[QUOTE="CRS98"]Yes, removing the previous regime and trying to rebuild the infrastructure is a sign of failure.ionusX
they have failed in the rebuilding part.
And the securing part. The place is filled with terrorists whereas they were non before. Not even the puppet government they installed there wants them there anymore.
[QUOTE="CRS98"]Yes, removing the previous regime and trying to rebuild the infrastructure is a sign of failure.kuraimen
they have failed in the rebuilding part.
And the securing part. The place is filled with terrorists whereas they were non before. Not even the puppet government they installed there wants them there anymore.
indeed.. the US can invade countries.. but they cant rebuild them
why were they in iraq.. buisness. joe rogan of fear factor:
[QUOTE="Hishiko"]no idea there was a game going on which a country could lose or winDroidPhysX
That's generally how wars work out. There's a winner and there's a loser. then usa is the loser for always trying to help all these godforsaken countries. let them fight their own god damn battles
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Hishiko"]no idea there was a game going on which a country could lose or winHishiko
That's generally how wars work out. There's a winner and there's a loser. then usa is the loser for always trying to help all these godforsaken countries. let them fight their own god damn battles The US is there for their own interests, not to help those countries. But I agree let them fight their battles, in fact the western constant meddling there is making everything worse. But as long as there's oil there no one is leaving them alone. Now China is probably going to step in there to mess things up even further.
I'm tired of hearing all this crap about oil. If we are getting all of this oil seccretly from Iraq, then why the hell do gas prices keep going up?
sherman-tank1
far more than oil.. try security contracts, and opium, and security contracter training (police force) and reconstruction contracts and medical supplies deals.
not to mention all the money made by the oil companies and those that manufacture military hardware. seriously colt and H&R have got to be rolling in piles of money for every m16a1 they amde ALONE
I'm tired of hearing all this crap about oil. If we are getting all of this oil seccretly from Iraq, then why the hell do gas prices keep going up?
sherman-tank1
Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot.
I'm tired of hearing all this crap about oil. If we are getting all of this oil seccretly from Iraq, then why the hell do gas prices keep going up?
kuraimen
Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot.
mmhmm and if you go into iran or syria your going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a minigun.. at point blank.. till the strip is empty..
I'm tired of hearing all this crap about oil. If we are getting all of this oil seccretly from Iraq, then why the hell do gas prices keep going up?
kuraimen
Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot. You are one of the more clueless users here.....and you show it with every post.
I'm tired of hearing all this crap about oil. If we are getting all of this oil seccretly from Iraq, then why the hell do gas prices keep going up?
ionusX
Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot.
mmhmm and if you go into iran or syria your going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a minigun.. at point blank.. till the strip is empty..
I think that the US is making similar mistakes as those Rome did when they fell. They became too big and were fighting many fronts at once. So their forces became weaker and, as a result, they had to rely on mercenaries to important war tasks and to protect their borders (all those private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan are a nice parallelism). Of course mercenaries give allegiance only to money so they weren't a good way to protect the empire's interests so we all know what happened in the end. Too bad history is not taken into account as something to learn from rather than just a source of curious stories, that's why mistakes are destined to be repeated.
I'm tired of hearing all this crap about oil. If we are getting all of this oil seccretly from Iraq, then why the hell do gas prices keep going up?
LJS9502_basic
Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot. You are one of the more clueless users here.....and you show it with every post. Lol, as I've said before, coming from you, that's an assurance that I'm on the right track.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot.kuraimen
mmhmm and if you go into iran or syria your going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a minigun.. at point blank.. till the strip is empty..
I think that the US is making similar mistakes as those Rome did when they fell. They became too big and were fighting many fronts at once. So their forces became weaker and, as a result, they had to rely on mercenaries to important war tasks and to protect their borders (all those private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan are a nice parallelism). Of course mercenaries give allegiance only to money so they weren't a good way to protect the empire's interests so we all know what happened in the end. Too bad history is not taken into account as something to learn from rather than just a source of curious stories, that's why mistakes are destined to be repeated.
mmhmm the US is running itself into the ground.. i give you less than a decade before the US is either poorer than ANY other nation there is.. or is conquered by someone with a bigger bank roll
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot.kuraimen
mmhmm and if you go into iran or syria your going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a minigun.. at point blank.. till the strip is empty..
I think that the US is making similar mistakes as those Rome did when they fell. They became too big and were fighting many fronts at once. So their forces became weaker and, as a result, they had to rely on mercenaries to important war tasks and to protect their borders (all those private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan are a nice parallelism). Of course mercenaries give allegiance only to money so they weren't a good way to protect the empire's interests so we all know what happened in the end. Too bad history is not taken into account as something to learn from rather than just a source of curious stories, that's why mistakes are destined to be repeated. Oh brother. The differences far outweigh the similarities. The US is not intending to hold onto the land. The Roman Empire did. The Iraq War was over soon after it began. The US stayed to let the Iraqis get some stability. If they don't have it by now.....they'll have to get it quick. The US is not a empire. It's a country. To learn from history one first has to understand it. ;)
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Maybe because the war didn't go as they planned? I don't think they control the area as much as they would have liked. And maybe because not going to the war would have made it even worse for them. Do you think wars work like in a Risk tournament where when you conquer a territory the game basically ends? Hardly. I think there were a lot of stupid decisions made during these wars and the US ended up kind of shooting their own foot. You are one of the more clueless users here.....and you show it with every post. Lol, as I've said before, coming from you, that's an assurance that I'm on the right track.And the irony is you have that backwards. But I guess you need your comfort.
mmhmm and if you go into iran or syria your going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a minigun.. at point blank.. till the strip is empty..
ionusX
I think that the US is making similar mistakes as those Rome did when they fell. They became too big and were fighting many fronts at once. So their forces became weaker and, as a result, they had to rely on mercenaries to important war tasks and to protect their borders (all those private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan are a nice parallelism). Of course mercenaries give allegiance only to money so they weren't a good way to protect the empire's interests so we all know what happened in the end. Too bad history is not taken into account as something to learn from rather than just a source of curious stories, that's why mistakes are destined to be repeated.
mmhmm the US is running itself into the ground.. i give you less than a decade before the US is either poorer than ANY other nation there is.. or is conquered by someone with a bigger bank roll
Neither will happen.....but what are you wagering?
mmhmm and if you go into iran or syria your going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a minigun.. at point blank.. till the strip is empty..
ionusX
I think that the US is making similar mistakes as those Rome did when they fell. They became too big and were fighting many fronts at once. So their forces became weaker and, as a result, they had to rely on mercenaries to important war tasks and to protect their borders (all those private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan are a nice parallelism). Of course mercenaries give allegiance only to money so they weren't a good way to protect the empire's interests so we all know what happened in the end. Too bad history is not taken into account as something to learn from rather than just a source of curious stories, that's why mistakes are destined to be repeated.
mmhmm the US is running itself into the ground.. i give you less than a decade before the US is either poorer than ANY other nation there is.. or is conquered by someone with a bigger bank roll
mmhmm and if you go into iran or syria your going to be shooting yourself in the foot with a minigun.. at point blank.. till the strip is empty..
ionusX
I think that the US is making similar mistakes as those Rome did when they fell. They became too big and were fighting many fronts at once. So their forces became weaker and, as a result, they had to rely on mercenaries to important war tasks and to protect their borders (all those private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan are a nice parallelism). Of course mercenaries give allegiance only to money so they weren't a good way to protect the empire's interests so we all know what happened in the end. Too bad history is not taken into account as something to learn from rather than just a source of curious stories, that's why mistakes are destined to be repeated.
mmhmm the US is running itself into the ground.. i give you less than a decade before the US is either poorer than ANY other nation there is.. or is conquered by someone with a bigger bank roll
I agree they are collapsing but I think they can manage a sort of controllable collapse like England for example when they lost their status as an empire. The problem is that they will have to accept a decrease in their quality of life. They can't expect to keep consuming as they do for example. Of course if they don't manage that then the collapse will be harsher for them. It will be interesting to see if they have the resources to pull that off.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] I think that the US is making similar mistakes as those Rome did when they fell. They became too big and were fighting many fronts at once. So their forces became weaker and, as a result, they had to rely on mercenaries to important war tasks and to protect their borders (all those private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan are a nice parallelism). Of course mercenaries give allegiance only to money so they weren't a good way to protect the empire's interests so we all know what happened in the end. Too bad history is not taken into account as something to learn from rather than just a source of curious stories, that's why mistakes are destined to be repeated. kuraimen
mmhmm the US is running itself into the ground.. i give you less than a decade before the US is either poorer than ANY other nation there is.. or is conquered by someone with a bigger bank roll
I agree they are collapsing but I think they can manage a sort of controllable collapse like England for example when they lost their status as an empire. The problem is that they will have to accept a decrease in their quality of life. They can't expect to keep consuming as they do for example. Of course if they don't manage that then the collapse will be harsher for them. It will be interesting to see if they have the resources to pull that off.Considering you have zero knowledge of the US...it would be best not to make assumptions. Americans have a high standard of living and the problems are greatly exaggerated. It's nowhere near as bad as you'd like to think. Black Friday sales were up....a sign the economy isn't as bleak as you'd like to make it.:lol:
To learn from history one first has to understand it. LJS9502_basic
Exactly, I think you have no clue whatsoever as to what you talk about. History is not about concepts and the definition of an empire vs a country. History is mainly about events and situations. The events and situations surrounding the US current state are similar to those of Rome even if Rome was called an empire back then and the US a country right now. Of course there are differences of context but in the end the overall situation is similar. And yes the US is trying to hold over the land, maybe not by conquering the land like it was done before but under this current context installing puppet regimes is a way to do that. If they can't control their puppet regimes like they failed with Egypt for example their fronts becomes weaker and things start to look very Rome-like in the end. A key to understand history is to use common sense and look at the big picture not to start arguing about difference in concepts like empire vs country which is the 3rd grade equivalent of history.
all objectives were accomplished, it was a victory
ionusX
except the rebuilding of a stable iraq..
That wasn't an objective per se as a courtesy. In the end whether Iraq is stable or not......the desired objective was successfully and swiftly carried out. The Iraq country is the responsibility of the Iraq government/citizens.
all objectives were accomplished, it was a victory
LJS9502_basic
except the rebuilding of a stable iraq..
That wasn't an objective per se as a courtesy. In the end whether Iraq is stable or not......the desired objective was successfully and swiftly carried out. The Iraq country is the responsibility of the Iraq government/citizens.
which is i guess why you had blackwater out their earning billions of your tax dollars training a police force.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]To learn from history one first has to understand it. kuraimen
Exactly, I think you have no clue whatsoever as to what you talk about. History is not about concepts and the definition of an empire vs a country. History is mainly about events and situations. The events and situations surrounding the US current state are similar to those of Rome even if Rome was called an empire back then and the US a country right now. Of course there are differences of context but in the end the overall situation is similar. And yes the US is trying to hold over the land, maybe not by conquering the land like it was done before but under this current context installing puppet regimes is a way to do that. If they can't control their puppet regimes like they failed with Egypt for example their fronts becomes weaker and things start to look very Rome-like in the end. A key to understand history is to use common sense and look at the big picture not to start arguing about difference in concepts like empire vs country which is the 3rd grade equivalent of history. Yeah I understood it. It was you that was making foolish analogies that are not applicable because the basic terms are not in the least similar. The Roman Empire conquered and ruled the lands they conquered. The US is not doing that. And for that reason it's foolish to talk about being spread too thin. Iraq is over. The military is fighting in Afghanistan. Wow.....one area of the world. Really spread around the globe in conflicts isn't it? I take it you failed 3rd grade history as your posts show a very immature reading of the situations.
[QUOTE="chilly-chill"]Wow alot of ignorant people in this thread, should have expected it with the topic though...LJS9502_basic
Just the same old same old haters. If they can hate...they disregard truth. I mean they are actually dumb, some people just shouldnt post (ionusX your embarrassing yourself)
That wasn't an objective per se as a courtesy. In the end whether Iraq is stable or not......the desired objective was successfully and swiftly carried out. The Iraq country is the responsibility of the Iraq government/citizens.
which is i guess why you had blackwater out their earning billions of your tax dollars training a police force.
Log in to comment