11-19-2016, 01:12 PM
(11-19-2016, 04:53 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: They are clearly not. When you replace a regime, you are rebuilding a nation. You're grossly ignorant.
Seriously, I'm done with this. You're like 3 levels below competent (and by that I mean, like 3 links from Vox where you get your ideas) in this debate.
We deposed Saddam in approximately three weeks. Thirteen years later Iraq is more broken. You're arguing the invasion and nation building are the same? That's beyond absurd. Then you call me ignorant because you know so little you don't even realize how little you know. If I were you, I'd quit too because you've been done for quite some time. You're just the last to know.
If the invasion and subsequent nation building are not two seperate issues like I so ignorantly claimed, but in fact the same as you have corrected me with your infinite wisdom, why was the invasion a success and the nation building a failure? If they are the same shouldn't both be a success or a failure? And if they are the same, why did I even refer to them as "both"? Hell, if the are the same why do we refer to them by two different terms? Why do we say invasion and nation building rather than invasion and subsequent invasion or nation building followed by subsequent nation building? You don't have to answer since you're seriously done with this. Seriously.
I participated in both the invasion and subsequent nation building. I can tell you, unequivocally, they are not the same. It is unfortunate you're going to withhold your expertise from this debate.
