Your spouting nonsense, the same nonsense that left wing loons and bearded expatriots living in a country invading our borders spout.
Our invasion of Iraq was not for altruistic purposes alone. The invasion was for many reasons not the least of which was the confluence of Islamic fascist nuts and Husseins propensity for WMD.
Aside from that you've done a miserable job of rehabilitating Reeds assinine claim that history teaches us that killing and occupying our enemies can not have a positive outcome. Tough job though, glad I'm not you.
They would be more than happy if we stayed around, and left some bases there to keep them safe from the Turks and Iranians. They'd also be happy if we just left entirely. They'd be our friends for centuries simply because we killed Saddam and left them the power to create a Kurdish state.
Our invasion of Iraq was not for altruistic purposes alone.
You are correct.
The invasion was for many reasons not the least of which was the confluence of Islamic fascist nuts and Husseins propensity for WMD.
Oh, yeah? How's that working out for us? Is the region safe from WMDs and Islamofasicts yet?
Aside from that you've done a miserable job of rehabilitating Reeds assinine claim that history teaches us that killing and occupying our enemies can not have a positive outcome
That's not his claim, though. His claim is that people don't like being occupied, not that it doesn't have a positive outcome. You could say the same thing about colonialism, for that matter. Sure, it can have a positive outcome, but the locals may not like it at the time.
In Germany and Japan, we didn't care what they felt about being occupied, and had the strength to impose our will, so it worked. In Iraq, we do care what they think, and our strength is spread thinly. These are all real factors that need to be considered. Dismissing them as irrelevant because we succeeded under different circumstances is bound to fail.