Uncomfortable Truth Bomb

pawz

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CbiBAzKlRMo/?utm_medium=copy_link

Goduckies

Yup, we were keeping terrorists out and being the world's policeman. Still doesn't make what Russia is doing right.

AtomicPiss

Goduckies said:

Yup, we were keeping terrorists out and being the world's policeman. Still doesn't make what Russia is doing right.

What we were doing wasn't all benevolent. For example, it's clear looking back that we went into Iraq because Sadaam was threatening to sell oil on a system other than the USD. But at the time I bought the propaganda and supported the war.

Goduckies

We also got thousands of jihadis to attack us in Iraq instead of here. It was worth it from that aspect alone.

WestlinnDuck

Goduckies said:

Yup, we were keeping terrorists out and being the world's policeman. Still doesn't make what Russia is doing right.

I remember how those interventions resulted in annexed territory for the US, not. Last major US territorial annexation was the Spanish-American War in the 1800s. But for a leftard, things never change. Republicans ended slavery, but somehow the dems are the good guys with the original Jim Crow 1.0.

SFGbob

DerekJohnson said:

Goduckies said:

Yup, we were keeping terrorists out and being the world's policeman. Still doesn't make what Russia is doing right.

What we were doing wasn't all benevolent. For example, it's clear looking back that we went into Iraq because Sadaam was threatening to sell oil on a system other than the USD. But at the time I bought the propaganda and supported the war.

There's no way you can look at what we and the Europeans did in Libya and be proud of it. Libya is now a completely failed state with slavery and terroism and misery and we don't even talk about it.

AtomicPiss

Goduckies said:

We also got thousands of jihadis to attack us in Iraq instead of here. It was worth it from that aspect alone.

That's speculative. You might be right, you might not.

If America was being occupied, many Americans would be fighting that otherwise would not

Goduckies

It 100% happened al qaeda in Iraq, etc... way better to use the military to kill them over there than the worthless fbi here.

SFGbob

Goduckies said:

It 100% happened al qaeda in Iraq, etc... way better to use the military to kill them over there than the worthless fbi here.

Agreed, we probably did kill a lot of Jihadis there, but Stalin is right, how many did we create? And Sadaam was already pretty good at killing Jihadis. We created a bigger mess by removing him. And I too say this as someone who support the war. Our interventions haven't been good. They've cost us trillions and they've left the countries we invaded worse off. Nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq were complete cluster fucks.

WestlinnDuck

DerekJohnson said:

Goduckies said:

We also got thousands of jihadis to attack us in Iraq instead of here. It was worth it from that aspect alone.

That's speculative. You might be right, you might not.

If America was being occupied, many Americans would be fighting that otherwise would not

The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there was no mission other than the neocons delusion that muslim goat herders were longing for western civilization and democracy. They weren't. Kamal Ataturk brutally westernized Turkey in similar fashion that Peter the Great westernized Russia. When you decide not to defeat (kill) your enemy on the battlefield and allow the enemy to be resupplied without any punishment from Iran and Pakistan, you are just holding limited territory and taking casualties with no offsetting strategic gains.

AtomicPiss

WestlinnDuck said:

DerekJohnson said:

Goduckies said:

We also got thousands of jihadis to attack us in Iraq instead of here. It was worth it from that aspect alone.

That's speculative. You might be right, you might not.

If America was being occupied, many Americans would be fighting that otherwise would not

The problem in Iraq and Afghanistan is that there was no mission other than the neocons delusion that muslim goat herders were longing for western civilization and democracy. They weren't. Kamal Ataturk brutally westernized Turkey in similar fashion that Peter the Great westernized Russia. When you decide not to defeat (kill) your enemy on the battlefield and allow the enemy to be resupplied without any punishment from Iran and Pakistan, you are just holding limited territory and taking casualties with no offsetting strategic gains.

I've become jaded to the point that I think making money became the primary motive after a few years passed

Goduckies

SFGbob said:

Goduckies said:

It 100% happened al qaeda in Iraq, etc... way better to use the military to kill them over there than the worthless fbi here.

Agreed, we probably did kill a lot of Jihadis there, but Stalin is right, how many did we create? And Sadaam was already pretty good at killing Jihadis. We created a bigger mess by removing him. And I too say this as someone who support the war. Our interventions haven't been good. They've cost us trillions and they've left the countries we invaded worse off. Nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq were complete cluster fucks.

Just because we failed at rebuilding after taking out the scum doesn't mean it was wrong. How many more attackis in the US happen if we don't... that's all I care about.

SFGbob

Goduckies said:

SFGbob said:

Goduckies said:

It 100% happened al qaeda in Iraq, etc... way better to use the military to kill them over there than the worthless fbi here.

Agreed, we probably did kill a lot of Jihadis there, but Stalin is right, how many did we create? And Sadaam was already pretty good at killing Jihadis. We created a bigger mess by removing him. And I too say this as someone who support the war. Our interventions haven't been good. They've cost us trillions and they've left the countries we invaded worse off. Nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq were complete cluster fucks.

Just because we failed at rebuilding after taking out the scum doesn't mean it was wrong. How many more attackis in the US happen if we don't... that's all I care about.

We could have eliminated the threat in Afghanistan and left, with the promise that if we had to return we'd kill even more of you next time. We weren't being attacked by Iraq nor by Libya.

Goduckies

Agree on Libya, Iraq, easier to ferret them out on flat land and also able to nation build a democracy in the region... failed somewhat at the latter.

AtomicPiss

Goduckies said:

SFGbob said:

Goduckies said:

It 100% happened al qaeda in Iraq, etc... way better to use the military to kill them over there than the worthless fbi here.

Agreed, we probably did kill a lot of Jihadis there, but Stalin is right, how many did we create? And Sadaam was already pretty good at killing Jihadis. We created a bigger mess by removing him. And I too say this as someone who support the war. Our interventions haven't been good. They've cost us trillions and they've left the countries we invaded worse off. Nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq were complete cluster fucks.

Just because we failed at rebuilding after taking out the scum doesn't mean it was wrong. How many more attackis in the US happen if we don't... that's all I care about.

Again, that's speculative. It helps us to feel better by leaning on that thought. But we'll agree to disagree.

RaceBannon

I was all in and all in longer than most. I wanted democracy in the middle east. I voted GOP for president for the first time ever in 2004 to support W

It was stupid because no one wins wars anymore. Its just weapon sales and death and dick measuring. Obama was against the wars and they continued for his 8 years. Its a sham and a mockery

The world has noticed the hypocrisy of the West in lecturing Russia even if the American media is ignoring it

RaceBannon

Trump went after Jeb and then W and then the Bush cabal early and often for a reason and it worked

Its why he had to be destroyed by any means necessary so some brain dead puppet can get us back to business as usual

WestlinnDuck

When your mission isn't winning (killing the enemy until they are defeated) and then you are just holding some territory while taking casualties. Then if you are allowing in unlimited weapons and supplies from Iran and Pakistan, you are never going to win. Pacifying non-westerners takes some large amount of brutality like Ataturk against the Turks or Peter the Great against the Russians. Waving a LBGT flag isn't a recipe for winning against radical muslims.

DerekJohnson said:

Goduckies said:

SFGbob said:

Goduckies said:

It 100% happened al qaeda in Iraq, etc... way better to use the military to kill them over there than the worthless fbi here.

Agreed, we probably did kill a lot of Jihadis there, but Stalin is right, how many did we create? And Sadaam was already pretty good at killing Jihadis. We created a bigger mess by removing him. And I too say this as someone who support the war. Our interventions haven't been good. They've cost us trillions and they've left the countries we invaded worse off. Nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq were complete cluster fucks.

Just because we failed at rebuilding after taking out the scum doesn't mean it was wrong. How many more attackis in the US happen if we don't... that's all I care about.

Again, that's speculative. It helps us to feel better by leaning on that thought. But we'll agree to disagree.

Swaye

We followed the Powell Doctrine precisely once (Desert Storm), even though everyone agrees it's the only correct way to wage total war. I wonder why we haven't followed it again? Because nobody gets rich when you use absolutely overwhelming force to smash your enemy to bits immediately and crush all dissent with scorched Earth no survivors tactics.

In all of our sojourns into intervention we have fought to win precisely twice in the last 100 years. WWII and Desert Storm 1. As a military we are the best in the world at absolutely crushing our enemies. The problem is always that the politicians don't actually want them crushed. They want nation building contracts that go on forever enriching their friends and families with generational wealth. It's a disgusting farce.

Dropping bombs in 2003-2010 I thought I was doing the Lord's work for 'Murica and saving untold future generations of Americans from a terrorist scourge. 20 years later I realize all I did was make Dick Cheney and W and all their friends richer, followed by Obama and Holder and all their friends. I don't have deep regrets for any of the terrorist towelheads I sent to Allah, as they are shithead animals and the world is better off without them beating women, chucking gays off buildings and fucking goats, but I am no longer under any illusion I was doing it to spread democracy in the Middle East or make the world safe. I was doing it so a bunch of already rich assholes could get richer. Period. The end.