose invisible man is best, but it is really about money and power for those running the various factions. They just want to carve up their little piece of the pie, and if oil goes up in the meantime they all profit more.
I don't think the Saudis, Kuwait, or Iran would be heartbroken over a spike in oil prices and if it can be gained by cheaply arming 6,000-12,000 savages and turning them loose all the better.
Creating chaos is easy and inexpensive, creating order is difficult and very costly.
The current situation is likely to end in a long struggle between various tribes and whose invisible man is best, but it is really about money and power for those running the various factions. They just want to carve up their little piece of the pie, and if oil goes up in the meantime they all profit more.
I don't think the Saudis, Kuwait, or Iran would be heartbroken over a spike in oil prices and if it can be gained by cheaply arming 6,000-12,000 savages and turning them loose all the better.
Creating chaos is easy and inexpensive, creating order is difficult and very costly.
As far as creating order that is up to the indigenous citizens of Iraq...the Sunnis and Shiites. Its a very delicate balance of political and military posturing that US finds itself in right now.
atp
#103
Savages? We thought that about the Vietnamese and we got our "butts" kicked.
Did they not teach the difference between the tactical, strategic, and political in the Army?
#104
Yep, I know that was added to paper currency in 1957 and adopted as an official motto at that time. It was used previously, but intermittently, on coins, since 1864. It definitely does not have roots in our country's founding, but was a response to increased religiousness in the 1860s during the Civil War. That's a hard argument to make if you are basing it on our founding fathers, the principles under which our country was founded, and the constitution.
#105
Korea wasn't a "win" either, but at least we drew a line in the sand and have the support of the people on "our side".
#106
atp
#107
We have no military presence in Vietnam. None, notta; nil. As another poster pointed out..."we drew the line in the sand in Korea"...not so in Vietnam.
Yes, they did. My question is..."Which one did we 'win' or have the upper hand"? When its all said and done, we still have no military presence or political influence in Southeast Asia....at least not like we have in other parts of the world.
atp
Yes, they did. My question is..."Which one did we 'win' or have the upper hand"? When its all said and done, we still have no military presence or political influence in Southeast Asia....at least not like we have in other parts of the world.
atp
Ok.
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,939
A country with a Sunni leadership and Shia minority.
Shia and Kurds oppressed.
Invade.
Nothing to do with 9/11, but apparently WMDs and a bad guy to his oppressed people.
Invasion complete, eventually Sunni leader dead, "democratic" elections, Shia new Iraq leadership.
US leaves.
Did anyone think that was really going to be "The End"?
The second the US soldiers left the stage was set for a civil war conflict. There's a reason Saddam ruled with an iron fist. Now that was by no means a good country back in 2003 with Saddam in power, but after billions of dollars and thousands of US soldier lives dead, was it really worth it? Has anything changed? Is Iraq and the world really better off today than they were in 2003?
The whole situation is terrible. One million+ displacements / refugees. It breaks my heart to see this:
and this:
The biggest critical failure recently has been the Iraqi security forces and local police putting down their guns and running. They're cowards and the country is paying for it deeply now.
Shia and Kurds oppressed.
Invade.
Nothing to do with 9/11, but apparently WMDs and a bad guy to his oppressed people.
Invasion complete, eventually Sunni leader dead, "democratic" elections, Shia new Iraq leadership.
US leaves.
Did anyone think that was really going to be "The End"?
The second the US soldiers left the stage was set for a civil war conflict. There's a reason Saddam ruled with an iron fist. Now that was by no means a good country back in 2003 with Saddam in power, but after billions of dollars and thousands of US soldier lives dead, was it really worth it? Has anything changed? Is Iraq and the world really better off today than they were in 2003?
The whole situation is terrible. One million+ displacements / refugees. It breaks my heart to see this:
and this:
The biggest critical failure recently has been the Iraqi security forces and local police putting down their guns and running. They're cowards and the country is paying for it deeply now.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post