Like to rate videos and let people know what you think?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
Like to share videos with friends?
Automatically share your ratings, favorites, and more on Facebook, Twitter, and Google Reader with YouTube Autoshare.
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
As a member of the armed forces who actually has some idea of what's happening in Iraq outside of the usual media crap, I find this to be rather amusing.
We've more or less won in Iraq, and people STILL talk about the war as if it were a quagmire.
This isn't exactly Nam. Its not like we're just throwing our hands up in the air and walking away. We did accomplish most of our goals.
I honestly think it doesn't matter what we do. The left is never going to give credit where credit is due.
I agree that the media's portrayal is inaccurate. This is editorial, not objective. But I don't think we accomplished our goals (only keep adjusting them) and I disliked the goals to start. The military does its best to execute its mission. My issue is with policy makers who deploy the armed forces recklessly. I don't believe the invasion makes us safer or "defends" us. It's aggressive, alienates us from the world and encourages future attacks. Many disagree. Appreciate your comment though.
"But I don't think we accomplished our goals (only keep adjusting them) and I disliked the goals to start."
The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be viewed as seperate but equal parts of a long term foreign policy investment.
The policy makers in Washington have a general idea of what they want to accomplish overseas in the longrun on a macro scale. They're simply a little clueless as to how exactly they should go about making this happen in the short term on a more micro scale.
Our purpose in Iraq was never soley the removal of WMDs, nor was it "Iraqi Freedom."
Don't get me wrong. WMDs were a part of it, and Iraqi democracy is a nice ethical and public relations bonus, but there were deeper reasons.
This is the "War on Terror" (Yea, yea... I know its a silly name for a conflict). However, groups like Al Qaeda are nothing without their financial backers.
Here I am referring to nations like Syria, Lebanon, Jordon, (and the big grandaddy of them all) Iran.
Just as the English, French, and Dutch of the early modern era weakened the Spanish Empire through the funding of piracy and privateering, these nations financing terrorist organizations can be seen as pursuing a form of covert warfare aginst the US and the First World in general.
These nations are our primary targets.
The decision to go after Iraq (which was generally included in this list) was made out convenience as we had the most justification to go after this nation.
Think of it like "killing one to scare 1000." Taking out Saddam put all of these regimes on their toes, and even frightened a few regimes bad enough to make concessions.
It also escalated this herefore covert conflict into a war which could actually be fought in the open.
Instead of focusing on First World nations, many terrorist organizations and their suppliers have shifted their focus to funding the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan (the infamous "foreign fighters" in Iraq).
I don't like invasions either...but the dynamics are now different and the question with any situation where the U.S. is threatened is "can we afford to wait?". We may be heading down the same path with Iran...we say they have nukes and they say they don't....
Autoshare makes certain YouTube activities public on the services you choose. Select only the services you are comfortable with - like Facebook, Twitter, or Google Reader - to let your friends know what you like on YouTube. You can turn Autoshare off at any time.
We've more or less won in Iraq, and people STILL talk about the war as if it were a quagmire.
This isn't exactly Nam. Its not like we're just throwing our hands up in the air and walking away. We did accomplish most of our goals.
I honestly think it doesn't matter what we do. The left is never going to give credit where credit is due.
The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be viewed as seperate but equal parts of a long term foreign policy investment.
The policy makers in Washington have a general idea of what they want to accomplish overseas in the longrun on a macro scale. They're simply a little clueless as to how exactly they should go about making this happen in the short term on a more micro scale.
Don't get me wrong. WMDs were a part of it, and Iraqi democracy is a nice ethical and public relations bonus, but there were deeper reasons.
This is the "War on Terror" (Yea, yea... I know its a silly name for a conflict). However, groups like Al Qaeda are nothing without their financial backers.
Here I am referring to nations like Syria, Lebanon, Jordon, (and the big grandaddy of them all) Iran.
These nations are our primary targets.
The decision to go after Iraq (which was generally included in this list) was made out convenience as we had the most justification to go after this nation.
It also escalated this herefore covert conflict into a war which could actually be fought in the open.
Instead of focusing on First World nations, many terrorist organizations and their suppliers have shifted their focus to funding the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan (the infamous "foreign fighters" in Iraq).
We may be heading down the same path with Iran...we say they have nukes and they say they don't....