Look it was a leadership shaft job on our military and the nation. Our soldiers were valiant but there was not enough of them to defeat, disarm and occupy like WW II. The force was totally underwhelming. We needed a draft and one Eisenhower instead of constant redeployment.
There were no mushroom clouds, we were not greeted by flowers, oil did not pay for it, we should not be nation building, we don't know what side to be on.
Look, it was a leadership shaft job on our military...
Doesn't take much looking to see that was certainly the case beginning in 2009...
Our soldiers were valiant but there was not enough of them...
quite wrong.
We needed...Eisenhower...
Gen Patraeus was equal to the task, and just as successful.
...we should not be nation building, we don't know what side to be on.
That, of course, is your opinion and the facts refute that opinion. We have done excellent nation building. Sometimes that building involves letting nature take its course. We stabilized Iraq and was doing just that.
...we don't know what side to be on.
It may be some of us do not. For instance, it can be argued your reluctance to vote for the lesser of two evils is simply a vote for great evil, even though that it most likely not your intent.
In the case of Iraq, almost all of our government and most of the free world agreed the U.S. picked the right side to be on.
You challenged me on these points. You also carried a rifle in WWII and I respect that and mean no disrespect in this response.