Debates
12 Jul 16
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHis command of III Corps is entirely separate from his command in the Middle East.http://www.hood.army.mil/leaders/bios/CG.pdf
General McFarland commands III Corps which is two levels larger than a Brigade. He's in charge of the entire operation against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, including the supercarrier and air force support, not just the ground troops in Iraq.
The troops in Iraq are spread out into fairly small units but McFarland is in overall command of them.
13 Jul 16
1 edit
Here is what I struggle with.
As I have said, the US entered a conflict between South and North Korea, and because it was not resolved, it continues today and could possible start a world war. The US did not send them to the dogs like they did South Vietnam or Iraq.
Was it worth it? Look at a map of South and North Korea at night. One is lit up, the other dark as night. What price is worth the freeing of other people? For that matter, how do you quantify such freedom?
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyWhodey the US got its tail whipped in Viet Nam period.With all the technology, air superiority, and sheer firepower, the US could not prevail against those determined people living in tunnels and rebuilding bombed out supply trails. Something to think about the next time some coward thinks the armed american citezen is helpless against a modern army eh?
Here is what I struggle with.
As I have said, the US entered a conflict between South and North Korea, and because it was not resolved, it continues today and could possible start a world war. The US did not send them to the dogs like they did South Vietnam or Iraq.
Was it worth it? Look at a map of South and North Korea at night. One is lit up, the ...[text shortened]... price is worth the freeing of other people? For that matter, how do you quantify such freedom?
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by joe beyserAre you telling me that the US could not have conquered Vietnam?
Whodey the US got its tail whipped in Viet Nam period.With all the technology, air superiority, and sheer firepower, the US could not prevail against those determined people living in tunnels and rebuilding bombed out supply trails. Something to think about the next time some coward thinks the armed american citezen is helpless against a modern army eh?
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyThe Korean War did not "free" South Korea; the country was ruled by brutal dictators for decades after the war.
Here is what I struggle with.
As I have said, the US entered a conflict between South and North Korea, and because it was not resolved, it continues today and could possible start a world war. The US did not send them to the dogs like they did South Vietnam or Iraq.
Was it worth it? Look at a map of South and North Korea at night. One is lit up, the ...[text shortened]... price is worth the freeing of other people? For that matter, how do you quantify such freedom?
13 Jul 16
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderFox News, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and many others.
Criticized by whom?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/26/was-obama-wrong-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq/
"Obama’s critics have cited Germany, Japan and South Korea as places where the U.S. military has been “a stabilizing force.” They contend that the lack of a similar residual troop presence (numbering between 20,000 and 30,000) caused the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to grow and the Iraqi army to fold."
Not by the people who believed that by voting for him they were voting to end US involvement in the Iraq war as he promised. The promise was not conditional on political or military developments in Iraq; in fact, Obama's "withdrawal" was in line with agreements already made by GWB before he left office.
Should Obama have left a country in shambles to fulfill a promise of ending a war hee didn't start?
ISIS' rise is hardly shocking; they are drawn from the same Sunni areas of Iraq that most bitterly resisted the US occupation. Renewed civil war was always a likely outcome in Iraq. I'm quite unimpressed by the claim that Obama was such a fool he discounted that possibility although that would merely replace perfidy with gross incompetence.
Something being unsurprising isn't the same as being expected. No one was surprised at the mass shooting inthis county, but there's no way anyone could expected them when they happen .
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by vivifyYou don't seem to grasp that the People voting for Obama were rejecting the neoconservatives, not expecting Obama to emulate them. Iraq is in shambles BECAUSE of the invasion and occupation; the solution is not more US troops but there permanent absence.
Fox News, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and many others.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/26/was-obama-wrong-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq/
"Obama’s critics have cited Germany, Japan and South Korea as places where the U.S. military has been “a stabilizing force.” They contend that the lack of a similar residual troop ...[text shortened]... he mass shooting inthis county, but there's no way anyone could expected them when they happen .
We've killed enough Iraqis and ravaged their country enough. Let the People of Iraq work it out.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by no1marauderYou say the solution is permanent absence; wouldn't that just make things worse for Iraqis, rather than better? Or do you believe the region would just go back to whatever state is considered normal for them in due time?
You don't seem to grasp that the People voting for Obama were rejecting the neoconservatives, not expecting Obama to emulate them. Iraq is in shambles BECAUSE of the invasion and occupation; the solution is not more US troops but there permanent absence.
We've killed enough Iraqis and ravaged their country enough. Let the People of Iraq work it out.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyThat was never the objective. Spending lots of money fighting a proxy war in a third world nation was. In that sense we were very successful. They fought their way which was to outlast us, and we fought our way which was to contiually poke at them like ants and show enemy body count to be able to stay in it longer. In the end it was the US that was throwing expensive equipment from the ships to make room for refugees on the way out. You can't separate the military from its handlers when looking at its capabilities. I am sure the British told themselves they could have conquered us if it wasn't for this or that. The important thing is what really happened.
Are you telling me that the US could not have conquered Vietnam?
Originally posted by no1marauderThe opposition is vanquished until a new regime can be established and sovereign.
Define "conquered".
I think both Nazi Germany is an example. They all moved to South America.......and then later came up to North America to join the Democrat party. 😛
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyWhat I am saying is:
Are you saying that they would have been better off than North Korea?
The Korean War did not "free" South Korea; the country was ruled by brutal dictators for decades after the war.
Your claim that the US "freed" South Korea is false; the South Korean People eventually freed themselves. Hopefully some day the North Korean People will also.
13 Jul 16
Originally posted by whodeyNo country is conquered if the People continue to physically resist the would be conqueror.
The opposition is vanquished until a new regime can be established and sovereign.
I think both Nazi Germany is an example. They all moved to South America.......and then later came up to North America to join the Democrat party. 😛